I may have overreacted a bit. Most of the old-timers here have probably
heard my rap before. What sets me off is the generalized chemophobia that
gets expressed from time to time. The main point I was trying to make is
that potassium oxalate is not *extremely* toxic. It was said out of
*ignorance* and all it does is to create minor episodes of hysteria.
When we first started out selling chemicals in 1981, I thought it a good
idea to label everything poisonous, I thought in that way I was covered.
Wrong! As it turns out this is the last thing that we want because then
labels become meaningless.
It is also meaningless to say that all chemicals should be handled with
care. Sure, so what, anybody with an IQ as high as their age knows this.
But what is important is to know what kind of care. Are you on a septic
tank, or city sewer? On well water? Care in disposal, in shipping, or
breathing, or skin contact? Each has some meaning in a specific case with
specific chemicals. But a generalized rant is meaningless
We have to deal on a day to day basis with people who have been scared out
of their wits about "chemicals." The authorities are now fond of blocking
off a 1 mile area of the LA freeways and come in moon suits to pick up a 5
gallon can of paint thinner. Everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame. All
this does is to reinforce the hysteria.
Sure picric acid goes boom, and 10 year old ether will as well. Raising
these issues when we are talking about alternative photo is irresponsible.
Very few seriously dangerous chemicals are used in alt photography and
those that are now almost impossible to obtain. We are one of the few
places selling some of these materials to the general public. The big guys
opt for the lowest common denominator, we have (probably erroneously,
according to Maxie) decided that most alt-photo folks have a reasonable
amount of intelligence and can deal with silver nitrate. Mixed with the
wrong stuff and you can get silver azide and it goes boom.
I can buy the seriously dangerous stuff because I am an established
chemical company. The university folks can get stuff, but most of the rest
of you can't. The common attitude is that I am intelligent enough to deal
with this, but the rest of you aren't.
Even the words "hazardous material" can freak people out needlessly. Some
things that are quite benign to people are hazardous because they can do
things like dissolve aluminum. Perhaps not a big deal to you or me, but
having your 30 million dollar Boeing 737 slowly dissolving in mid-air is a
bit unsettling UPS or Fedex, needless to say to the pilot and crew.
Like me in the old days, I just thought it would be easy to label
everything "poison" and be done with it. It isn't that simple and we need
to tend to the details. That, unfortunately, is hard to do.
--Dick
At 05:57 PM 5/15/98 -0700, William Laven wrote:
>>Read what I said carefully.
>>
>>Only if there are the two options, oxalic acid and citric acid. I assume
>>this is an intelligent group and are able to read. I made this point
>>emphasize that oxalic acid was not *extremely* toxic. I never said this was
>>a general way to test chemicals. I also said that *I* was not afraid to do
>>it, not that anyone else should do it. You have extended this into
>>something I did not say. I never *advocated* this approach and if you read
>>that anywhere in my quote, you are illiterate. If you go around willy nilly
>>tasting chemicals, then you are a fool.
>>
>>I apologize for assuming that everyone here was intelligent and could read.
>>
>>
>
>Dick,
>
>I DID read it carefully and I still think your post is a bit casual. Fact
>is, I've done my share of taste-testing, and might explain exactly what you
>did, but only in private where I know my captive audience understands
>completely what I'm saying and what I am and am not advocating. Your
>apology "for assuming everyone here was intelligent and could read" is
>dismissive and something of a red herring. Maybe some people don't read so
>carefully and given the many long posts that arrive on this group, perhaps
>casual readings happen too often, but even if we could guarantee that
>everyone is an intelligent "good" reader, that doesn't excuse people from
>being extra cautious when talking about toxicity. Similarly, even if your
>brocolli, or whatever, contains more oxalic acid than one might ingest from
>a finger-dip's worth in the clearing bath, there's a general casualness
>about how you presented that "fact" that potentially softens the reality of
>risk one takes working with chemicals. Maybe its a matter of tone which,
>however difccicult to quantify or explain, does still exist and is the
>responsibility of the author to measure. 'nuff said.
>
>Bill
>
> *************************************************************************
> WILLIAM LAVEN PHOTOGRAPHY
>
> Offering Platinum/Palladium printing services and workshops and tutorials
> in Pt/Pd printing and other areas of photography (Zone System, etc.)
>
> 1931 23rd Street, San Francisco, CA, 94107
> 415-647-9432 (voice) 415-647-9438 (fax)
> wmlaven@platinotype.com
> www.platinotype.com
>
> *************************************************************************
>
Bostick & Sullivan
PO Box 16639, Santa Fe
NM 87506
505-474-0890 FAX 505-474-2857
<http://www.bostick-sullivan.com>http://www.bostick-sullivan.com