EPA? Are they the next threat?

[Ducky]

We have been talking about the possible disappearance of film, digi vs film, loss of freedom etc.

Has it ever crossed your mind that the green-thinkers will soon realize that we use chemicals to process film?

Will it be banned, at least here in the USA, before film runs out?

I may be up all night worrying.

 

[semilog]

We have been talking about the possible disappearance of film, digi vs film, loss of freedom etc.

Has it ever crossed your mind that the green-thinkers will soon realize that we use chemicals to process film?

Will it be banned, at least here in the USA, before film runs out?

I may be up all night worrying.

Oh, please. Call the Waaaaaahmbulance.

I make my living as a research biochemist. We deal with plenty of chemical nasties in our work, and I for one am *very* happy that we're no longer in the days when everything went down the sink and into our watersheds, aquifers, and estuaries.

That's not to say that all hazardous waste disposal regulations are equally sensible, but I'm far happier to live in a place that has such laws.

The alternative is the kind of industrial pollution that one sees in the developing world (e.g., China).

 

[monochromejrnl]

We have been talking about the possible disappearance of film, digi vs film, loss of freedom etc.

Has it ever crossed your mind that the green-thinkers will soon realize that we use chemicals to process film?

Will it be banned, at least here in the USA, before film runs out?

I may be up all night worrying.

why are you worrying or losing sleep? didn't you just sell one of your last film cameras because you grab your digital most of the time? ;P

I'm sure the EPA has known of the risks for years... give the volume of waste film manufacturing produces vs other truly 'industrial' sectors I doubt anyone over there is overly concerned...

 

[Ducky]

I guess I should have put a few smiley faces in the OP.
🙂 🙂 🙂

 

[ZeissFan]

We're all polluting the earths. Even the greenies with all of their high-tech gadgets. Pollution in manufacturing and pollution when we dump the old items. Much of it is dumped in some miserable third-world city in China, Africa, the Philippines or elsewhere in which the mayor is paid off to look the other way.

The real problem is that there are simply too damn many people. We need about 50%-60% fewer people on this planet.

 

[jpberger]

Historically eastman Kodak was always near the top of the epa "dirty dozen list" of the worst industrial polluters in the US, and the childhood brain cancer rates in Rochester where through the roof. However these days my understanding is that colour chemistry is not nearly as toxic as it used to be, and with proper silver reclamation there's nothing in photo chemistry that would be considered as persistent organic pollutant, and as such the "pollution solution= dilution" holds true.

The amount of water needed to make silicon chips, not to mention the possible use of thalates, bromilated flame retardants and other nasty chemicals, not to mention use of metals and minerals that are mined using extremely socially and ecologically destructive means, and the relentless planned obsolescence of the gear and accessories means that digital is far from "green".

 

[Rayt]

The alternative is the kind of industrial pollution that one sees in the developing world (e.g., China).

Manufacturers move to third world countries to avoid stringent environmental and labor laws. High tech garbage full of toxins are also sent there for "recycling". When people are poor and desperate they don't want to see the long term damage. If starving villagers can feed their families by cutting down half the remaining rain forest they will do it and have every right to do so.

 

[semilog]

If starving villagers can feed their families by cutting down half the remaining rain forest they will do it and have every right to do so.

I don't disagree. I do think that that's a spectacularly unproductive way to frame the question.

 

[wlewisiii]

Sigh. There was a recent spaz by hunters over rumors of a lead ban. Lead is far worse ecologically than _any****ingthing_ photographers use. They can't touch that. Bet the same is true about silver.

Want to know the truth? Write a letter to the EPA.

Ask them.

Goodness knows, they'd probably enjoy telling you something other than faux news' rumors.

William

 

[Ronald M]

They are already on it. Ask any lab owner. Color prints are not even washed anymore.

As for green, digi cams and televisions, cell phones etc are full of really nasty chemicals.

They then get disposed of in the garbage/landfill or they get taken apart at end of life in some third world place where people die from toxic exposure. You ought to see what happens to ocean freighters when we are done with them. It wouold make you sick, guaranteed.

Digi is not cleaner, just that the polution takes place in less regulated places.

 

[Rayt]

I don't disagree. I do think that that's a spectacularly unproductive way to frame the question.

I did not mean that as literal as I wrote it. I think the rain forests and other natural wonders ought to be preserved but at the same time the have nots should be compensated for giving up the right to develop it. We in the developed world have used this planet for a century and who are we now to tell the poor nations they can't exploit it as we did because of global warming? People who got rich exploiting the environment ought to bear the burden.

 

[kbb]

We're all polluting the earths. Even the greenies with all of their high-tech gadgets. Pollution in manufacturing and pollution when we dump the old items. Much of it is dumped in some miserable third-world city in China, Africa, the Philippines or elsewhere in which the mayor is paid off to look the other way.

The real problem is that there are simply too damn many people. We need about 50%-60% fewer people on this planet.

I agree with the basic sentiment here, but Paul and Anne Ehrlich(among others) have estimated that the maximum sustainable human population for the Earth is about one billion, give or(preferably)take. Of course, we could do it painlessly and voluntarily, but I'm expecting that the disappearance of cheap energy will finally do the trick.

 

[semilog]

I did not mean that as literal as I wrote it. I think the rain forests and other natural wonders ought to be preserved but at the same time the have nots should be compensated for giving up the right to develop it. We in the developed world have used this planet for a century and who are we now to tell the poor nations they can't exploit it as we did because of global warming? People who got rich exploiting the environment ought to bear the burden.

Yes. I agree.

 

[Freakscene]

I'm a marine biologist and I do a lot of environmental toxicology work. I've also helped labs deal with environmental controls but they aren't especially strict, even in the EU. There will be other higher profile targets looked at first.

But we did lose Neopan 400 in 120 format because of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) one of the anti-static components used in that film. That sort of thing might happen more often.

Marty