RE: Environmental Impact

I handle waste both for my university and my own darkroom is a similar
fashion. We have a professional service which conducts hazardous waste
disposal, both as a paid service (university) at in the local
community (household) for free. This also includes paint, batteries,
and other hazardous waste. This does require me to store spent
chemistry in my basement. I still dump my home fix down the drain...
it is well below the allowed volume, but I keep the dichromates and a
few other nasties in double plastic freezer bags until a scheduled
household pickup.

-Darryl

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Retzlaff [mailto:rretzlaff@shaw.ca]
Sent: Fri 4/8/2005 10:13 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: Environmental Impact
 
This brings us again to the point of my question - What do people
(professional and amateur) do to properly dispose of chemicals? I
mean,
exactly what facilities do you you use (I am talking about specifics
here)
for the varoius chemicals used? Does this mean that nothing goes down
your
drain?? I would like to know what I am missing in terms of facilities
that
may be available.

Richard Retzlaff

-----Original Message-----
From: T. E. Andersen [mailto:postlister@microscopica.com]
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 4:25 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Environmental Impact

Just one more note on the "dilution is the solution"-topic;

If you bring your film to a shop for processing, they are required to
handle the spent chemicals in a proper way (at lest here in Norway,
and
I expect the situation will be the same in most of Europe and in the
US). The think is, if you choose to process your film at home, the
amount of environmental contaminants is the same (or probably even
higher!). The only rationale for pouring the spent chemicals down the
drain at home is the belief that the small amount is more diluted in
the
environment, and therefor not problematic. This may have been true in
the past, and may still be true for some locations and/or chemicals.
However, the general situation is that we are overloading the
environment with contaminants. In this situation, it really does not
matter if the discharge comes from a large processing plant, or from a
multitude of small sources. We all need to do our part to remedy the
situation. Anyone not willing to properly deal with the waste products
of their activities should seriously consider stopping those
activities.

Best regards,

Tom Einar

Rick Retzlaff wrote:
> Certainly we all need to consider the "lifecycle" of all that we do.
But
> what is "a responsible recycling facility"?? In Saskatoon, about
all that
I
> know of is silver recovery from the fixer. I am sure I am not
atypical in
> having a veritable storehouse of chemicals in my darkroom. In an
ideal
> world, each one would need a separate disposable program to make
the
> chemical acceptably benign to the environment. What are these other
> facilities??
>
>
> Richard Retzlaff
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jack Fulton [mailto:jefulton1@comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 10:07 AM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Environmental Impact
>
>
> Boy, I shall echo this statement. One must collect used chemicals
and
> take them to a responsible recycling site.
> If one does dilute the effluent it doesn't make any difference for
the
> amount of "poison" placed into the ecological cycle is the same. The
> dilution merely hides the fact of the material disposed.
> Jack Fulton
>
>
>
> On Apr 1, 2005, at 7:44 AM, T. E. Andersen wrote:
>
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I have been more or less off the list for quite some time (there are
>>1548 unread messages in my alt.photo folder....), but I'll put a
word
>>in anyway. Please excuse me if I've missed previous postings.
>>
>>In my opinion "Dilution is the Solution" reflects a completely
>>outdated approach to disposal of environmental contaminants. Here in
>>Norway, it is mostly forbidden (i.e. you are not permitted to dilute
a
>>fixative to reach the concentrations allowed released in the
sewage),
>>even though I believe some still practice this.
>>
>>Dilution may be acceptable if, and only if, what we are releasing
into
>>the environment is fully biodegradable, AND the ecosystem has
capacity
>>to handle the load. This includes having enough oxygen to "fuel" the
>>degradation without H2S-formation. Many ecosystems have no spare
>>capacity today.
>>
>>My saying would be: "Do your very best to minimize your ecological
>>footprint". If I have the skills to safely practice alt.photo
>>processes, I really do not have any excuse for not learning how to
>>minimize the environmental impact of my actions. We just have to do
>>our little bit, every one of us!
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Tom Einar Andersen
>>
>>
>>
>>Rick Retzlaff wrote:
>>
>>>I used to work at an environmental consulting company and they had
a
>>>saying - "Dillution is the Solution"
>>>Richard Retzlaff
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: John Cremati [mailto:johnjohnc@core.com]
>>>Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:29 AM
>>>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>>>Subject: Re: Environmental Impact
>>> A while ago I was playing around with Photo applications
to
>>>Electroplating, and Electro etching of metals .......... I got a
>>>book
>>>written in the 1940's on the subject of " Making Big Money
>>>Electroplating Baby Shoes"........... In the book they stated it
>>>was very
>>>important to make sure all the chemicals were to be disposed of
>>>safely!
>>>........ Some electroplating chemicals are nasty, Arsenic,
>>>Formaldehyde,
>>>acids, heavy metals , ect........Their recomendation was going out
to
>>>the
>>>back yard and digging at least a "12 inch hole" to dump the
chemicals
>>>in.!.......
>>>Those were simpler times...........
>>>John Cremati
>>
>
>