Sil Horwitz (silh@iag.net)
Fri, 21 May 1999 15:57:45 -0400
At 99/05/21 02:21 PM -0400, Judy wrote:
>
>The formulas cited for intensifying contain mercury. It was my
>understanding that use of mercury on mains water systems was an absolute
>total and utter no-no. Beyond which, even were temptation to prevail, it
>is also my understanding that we can't get it.
Mercury is not only very toxic, but has the nasty habit of not being excreted
from the body, so the concentration builds. Yes, it is prohibited from being
dumped into sewer systems and standard waste disposal sites because it also
contaminates them. It is very difficult to remove from surfaces as even traces
cause problems. As you know, I am very liberal when it comes to use of
chemicals, but mercury is so insidious that its compounds should be kept out of
the darkroom (or workroom, for that matter). (As an example, the manufacture of
mercury batteries is now strictly prohibited in Japan, as well as the US, not
because the batteries are toxic but because the manufacture is dangerous, and
the batteries are impossible to dispose of properly.) There are other, less
toxic materials, so my personal advice is to turn over any mercury materials to
the proper disposal agency for safety reasons.
Check the MSDS information - as misinforming as they are for many of the
chemicals we use, they are downright scary for mercury salts.
Incidently, I will be discussing the use, handling, etc., of the stuff we use
in my talk on "The Chemicals We Use" at the 1999 APIS in Santa Fe.
Sil Horwitz, FPSA
Technical Editor, PSA Journal
silh@iag.net
Visit http://www.psa-photo.org/
Personal page: http://www.iag.net/~silh/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:34