Mencuci dan mencetak film kita sendiri di kamar gelap itu sangat memuaskan batin. Apalagi pas gambarnya muncul di atas kertas sewaktu direndam di dalam developer. The coolest thing to do in photography, ever! Mencet2 shutter sih ngga lepel dah klo dibandingin dengan nyetak foto kita sendiri di kamar gelap.

Forum ini aku ambil dari photo.net. Selanjutnya akan aku terjemahkan sedikit-sedikit, sampai selesai. Tapi jangan harap terjemahannya perfect ya, hehehehehe. Ini iseng aja, barangkali aja berguna, ngga pake kamus juga ngerjainnya.

Aku taruh topik ini di forum ini, bukan untuk discourage temen2 dari kegiatan di kamar gelap. Sama sekali bukan. Cuma agar teman2 benar-benar memperhatikan keselamatan bekerja di dalam kamar gelap.

Should a cancer survivor stay away from the darkroom?Sid Sharma , jan 29, 2002; 08:40 a.m. Apakah seorang cancer survivor harus menghindar dari kamar gelap?

So far, I have taken my film to the local commercial film labs, and a friend and I would like to set up our own darkroom. In the past 6 years, I have recovered from cancer, and currently, am in the process of recovering from a serious, but non-cancerous brain tumor. My neurosurgeon is quite emphatic that given my medical history, I ought to stay as far away from a darkroom as possible. What do you all think? What do you think I ought to do? On the one hand, I am sick of getting my prints botched by the lab, yet on the other hand, I dont look forward to being sick and hospitalised again. Thanks in advance. -Sid Sharma
Sejauh ini, saya hanya membawa film saya ke lab film komersial. Saya dan seorang rekan ingin membangun kamar gelap kami pribadi. Dalam 6 tahun terakhir, saya telah sembuh dari kanker, dan baru2 ini sedang dalam proses penyembuhan tumor otak yang tidak bersifat kanker. Ahli bedah syaraf saya sangat empati, berdasarkan sejarah medikal saya, menurutnya saya harus menghindar sejauh mungkin dari kamar gelap. Bagaimana menurut Anda. Apa yang Anda pikir saya harus lakukan. Di lain hal, saya bosan menghadapi kesalahan2 yang dilakukan oleh lab, namun, saya juga tidak mau sakit dan dirumahsakitkan lagi. Thanks' sebelumnya.
------------------------------------------------------

Vartan Grigorian , jan 29, 2002; 10:24 a.m. I don't think there is a simple yes/no answer to this. I'm not even sure what chemicals used in darkrooms are carcinogenic. I would have thought that if you avoid skin contact with chemicals and have adequate ventilation, a moderate amount of darkroom work should be reasonably safe. You could try looking up the TLV (Threshold Limit Values) for the various chemicals. This is supposed to give a guide to what concentration is acceptable for continuous / repeated exposure. You will have a hard time figuring out what your actual exposure will be though. It is possible that the neurosurgeon is not aware of what chemicals are used in a darkroom. I would at least avoid the really noxious stuff such as Pyrogallol and related compounds as well as Selenium toner, Sulphide toner etc. Even Latex gloves are known to cause sensitisation and dermatitis in some individuals. Some of the chemicals probably ought to be used in a fume cupboard. Personally I think that occasional darkroom work with good precautions should be okay, but I find it hard to tell you to take what is probably a small, but finite risk. Many household chemicals are just as dangerous as photo chemicals anyway. You could try and find more information on the specific materials that you are using, but I think that in the end it is up to you to decide if the risk is worthwhile.
Saya kira tidak ada jawaban simpel iya atau tidak dalam hal ini. Saya bahkan tidak yakin bahan kimia yang digunakan di kamar gelap itu bisa menyebabkan kanker atau tidak. Pendapat saya, mungkin, jika Anda menghindari skin contact dengan chemical dan punya ventilasi yang bagus, bekerja dalam kamar gelap secara tidak berlebihan mestinya cukup aman. Anda dapat membaca TLV (don't ask me to translate this) dari berbagai chemical. Itu mestinya memberi guide terhadap konsentrat2 yang dapat diterima secara terus menerus. Anda akan sulit mengukur exposure yang cocok untuk Anda. Mungkin juga, ahli bedah syaraf Anda tidak aware terhadap bahan2 kimia yang digunakan di kamar gelap. Saya akan paling tidak menghindari bahan2 reseh (tau ah!) seperti Pyrogallol dan substansi2 yang berhubungan, termasuk toner Selenium, toner Sulphide dst. Bahkan sarung tangan latex juga diketahui dapat meniumbulkan alergi dan masalah dermatitis pada beberapa individual. Beberapa bahan kimia malah mungkin seharusnya disimpan di fume cupboard (walaaa, apaan ni? lemari hampa udara mungkin?). Menurut saya pribadi, bekerja sekali-kali dengan hati-hati di kamar gelap mestinya oke2 aja, tapi sulit bagi saya untuk menganjurkan pada Anda untuk mengambil resiko, betapapun kecilnya itu. Lagian juga banyak bahan2 kimia di rumah tangga juga sama berbahayanya dengan bahan kimia fotografi. Anda dapat mencoba mencari info lebih banyak mengenai bahan2 tertentu yang akan Anda pakai, tapi pada akhirnya mau ambil resiko atau tidak ya terserah Anda.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Carl Smith , jan 29, 2002; 12:50 p.m. They're right. There is no simple yes/no answer to this question. If you're going to do it, use a newer, less harmful developer, namely X-TOL. Its much better than previous developers as far as toxicity is concerned. Fixer and Stop bath are fairly innocuous as long as you don't plan to drink them. You should probably stay away from things like intensifier and reducer, the have Chromium-6 in them commonly, and if you saw Erin Brockovich (sp), you know how bad that is. It can also help if you wear gloves and maintain a very well ventilated darkroom. Nitrile gloves are good for people who are allergic to latex. Like I said, X-TOL is less dangerous that earlier chemicals and some other ones out there now. Using it and wearing gloves can help prevent you from getting Contact Dermatitis, which can be deadly. Basically, that's a disease you get from getting too many of those bad photographic chemicals in your system such that eventually just breathing the fumes, or being close enough to pick it up can cause violent reactions, rashes etc. Sounds bad? Probably not as long as you keep your hands and other appendages out of the chemicals, wear gloves, and stay away from the nasties. Or as already said, you could go digital.
Itu semua betul. Ngga ada jawaban simpel terhadap pertanyaan ini. Jika Anda memutuskan akan melakukannya, gunakan developer terbaru yang tidak begitu berbahaya, misalnya X-TOL. Ini jauh lebih baik daripada developer2 sebelumnya dalam hal kadar toxin-nya. Fixer dan Stop Bath lumayan OK selama Anda tidak meminumnya. Anda mungkin harus menjauhi bahan2 seperti intensifier dan reducer, biasanya bahan2 ini mengandung Chromium-6, dan jika Anda sudah nonton film Erin Brockovich, Anda pasti tahu betapa berbahayanya bahan ini. Membantu juga jika Anda mengenakan sarung tangan dan membuat ventilasi yang sangat bagus di kamar gelap. Sarung tangan nitrile bagus untuk orang-orang yang alergi terhadap latex. Lalu, seperti saya bilang tadi, X-TOL itu bahayanya lebih sedikit daripada bahan-bahan kimia versi sebelumnya dan beberapa bahan kimia lainnya yang beredar di pasaran saat ini. Memakai X-TOL dan mengenakan sarung tangan dapat mencegah terjadinya Contact Dermatitis yg mematikan itu. Pada dasarnya, itulah penyakit yang akan timbul jika sistim tubuh Anda ter-expose dengan bahan-bahan kimia jelek itu. Akibat yang cukup parah bahkan bisa terjadi hanya dengan menghirup baunya, atau berada dekat dengan bahan-bahan tersebut. Mengerikan ya sepertinya? Pada dasarnya sih asal Anda menjaga tangan dan anggota tubuh Anda lainnya jauh-jauh dari bahan-bahan kimia tersebut, mestinya baik-baik saja. Atau.... go digital lah

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Smith , jan 29, 2002; 12:55 p.m. I should say, most of the toners are quite noxious and you probably should avoid them. Again, I just noticed another comment about latex gloves, if they don't agree with you, or if you're worried about getting a reaction to them, use Nitrile gloves. They are another plastic similar to latex, but without the possibility of causing dermatitis.
Saya ingin menambahkan, sebagian besar toner cukup berbahaya dan Anda lebih baik menghindarinya. Saya perhatikan ada beberapa komentar mengenai sarung tangan latex, jika Anda tidak cocok dengan sarung tangan jenis ini, atau jika Anda takut kalau ternyata Anda alergi terhadap latex, gunakan saja sarung tangan Nitrile. Ini sejenis plastik yang mirip latex, tapi tidak menyebabkan dermatitis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Burns , jan 29, 2002; 01:08 p.m. Sid: I'm no expert in the field of chemical safety, and your neurosurgeon probably isn't either. After all, he (she?) specializes in neurosurgery, not environmental safety. Has the neurosurgeon studied the MSDSs for the chemicals you would be working with? Has the surgeon studied the many reports on workplace studies that have been made in photo labs? Has your surgeon conferred with others who do specialize in areas related to working with photographic chemicals? If your surgeon has done the necessary research, then, by all means, stay away from photo-chemistry. If not, then ask your surgeon to refer you to someone in the medical profession who is adequately knowledgeable.
Twentyfive years ago, I was in the same "boat" you are in today. I had melanoma cancer (you didn't mention which cancer you have had), amd I too had a brain tumor, but mine was malignant. I have fully recovered and have been working regularly in both B&W and color labs since then, and have suffered no ill effects so far. I have no idea what will happen to me tomorrow, and I am not qualified to pass judgement in this particular situation. I would advise you to discuss this further with others (not neurosurgeons, it is not their field of expertise) in the medical profession who are qualified.
Best of Luck!
Saya bukan ahli di bidang keselamatan bahan-bahan kimia, dan ahli bedah syaraf Anda pastinya juga bukan. Spesialisasinya kan bedah saraf, bukan environmental safety. Sudahkah sang ahli bedah mempelajari MSDS dari bahan2 kimia yg akan Anda gunakan? Apakah sang ahli bedah sudah mempelajari berita2 tentang studi lokasi kerja pada lab2 foto? Sudahkah ia berbicara soal ini dengan orang2 yg spesialisasinya berhubungan dengan kerja dengan bahan2 kimia fotografi? Jika dia sdh mempelajarinya, ya silakan, menghindarlah jauh2 dr bahan kimia photography. Jika tidak, maka coba minta ahli bedah Anda untuk merekomendasikan seseorang di bidang medis yang cukup mengerti tentang ini.
25 tahun yll, saya juga berada di kapal yang sama seperti Anda sekarang. Saya punya melanoma cancer (Anda tidak bilang cancer apa yang Anda pernah derita) dan saya juga ada tumor otak, tp tumor saya cukup berbahaya. Sekarang saya sudah sehat dan sejak itu sudah bekerja teratur di lab2 B&W dan color, dan tidak merasakan efek-efek buruk sampai saat ini. Saya tidak tahu apa yang akan terjadi besok, dan saya tidak qualified untuk memberikan pertimbangan dalam hal-hal tertentu seperti ini. Usul saya, Anda sebaiknya mendiskusikan hal ini dengan yang lainnya (jangan dengan ahli bedah saraf, ini bukan spesialisasi mereka) di bidang medis yang qualified untuk hal ini.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vartan Grigorian , jan 29, 2002; 01:25 p.m. I would not make assumptions about the safety of XTOL. It needs to be mixed from powder and inhaling the dust is a route of exposure that is not present with developers supplied as a liquid. It's only advantage from a health point of view is the use of an ascorbic acid derivative (~vitamin C) instead of metol. I think it still contains phenidone which has been found to be more toxic than was thought a few years ago. Treat all chemicals as potential hazards and take appropriate precautions such as minimising skin contact, and ensuring good ventilation.
Saya tidak akan membuat asumsi2 tentang amannya XTOL. XTOL adalah merupakan bubuk yang harus dicairkan dan menghirup debunya adalah satu jenis expose yang tidak diukur seperti developer2 lainnya yang sudah berbentuk cair. Satu2nya keuntungan dari segi kesehadan adalah penggunaan bahan ascorbic acid (vitamin C) dan bukan metol. Saya kira, XTOL masih mengandung phenidone yang ternyata lebih beracun dari yang diperkirakan beberapa tahun yang lalu. Perlakukan semua bahan kimia sebagai potential hazards dan lakukan tindakan pencegahan yang diperlukan seperti mengurangi skin contact dan memastikan ventilasi yang sangat baik.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Atkins (www.BobAtkins.com) , jan 29, 2002; 01:55 p.m. There is a simple answer and it is YES. The reason youre giving most of your money to the neurosurgeon is that you assume he knows what he is talking about. Taking advice off the internet is foolish to say the least. The solution is to go digital. Get a scanner and a good printer and you're back in business. Let the lab develop your film and you do the rest, chemical free for the most part (just don't drink the ink). As a Ph.D. chemist and someone who has had family experience with cancer, I'd suggest staying far away from most darkroom chemicals, especially developing agents. MUCH better safe than sorry.
Ada satu jawaban simpel terhadap pertanyaan di atas, dan itu adalah YA. Alasan Anda menghabiskan banyak uang untuk ahli bedah syaraf tersebut adalah Anda menganggap bahwa dia mengerti apa yang dia katakan. Mendengerkan nasehat-nasehat dari internet adalah tindakan bodoh. Solusinya adalah go digital. Belilah sebuah scanner dan sebuah printer yang baik, dan Anda sudah dapat bekerja kembali. Biarkan lab film men-develop film Anda, dan Anda kerjakan sisanya, jangan kebanyakan bekerja dengan bahan-bahan kimia (ya jangan minum tinta printernya). Lebih baik berhati-hati daripada nanti menyesal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vartan Grigorian , jan 29, 2002; 03:02 p.m. 'There is a simple answer and it is YES. The reason youre giving most of your money to the neurosurgeon is that you assume he knows what he is talking about. Taking advice off the internet is foolish to say the least.' Neurosurgeon's know about neurosurgery, chemists know about chemistry, but neither of these people are toxicologists and are not in a position to tell you if you are safe engaging in darkroom work. In the end you will probably have to make your own decision based on incomplete information. It's all well and good taking the precautionary principle but even the supposed 'experts' don't have all the answers. How many photographers use mobile phones? The long term effects of these are a source of contention and unknown as well. Maybe these people would be better off not microwaving their brains (or eating British Beef!) rather than worrying about a drop or two of developer. Who knows? However I would say that if it worries you then don't do it. However if darkroom work is something you really enjoy and it enhances the quality of your life then perhaps you are prepared to take a measured risk. I do agree about the folly of taking advice from the internet however...
"Alasan Anda menghabiskan banyak uang untuk ahli bedah syaraf tersebut adalah Anda menganggap bahwa dia mengerti apa yang dia katakan. Mendengerkan nasehat-nasehat dari internet adalah tindakan bodoh." Para ahli bedah syarat tahu tentang bedah syaraf, para ahli kimia tahu tentang kimia, tapi tidak satupun dari orang-orang ini adalah ahli toxologi dan bukan tempat mereka untuk menasehati Anda bahwa Anda bisa aman mengerjakan pekerjaan kamar gelap. Pada akhirnya Andalah yang harus mengambil keputusan yang didasari info yang tidak lengkap. Mengambil langkah penuh kehati-hatian memang baik, tapi mereka yang katanya "ahli" pun tidak punya semua jawaban. Berapa banyak fotografer yang menggunakan telepon seluler? Efek jangka panjang dari hal tersebut belum diketahui. Mungkin orang-orang ini lebih baik tidak memasak otak mereka dengan microwave-nya telepon seluler ketimbang kelewat khawatir terhadap setetes-dua tetes bahan developer. Siapa yang tau sih? Komentar saya dalam hal ini adalah, jika ini mengkhawatirkan Anda, maka jangan lakukan ini. Namun jika pekerjaan kamar gelap adalah sesuatu yang amat Anda nikmati dan itu meningkatkan kualitas hidup Anda, mungkin Anda akan bersedia mengambil risiko tertentu. Eh, tapi saya setuju kok dengan jeleknya mengambil nasihat dari internet. Best Wishes, Vartan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zlatko Batistich , jan 29, 2002; 03:07 p.m. Sid -- I think the answer is YES. Bob Atkins pretty much expressed my thoughts. I would just add that no expert -- regardless of the research they've done or the qualifications they have -- can quantify the risk to you personally. Nor can they guaranty your personal safety. Each person is different, and no one can tell you which chemicals you're personally sensitive to and which ones you're resistant to, and at what levels. Also, does anyone know how good "good ventilation" needs to be in order to guarantee your safety? Based on your experience, I think the answer is simple: better to avoid unnecessary risks when there are reasonable and much safer alternatives (digital). Good luck!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vartan Grigorian , jan 29, 2002; 03:35 p.m. 'I would just add that no expert -- regardless of the research they've done or the qualifications they have -- can quantify the risk to you personally. Nor can they guaranty your personal safety. Each person is different, and no one can tell you which chemicals you're personally sensitive to and which ones you're resistant to, and at what levels. Also, does anyone know how good "good ventilation" needs to be in order to guarantee your safety?' True. There is no guarantee of safety. In many cases no statistically significant data is available to quantify the risk. I imagine that the vast majority of cancer patients have never been near a darkroom so who knows if there is a correlation or toxicological link. Quantifying the risk does not stop people from engaging in highly dangerous activities such as car driving, road crossing, and alcohol drinking for which plenty of data is available. Only the individual can decide if a (probably) small but avoidable risk is acceptable. The digital option is a good one though.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kennedy , jan 29, 2002; 03:43 p.m. Sid - Part of this may be from what kind of cancer you had and the treatment. It is not unusual for some treatments (usually those involving radiation) to result in what is called by some "Buy one get one free". The treatment cures the first cancer, but eventually results in an unrelated second cancer. You Dr. may be worried more about this than anything else. Also did you have any increased sensitivity to chemicals after your treatment. That is a big issue too. If you had a BMT then you may be more sensitive to chemicals. Also, double check with you oncologist. You mention you heard this from a neurosurgeon. Check with the oncologist who can probably tell you more. If you still want to do some developing, but need or want to avoid chemical exposure, you may want to look into some alternative emulsions which are out there. Many use mild or even natural solutions. Cyanotype may work for you. Good luck

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Henderson , jan 29, 2002; 04:22 p.m. How sure would you have to be that you wouldn't do harm by working in a darkroom? I suggest 100% would be a good number. Do you think that anyone can tell you with that degree of certainty that it's ok? Advice you get is likely to be couched in "probablies". Is this good enough? To me this would be a clear case of ignoring probabilities and acting on possible consequences. You appear to have a number of alternatives. Go digital, as suggested Find a better lab. Help your buddy to set up his darkroom and get him to develop your work. At least you'll get the care that is often missing from commercial printing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Morales , jan 29, 2002; 04:58 p.m. Sid, I am no "brain surgeon", but I am a Cancer survivor, I say "go for it" unless you: have a open-wounds/sores, are on chemotherapy, on medications which inhibit your ability to concentrate/balance in the dark, on medications which may interact with chemical compounds that could be inhaled/absorbed (in developing (not printing) film I don't know of any), or have a physical/mental handicap which puts you at danger for injury in a dark-room with chemicals, glass, etc... I think your neurosurgeon is acting on the side of caution...ask him to give you specifics as to why it is not a good idea to be around darkrooms...perhaps in your case there is (at which point it would be wise to get another opinion). I have developed B+W film and I never saw any problem with the chemistry and my health... In my own research some time ago on film development chem. I could not find anything that would cause me greater harm than the average person developing film. I had consulted with my physician (oncologist) and he had no problems.... Now I can't speak on printing film (I look forward to doing this soon though)...I believe chemicals involved in printing require more caution/care by everyone using them. Just use proper laboratory techniques (common sense), ie. use proper ventilation, wash your hands, keep your dark room free of obstacles you can bump-into/trip-over, don't eat or drink while developing, etc... Above all make sure you know what is in the chemicals your using and check the MSDS sheets (available on the web). (besides you would be surprised as to how many compounds we come into contact with EVERYDAY have potential toxic and carcinogenic properties.) Informing yourself on technique and saftey should go without saying... If you have serious dbout..get specifics from your doctor...get a second opinion, consult toxicologist (or oncologist). Enjoy photography!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Atkins (www.BobAtkins.com) , jan 29, 2002; 05:15 p.m. Asking an oncologist isn't going to be much use unless he/she knows what's in every soup you're going to use in a darkroom. Unlikely. Even if they do I'll give you 10:1 odds they're going to tell you to stay away from the stuff. As a chemist and an environmental health and safety person (I have several hats!) I can tell you that I would NOT mess with developing agents if I had cancer or if I had had cancer. Just about every developer contains complex organic molecules alien to the human body (i.e. we don't normally ingest these things and we have not evolved mechanisms to deal with them). Whether the MSDS data sheet classifies them as carcinogenic or not I wouldn't touch them. Carcinogenic means they cause cancer in otherwise healthy rats. They don't test them on rats that had cancer followed by radiation and/or chemotherapy and have recovered. By all means do whatever you think fit, but in this case "playing it safe" is a no brainer as far as I'm concerned. Safe is MUCH better than dead. Either find a better lab or go digital. Oh, and don't listen to any advice you get on the internet (except mine of course).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Morales , jan 29, 2002; 07:54 p.m. "Asking an oncologist isn't going to be much use unless..." With all due respect I think that this statement is WRONG! Most Oncologists would not be aware of chemical soups used in photo developing, but they are aware of many long-term issues people who are "radiated" and subjected to chemotherapy face and can give you a good analysis based on your current status weather or not you should avoid such things for a variety of reasons. One problem I have seen is that there is a large amount of `mis-understanding' when physicians encounter people who have had a terrible illness such as Cancer. A oncologist is more inclined to be more informed with current literature and more importantly will not "over-react" to a patient who has a history of it, something that I have encountered many times. For the Cancer patient/survivor the oncologist will be able to better assess ones past medical history and present health status and determine weather or not exposing ones self to chemical agents is a good idea. I have never met a general physician, surgeon, ..., who is knowlegable w.r.t. the treatments I was given, and the potential long-term effects associated with them. "As a Physicist, grad. student," I would like to think I keep myself well informed about situations I put myself in, esp. ones that may effect my short and long-term health. Photo developing was one of them. In my career I have been in a laboratory situations with many health hazards, but as long as one understands such hazards, is in good health (cancer survival does not mean one is automatically in poor health!), and exercise the appropriate precautions and lab techniques, one is usually in no more danger than anyone else in the situation. As a researcher I can tell you that "risk assessment" is not an exact science, when considering frequent low-level exposure to chemical agents such as photo developer. Consulting with a appropriate expert will help you determine such things... Personally, I rarely let the fact I once had cancer effect my day-to-day activity. It is my philosophy one should not dwell on such things, although this is easier said than done. One who has/had a serious illness such as cancer, or has a disability or anyone else for that matter, has a unique set of physiological characteristics that they need to take into account when engaging in a particular task like photo development. For example just as it's a good idea for ANYONE to consult a physician when starting an exercise program. I too would not recommend anyone take advise to heart from the net, be it that of Bob Atkins or myself, which is why I "suggested" that one consult with a physicians, preferably an expert, (in the case of a cancer patient or survivor his/her Oncologist) and if possible seek a second opinion. Honestly: "give you 10:1 odds they're going to tell you to stay away from the stuff. " I will give YOU 10:1 odds most oncologists will tell you to take the appropriate precautions and enjoy your hobby and life, and don't worry about your medical history!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sid Sharma , jan 29, 2002; 08:13 p.m. Thanks a lot. You have given me a lot to think about. Since someone asked, like Ken, I had skin cancer, malignant melanoma, and then a couple of years back, a very large adenoma in my brain. I will call the oncologists, my GP, and the neurosurgeon and neuroendocrinologist to find out more info. Thanks again for your insightful responses to my question. -Sid

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sriram R , jan 29, 2002; 09:01 p.m. Most popular developers used for film and paper have hydroquinone, which is a suspected carcinogen. Though "scientists" say that hydroquinone is a Carc3 (carcinogen category 3, i.e., not classifiable as a carcinogen), they have apparently found some effects in rats and other lab animals. Other chemicals you might use are selenium and sepia toners for your prints. Popular odourless sepia toners contain thiocarbamide (thiourea) which is a known carcinogen. And hey, what's the fun in B&W printing if you don't tone your prints?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Atkins (www.BobAtkins.com) , jan 29, 2002; 10:38 p.m. Sid - please report back here what you find. I'm going to archive this thread as it may be of use to others. Certainly cancer survivors (and those living with the disease) should enjoy life to the full and not limit their activities unless they need to. However it is unwise to take unnecessary risks. I'll say again that many of the chemicals used in developers are potential carcinogens. To me it seems foolhardy to put yourself at increased risk unless you need to. Since you aren't giving up something you enjoy (you haven't done darkroom work before) I'd strongly suggest you take an alternative path to the same goal of better prints (a better lab or digital). It's your life to play with of course. I've talked with oncologists about cancer treatments (including those doing clinical research as well as those in patient care). My impression is that they are very knowledgable about their own specific field but I doubt you will find one who is truely qualified to comment on photographic chemicals. You might be better off asking them the question "Should I expose myself to potential carcinogens?" and see what they say. I'm sure you can guess the answer they will give. Many cancers are at least in part due to genetics and a possibly a defective mechanism for coping with carcinogens. We all get exposed to them, but some of us get cancer, others don't. If you have a proven suceptibility it would seem to me to be playing russian roulette to deliberately expose yourself to such agents. Whatever you decide I wish you good health!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Stemke , jan 29, 2002; 10:39 p.m. I would say that your doctor is wrong; he or she is showing a knee-jerk reaction to your photographic reagents. The magazine Science a few years ago dedicated an issue to 'risk analysis' and interestingly they chose cancer and the risks of getting cancer from a variety of known carcenogens. The trueth is that they number of items that are known carcenogens is staggering, things from alcohol to celery are known carcenogens. However they are very poor carcenogens, its just that a lot more people are exposed to them. A substance that is a known strong carcenogen can be delt with by limiting exposure. You have been identified as a person who has had a carcenoma. What caused it? Was it an environmental compound that turned on an oncogene? Was it a virus that did same? Was it UV light? Tabacco? Or was it just the pick of the draw? If you knew or probably suspected the nature of your carcenoma was caused by an environmental source then you might be more concerned. In the mean time do like those of us who use substances KNOWN to be highly carcenogenic. Limit your exposure. Protect yourself with proper cloths, gloves, etc. Put some ventalation in your dark room. Risk analysis is all about numbers. Is there a 1 in 10,000,000 chance that you could pick up something for your compounds? Maybe, are those odds you can live with? What about driving a car and getting in an accident? What about slipping in the tub and drowning in the tube? They are all possible outcomes with measurable values. I would check with the chemical company that makes the substance, check their results for Ames testing (a way to use bacteria to identify potential carcenogens)and then make a rational choice based on those figures. If a substance was a particularly strong carcinogen it would have been pulled from the market long ago (AKA the Red M&M scare).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Atkins (www.BobAtkins.com) , jan 29, 2002; 10:51 p.m. I'm guessing that most of the people advising you to go ahead aren't cancer survivors. You can talk all you want about risk analysis, but remember that statistics only apply to other people. When it happens to you, it doesn't matter if the odds are 1:1000000. When asking if it's safe to smoke, don't talk with a 90 year old who smokes 2 packs a day and has the genetic makup to stay healthy. If you do believe in statistics about cancer risk, remember that they are taken on general population groups, most members of which do not have cancer or are cancer survivors.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Briggs , jan 30, 2002; 01:46 a.m. I think you will have to make your own judgement about the risks. The book "Overexposure: Health Hazards in Photography" by Susan Shaw will give you information. The book "The Darkroom Cookbook" by Steve Anchell doesn't have a lot of risk information but will teach you about what chemicals are used in various B+W processes (assuming B+W is what you want to do). You can also seek out the Material Data Safty Datasheets (MSDS) on the chemical products that you might use. Manufacturers are required to make these available. Many are available online. Reading "Overexposure" and MSDSs takes a bit of skill because they sometimes exaggerate small risks, which has the unfortunate effect of making larger risks stand out less. "Controls in Black-and-White Photography" by Richard J. Henry has a diferent perspective than the Overexposure book and has a non-alarmist description of the hazards and safety precautions. This out-of-print book is probably hard to find. If you do decide to do darkroom work there are several ways you can reduce your exposure: 1) limit yourself to only activities that you can do better than a good professional lab. This means have your color film processed by a lab. For B+W film, instead of using a conventional film, seriously considering using a C41 film like XP2 and have it processed by a lab. 2) have good ventilation in your darkroom. Design the ventilation to have an outlet near the source of fumes and have the outlet situated in such a way that the fumes are pulled away from you. Most home darkrooms at best have a small fan in the ceiling, which means that the fumes diffuse throughout the entire room. 3) for color prints, using a processor (e.g., Jobo) instead of trays will probably reduce your exposure to fumes and to splashes, and reduce the temptation to stick your hands into the chemicals, 4) even though the formulas in The Darkroom Cookbook are interesting, you will probably reduce your exposure by using prepared formulas. The most toxic formulas are no longer made by the large corporations. You will handle chemicals less using a prepared product. Liquid concentrates will make less dust compared to dry products. Richard Henry gives a tip for using dry products: cut off a corner of the envelope and pour the chemical into the water with the cut corner underwater. 5) More obvious tips: wear gloves, use tongs, never eat nor drink in the darkroom.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Blachly , jan 30, 2002; 02:14 a.m. I'm not a toxicologist either, but I am a medical oncologist and have a degree in Chemistry. I would refer you to this site - http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/HMM/photo.htm It stands to reason that exposure to these chemicals can't be good for anybody. Probably there is more risk of sensitization and lung damage than malignancy. Without knowing your type of cancer and previous treatment it is impossible to gauge any risk of exposure. But I'd agree with Bob Atkins - shoot film and go digital. Good luck.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Chase , jan 30, 2002; 03:36 a.m. Hi Sid; One thing that others haven't touched on adequately (IMO) is the level of exposure. It's possible to do small-volume processing with very minimal physical exposure to the chemicals in question, provided that you are _very_ careful. For example, developing with hand agitation in open trays is probably not such a great idea, for reasons that should be obvious. OTOH, developing in a drum (or similarly contained) system would lead to a significantly lower level of exposure, provided that you are careful about mixing, storing, and transferring (from storage to drum, and from drum to ultimate disposal) the chemicals in question. As with most things in life, exposure to marginally toxic chemicals such as [most] photochemicals (with the notable exception of Pyro - Geez that stuff is nasty!) is not a black-and-white thing - Dosage levels matter! Disclaimer: I have a history of cancer in my family and am therefore concerned about such things, but am not myself a cancer survivor. Check back in 30 years and I'll (hopefully be able to) tell you if my advice is any good ;-) -- Patrick

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vartan Grigorian , jan 30, 2002; 10:48 a.m. 'How sure would you have to be that you wouldn't do harm by working in a darkroom? I suggest 100% would be a good number. Do you think that anyone can tell you with that degree of certainty that it's ok? Advice you get is likely to be couched in "probablies". Is this good enough? To me this would be a clear case of ignoring probabilities and acting on possible consequences. ' I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but expecting anything to be 100% safe is just naive. Anyone with any knowledge of the scientific method knows that 100% certainty does not exist. Actually an honest person will not couch the risk in 'probabilities' either because it is unlikely that enough data is available to calculate the probability. I agree that developers and other photo chemicals contain potential carcinogens. So does food (hopefully in lower concentrations), but will that stop you eating? If we all acted on the possible consequences of low risk activities we would seriously limit our quality of life. To be sure darkroom chemicals are an avoidable risk and I'm not going to tell you that they are safe. It is up to you to choose if the unknown risk is acceptable. My personal feeling is that it can be acceptably safe for most people if they take good precautions. If you are worried and since you have suffered from melanoma gloves or the digital option might be a good idea. Whatever you choose to do enjoy your photography! Vartan

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zlatko Batistich , jan 30, 2002; 11:52 a.m. There's a lot of good advice above, and experts can provide much useful information. However, the experts mentioned will likely be experts on treatment of disease or on chemistry and toxicology. It is unlikely that they are experts on prevention of disease -- which is the key issue here. Moreover, no one is an expert on any particular individual. While scientific data may show that a particular exposure level to certain chemicals is of low risk to most people, it will not show that the exposure level is of low risk for a specific individual -- the risk may be extraordinarily HIGH for a specific individual (due to their unique physical characteristics). As a result, based on the original question presented, I would not be easily comforted by opinions of low risk and miniscule odds, even if those opinions come from experts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Bickerdike (Northumberland, England) , jan 30, 2002; 04:28 p.m. I would certainly take the advice of the specialist that treated you, and not that of less involved or qualified people writing on this forum.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Negus , jan 30, 2002; 08:46 p.m. I'm with Bob on this one. Play it safe, and go digital (the future is there anyway, but that's another story). Then at least you can breathe easy and enjoy yourself and not always wonder "what if?" I don't think any doctor could give you a definite answer on this one. I mean, how many studies do you think have been done on the incidence of cancer recurrence upon exposure to the exact chemicals you will be exposed to (whatever those are)? Any information you get is going to be speculative, so why bother? I say play it safe, go digital, and enjoy your life.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Laughlin , jan 31, 2002; 11:02 a.m. Sid, As with most photographic questions, I would listen to the advise of Bob Atkins, and I agree. If your doctor says no, than no it is. Digital is a viable solution for you. I'm sorry I have nothing original to contribute to your original question, but perhaps looking here will provide a little inspiration.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim MacKenzie , jan 31, 2002; 11:40 a.m. Before anybody flames me, this is idle speculation on my part. Are we sure digital is safer? Computers contain a lot of plastics. Plastics outgas, especially when new, and computers are a thing we don't use for long before we buy them new again. Computer monitors emit radiation. Televisions work similarly but we are a lot further away from them. One has to wonder if spending a lot of time close to a computer screen, particularly a large screen with larger output (increasing diagonal size by 1.4x doubles emissions), might be harmful. Both of these issues are concerns because we tend to be in very close proximity with this equipment. Your VCR might be plastic, but you probably use it from 20' away. I'm not denying that some photochemicals could be problematic... but using a mask and gloves, and avoiding powdered chemicals (or mixing them outdoors), reduces the risks substantially. If darkroom work should be avoided, shouldn't microwave oven use? What about electricity? Certainly don't eat barbecued foods. We could carry this line of logic on to incredible degrees. Eat well, don't smoke, drink moderately, use prudence and due care. If your heart is in the darkroom, use a properly ventilated one with the appropriate precautions, and enjoy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Crame , jan 31, 2002; 12:11 p.m. Hmmm. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. What I will suggest, IF you decide to use a darkroom, is protection of some sort - latex gloves, a respirator etc. Those will provide barriers to potential harm through skin contact and breathing powders/fumes. personally speaking, I would play it safe. I don't feel a need to die sooner than i have to (i am already coping with a cigarette addiction that I wish I'd never got), and wouldn't now take on something potentially harmful. But is it harmful regarding Cancer? Perhaps Kodak/Ilford etc may have some info on it, but i wouldn't make a move until I knew how much of a risk I was facing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard H. Weiner , jan 31, 2002; 04:00 p.m. Sid, I hope you understand the spirit in which this is given... Jim said this..."Before anybody flames me, this is idle speculation on my part. Are we sure digital is safer?". Let's face it People, EVERYTHING around us is dangerous...the air we breath is no good for us, the food we eat and the water we drink is no good for us. Our houses are unsafe and the outdoors is not much better. I think I'd rather enjoy my life and hobbies for as long as I have here on this Earth than to live a life of constant fear and concern. Happiness will give you back that which the Gnawing Concern of What may 'HURT' us takes away...Peace, Serenity, Pleaure...and ultimately Time. Be Here Now...Richard

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Dunbar , jan 31, 2002; 07:05 p.m. Uh, I think this one is a no brainer. Darkroom chemicals are far more carcinogenic than radiation from a computer screen. Duh! You guys are trying to start flames with things you know nothing about. And who said anything about living in fear? The whole point is to go digital and not live in fear. It's not difficult at all to live a sensibly healthy life style. There is no need to obsess about it. People that say "everything is bad for you so eat whatever you want" are just plain ignorant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Morales , jan 31, 2002; 07:48 p.m. True, MOST people who are advising Sid to "go ahead" are probably not Cancer survivors; but I am ONE cancer survivor who has had/sees NO problems developing B+W negs as a cancer survivor in relativly good health, and suggested Sid that CONSULT his physicians and get some better explanations as to why he can not. Risk/odds are things that people ALWAYS FACE everyday. There is NO ABSOLUTE way to determine weather engaging in some "thing" will have an effect on your present or long-term well being. It is impossible for anyone to think they can fully avoid such things, be it dangers involved in driving, walking in urban areas...or exposure to things that cause cancer. There seems to be a bias of misunderstanding regarding cancer survival (which is understandable), and recovery from serious illness in general. Immediately after my treatment finished I was quite uncertain regarding my future health (survival). This "worry" lasted quite some time (and still persist to this day). One can however only let such fear and uncertainty inter-fear with ones pursuit of happiness, that is letting it (fear) cripple things you wish to achieve. I have been two two American Cancer Society sponsored conferences, once as a patient the other as a survivor. The first time I heard from survivors it provided inspiration, the second time I spoke as a 1 yr. survivor. I had the opportunity to speak with others survivors who were going on 5 - 10 years about my concerns at the time. They all had similar worries after there treatment, with help from friends, family, and personal strength they overcame such worries with time and went on with there lives. Now at the time this was something that was not easy for me to understand or appreciate. Now 12 years later I do and am still learning.... I have a deep appreciation for my health and well being, as I am sure Sid does (otherwise he would not have posed his question here), as do most if not everyone who has recovered from a life threatening illness (as do many who have not). There are some behaviors that I would never even think about engaging in, nor endorse. Photography (film or digital) is NOT one of them. Now, sure B+W developing means I will come into contact with chemical agents which may have the potential to cause myself (or ANYONE who uses them) harm...but you know, I worry more about working with household chemicals than I when I am developing film and some of developer, hypo, or stop bath (diluted...concentrate is handled with care) gets on my skin (that is compared to when I accidentally get bleach on my hands when doing house cleaning). Now I am NOT advocating photo developing is 100% safe for ANYONE. But I think it is silly (as a Cancer survivor) to hear people telling Sid to move to digital just because he is a Cancer survivor (6 yrs. off treatment for Malignant Melanoma is GREAT!). His neurosugeon did not give him specifics as to why he should avoid darkrooms! It is impossible for anyone to shield themselves from chemical and radioactive materials that could cause cancer... Like the poster who posted earlier pointed out, most plastics emit potentially harmful fumes if concentrated in large amounts, cathode ray tubes in monitors/tv's radiate low-energy x-rays (most of which BTW are not energetic enough to leave the glass tube making up the CRT), as well: Concrete and stone radiate gamma-rays/x-rays and particle radiation from natural radioactive isotopes (varying amounts of radon is produced from small fractions of Uranium contained in them), not to mention very high energy particle and electromagnetic radiation from the Sun and interstellar space...the list goes ON AND ON.... Look...my point in my previous messages was simply this, for Sid or any other Cancer survivor who comes across this message interested in doing there own development: 1.) Sid was not given specific reason as to why Darkrooms should be avoided. (or the specifics were not apparent to me, I know of no Chemical triggers in photo-development that have been shown to directly trigger matastic-disease in cancer survivors. Liver/Kidney/Lung/etc...complications from either cancer/treatments OR other conditions should be evaluated by doctors as to exposure to chemicals such as those found in photo development.) 2.) One should get such specifics explained to them, as I mentioned perhaps there is good reason for one to avoid darkrooms. That one is a Cancer Survivor is not reason enough, not for photo-development. I can understand how others can think "Oh MAN! You had CANCER....GO DIGITAL! Stay away from photo darkrooms!!!" Other Cancer survivors may read in to such naive, but good hearted, advise and encase themselves in a bubble of worry/fear, despite surviving a disease which claims millions worldwide, and would claim many more without countless medical advances. 3.) He consult with an expert, preferably an Oncologist, if necessary seek a second opinion. Oncologists know about LONG-TERM issues cancer survivors face, based on their prior history, treatment protocols, and current health status. They may not know much about photography but they can assess weather your body can handle exposure to chemical agents that may take a toll on your body. I am NOT ADVOCATING that because I develop B+W film other Cancer Survivors should, without consulting a physician if they are worried about possible effects. My oncologist did not seem to think there was a problem, nor in my own research did I see any potential dangers I faced as a "Cancer Survivor"... Of all the activities one can engage in from the most benign and mundane to the most dangerous and stupid....film development is hazardous (I would guess it is not at, nor near, the top of such a list) but can be done safely for anyone when done properly, and with proper consultation a priori!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Farmer(Mount Laurel, New Jersey, USA) , jan 31, 2002; 09:00 p.m. The best advice you should take away from here is to find someone who actually knows the answers. Your neurosurgeon may be that person, but, in reality, he is not even an oncologist. An oncologist should be able to give you a better answer, but you also need to have this addressed by a toxicologist. You need to do much more research than anyone here can help you with. Even if someone here said that they had already do the reseach, I would recommend that you do more on your own. All sorts of things must be taken into account. You did not say what type of cancer you suffered from. You may, or may not be any more succeptable to other problems based on those that you have had. That is one more thing you need to find out. One thing that I did not see in any of the above posts is: Congratulations on making it through! Surviving to this point means much more than it did years ago. I don't know if you follow sports but you may want to do some research on Lance Armstrong and just how sick he actually was. At one point, he was given a 5% chance of survival. This July, he will be going for his forth straight Tour do France victory. Good luck in the furture and take good care.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Atkins (www.BobAtkins.com) , jan 31, 2002; 10:04 p.m. Like I said before, you'd be a lot safer taking advice from someone who had cancer, then had it recur than from someone who had cancer (and thankfully) has been free of it since. Circumstances can alter your viewpoint quite a lot! You don't ask the 90 year old smoker of 2 packs a day if it's risky to smoke. I also don't think you'll ever find a doctor who'll advise a patient (in writing) that a cancer survivor and someone who has had a brain tumor should work with carcinogenic chemicals "as long as they are careful". In the US, that's simply asking for a law suit should their advice prove to be unfortunately wrong.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Morales , jan 31, 2002; 11:47 p.m. With legal liability in the picture doctors would put nothing in writing...outside of prescriptions. But then again most physician-patient relationships are such that there is no need for them to do so. I have never met anyone who would put such strict criteria on there medical care, much less expect it to be so. So semantics aside on: asking cancer survivors who did not have re-occurrence off treatment vs. those who did: Underlying message => educate yourself, seek medical advise, and do what you feel to be right thing based on the information obtained; knowing that there are consequences (be it going digital, finding better photo-labs, or risks associated with doing your own development/printing.) The original goal of the primary post was a query on Cancer Survivors and Darkrooms, gave my $0.02 from my perspective and experience (and another $0.02 I guess).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeroen Schouten , feb 01, 2002; 01:17 a.m. This is a very interesting one... I will ask my wife (MSN, ARNP) tomorrow, see what she says.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M. Huber , feb 01, 2002; 12:42 p.m. As a cancer widow and a darkroom worker, I have mixed reactions to your question. My "gut" answer is do what you want to do NOW. I do know cancer and its causes are too much an inexact science for anyone to give a informed answer. Actually, the chemicals and radiation and medicines used to treat cancer can also cause damage to other parts of the body even under medical supervisio. I can't tell you that darkroom work is safe; I can't tell you flying is safe; I can't tell you driving on the freeway is safe. (I would advice taking a stroll on the Nascar track during a race is not safe.) As had been stated above, life is full of risks, and each individual reacts to chemicals differently. I fully believe in doing what you like now. You may be hit by a truck tomorrow.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sid Sharma , feb 07, 2002; 05:05 p.m. Well, I am very grateful for all the good advice from you all. I got the tech sheets from the labs at the local pro Lab, and took them to the oncologist and the neurosurgeon who treated and are currently treating me. I guess I will find out the "official" reply soon, but off the record, a couple of doctors have told me that it is really difficult to recommend what to do in a situation like mine. Since I have a history with cancer, am I more vulnerable to carcinogens, say , than people who have not had cancer? And, is it possible to predict definitely what might happen if I were to start working in a darkroom? After reading all your responses, I think i am going to give this a great deal of thought, and then decide if I want to assume the risk of working with darkroom chemicals. Thanks again for all the advice and insight. -Sid Sharma

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Pastorelli , nov 05, 2003; 05:01 a.m. Dear Sid, first I hope that you're fine. Well, the thread is a little bit old, but as a Surgeon I would like to add my comment. Many chemical component can be cancerous. And also the time of exposure can make the difference. The fact that you're affected from a kind of cancer is not itself a problem. The only problem may arise from the therapy you're doing that depress your immunity system making your natural defences lower than normal. So, it'll be a good precaution to don't practice any work involved with possible cancerogenic elements during the therapy period (and for a little time after). Hoping to read about you, soon best wishes

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- waite watson , jun 25, 2004; 01:22 a.m. I'm ten years in remission from non-Hodgkin 'B' cell lympoma dan 8 courses of CHOP chemotherapy dan localised radiation later,the thought that the darkroom may be more dangerous to me than other people Never occured to me! Here in California we have propostion 65 that requires that known carcenogins be labeled.None of the chemicals I use to in my B&W darkroom appear on that list of know carcenogins. I suppose I could live my life afraid of smoggy air or the fumes from pumping my own gas or pesticides that might have been sprayed on my food,but then that wouldn't be living IMHP.Take resonable precautions,but avoid paranoia!The best thing about living through cancer is being alive...So live.

ironis :|
mengenaskan...

Thanks Mira, saya baru tau kalo chemical BW itu bisa menyebabkan kanker :|.
Kalo pendapat saya, darkroom itu aman, selama kita memperhatikan masalah safety dengan membaca petunjuk penggunaan chemical secara seksama. Itu sebabnya saya selalu menganjurkan penggunaan chemical dari brand yang sudah ternama [kodak, ilford, tetenal dll] karena disetiap kemasan chemical tersebut pasti tercantum warning dan cara penanganan chemical yg baik.

terimakasih kepada Om david hermandy atas nasihatnya

kalau MicroMF dan Acifix, MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) nya bisa didapat di mana ya?

salam

Om Igor, coba cari di websitenya Micro MF :|

Kalo gak nemu coba cari MSDS bahan MicroMF :
-- Hidroquinone
-- Potassium Bromide
-- Sodium [Natrium] Carbonate
-- Sodium Sulfite

Acifix, bisa dilihat MSDS :
-- Sodium Thiosulfate

tengkiu Mbak Mira, atas warningnya
hampir semua bahan kimia yang dipake di darkroom beracun, beberapa sangat beracun, seperti yg dibilang om David, masing2 petunjuk safety penggunaan ada kok, dan banyak bukti jago2 darkroom umurnya panjang2 kok dibanding pembalap hehehe


simbah AA aja 80an, padahal mainan darkroom lbh dr 50tahun, dan always bare hand, ada lagi bruce barnbaum yg barehand, brett weston

Gor, ini link nye http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/cis/products/icsc/dtasht/_icsc04/icsc0411.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechol

contone katekol ae ya hehehe

wah terimakasih banyak Romo, atas pemberian ilmunya, saya tunggu loh

ini lagi ngabisin stock Sabun colek kok :">

Hehehehe, safety guidance sih mungkin tertulis di botolnya, masalahnya... diturutin ngga? Qeqeqeqeqqq.

Seperti juga hoki bisa berumur panjang, soal sakit kanker mah itu kerjaannya Yang Di Atas. Penyebab pastinya kan belum ada yang tahu, bukannya? Dan ini tentang orang yang sudah pernah sakit kanker, bukan yang belum pernah sakit kanker.

Gw cuma sekedar menerjemahkan tulisan orang-orang di photo.net. Perdebatan yang menarik, menurut gw, dan patut di-sharing di fotografer.net, karena ngga semua suka dolan2 ke photo.net, kan?

Pembuangan limbah terbaik adalah dgn Carbon active , sedangkan utk ventilasi ruangan utk pernapasan kita yg terbaik adalah dgn ionizer.

Sebelum limbah dibuang direndam carbon active , 90% heavy metal content akan netral .

Sedangkan Ionizer akan menetralkan udara , umumnya digunakan di smoking room :D , hanya sebagai gambaran kandungan asap rokok itu lebih danger dari uap cairan2 kimia darkroom.
Jika terasa mahal bisa buat sendiri andai ada yg butuh bisa email ke saya berikan skemanya. Utk menbuatnya tidak dibutuhkan pengetahuan elektronik yg terlalu sulit .

Thanks for sharing..perdebatannya berguna buat saya...

tenang aja semua preen, di kotaku solo ada lokalisasi usaha PKL cetak photo hitam putih ditunggu 10 menit jadi tepatnya dideket pengadilan, rata-rata pengusahanya udah bergelut selama 10 tahunan lebih dan tiap hari bergelut dengan micro mf dan acid fix dengan alat yang kalau anda-anda lihat jauh dari safety ........toh buktinya mereka-mereka safe-safe aja .............tenang men.........umur ditangan TUHAN.............pokoknya jangan lelah untuk mencintai BW Manual Photography.........keeping loving..........

Ada nggak sich mesin yang bisa buat proses film BW?

Mati aku, dulu sering ketiduran dikamar gelap. kayaknya musti ct scan nih.

@tegar: ada bang, JOBO ngeluarin ada merek2 lain, atau yang gampang kirim ke hitam putih (kalo masih ada) ajah.

Mba mira... sedih rasanya... niat melanjutkan... kesenangan... memiliki hambatan lagi... mudah2an ujian ini dapat berlalu

katanya sih kimia dari obat cuci juga gak bagus buat kita lo

kt ga pernah tau apa yg akan terjadi dengan diri kt ke depan.. Percayakan aja dg yg menciptakan kita.

thanks sharingnya mbak, jujur aja pngalaman prtama trkena cairan developer yaa itu, gatel-gatel, telapak tangan jika terkena cairan dan jika tidak dibersihkan stelah bbrapa menit, djamin akan gatel dan panas. Satu lg, karena saluran udaranya sangat minimalis, kmungkinan bahaya ke saluran pernafasan bisa timbul.

~ pkoknya salutlah sma org2 yg msih mnggeluti dunia ini :m/