Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 23:18:43 +0100
To: alt-photo-process@vast.unsw.edu.au
From: Peter charles fredrick <pete@fotem.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: glyoxal safety update
>Arriving home after 4 days at College Art Conference to find 111 messages in
my Inbox perhaps leads me to reckless generalisations, but here goes:
So this should be<
Must have been one hell of a Conference Judy. Do we really need to go
around slaughtering those poor creatures who are lax on chemical hygiene
or is it that you are just getting a little over excited.
>For instance, my own first sign of turpentine allergy arrived out of the
blue when I was nearly 30 years old; then, between one day and the next, I
was so sensitive I got hives simply from being in the same room with
someone who had used turpentine <
Hmn now I know why you adore Gum printing, and loath Gumoil, and not for
you the inky joys of oil/bromoil and photogravure.
>Of course organs that choose to host accumulations of heavy metal, or
other "sensitiser", don't send you a printed announcement. For individual
photographers to risk their own health and safety is I suppose legal. But
should teachers teach with hands in chemistry?<
I totally agree with this sentiment, even though the days when I could make
any significant contribution to the gene pool are long past ! :--))
pete
------- End of Forwarded Message