Re: chrome alum vs. formaldehyde
Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Sat, 23 Mar 1996 16:54:44 -0500 (EST)
>
> - ------- Forwarded Message
>
> Date: 21 Mar 96 09:26:21 EST
> From: Pollmeier Klaus <100561.2417@compuserve.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of <alt-photo-process@vast.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: chrome alum vs. formaldehyde
>
> Sandy King wrote:
> <It is hard to understand why you would use chrome alum instead of
> formaldehyde for *safety* reasons. My understanding is that chrome
> alum is a much more dangerous chemical than formaldehyde. I use
> both -- just wanted to let you know that chrome alum should be used
> with great care.>
>
> Although it is good to claim that all chemicals should be used with great care,
> in this case we shouldn't compare apples and oranges. Chrome alum is by far less
> toxic than formaldehyde, which has the skull and crossbones symbol (T) on the
> bottle. Chrome alum has no danger symbol at all. But the chemists among us
> should know better...
>
> Klaus Pollmeier
I forget what the original application was, but is there some reason not
to use glyoxal, apparently less lethal than formaldehyde by several
magnitudes?
Judy