Then don't tell them. You really are making things difficult for yourself, aren't you.

This is what you could do. Dilute one litre of darkroom waste to 10 litres of water, and with a watering can, water the roses. You might find they'll really thrive and your neighbours will praise your wonderful roses and ask you what's the secret.

But you won't tell them.

(To avoid any quibbling about the degree of dilution, make it 1 litre of waste to 20, or 40 litres of water if you like.)

Monito et al.,

This thread is making me laugh. If you guys are so concerned with wet darkroom chemicals, then take a look at the eco-friendly SilverGrain products found at DigitalTruth - http://www.digitaltruth.com/

Regards, Art.

Which is why I wrote on the fifth post in this thread, "Jeez! Don't create problems where there are none. If the chenicals are harmful to the natural biological processes of your sceptic tank, then just dump them on a spare piece of ground. If you are on a sceptic tank system, then it is easy to divert grey water to any location you want."

Several things come to mind:

1. Go ahead and run the wash water into the septic system. The concentrations of potential "anti-septics" should be low enough to not cause problems.

2. Save the actual chemicals for proper disposal NOT in your septic system.

Ok, how to do that?

I work for an environmental laboratory. I also have done work for other labs in the area. One lab supplies equipment for the local hospital to use monitoring the silver concentration in the sanitary sewer system just downstream from the hospital's "point of entry" into the sewer system. The equipment gathers composite samples for later analysis.

The city does not want high concentrations of silver to be disposed of into the sanitary sewer because the silver is a strong antiseptic and thus kills off the bacteria at the wastewater treatment plant. BUT, they go by concentration so simply capturing as much silver as possible and then diluting the effluent suffices to keep the hospital out of hot water with the city.

So the point is that the regional wastewater plant will accept some of this waste as long as it meets their criteria. So you may well be able to get their permission to just dump your collected darkroom chemicals into their system in some way. Just ask them.

If it turns out that you cannot do that, then a very common way of reducing the cost of disposal of water-based hazardous waste is to simply allow the water component to evaporate off and then you're left with only the dry residue to dispose of.

So you could set up an evaporation system and then collect the dry residue and pay to have that properly disposed of. And if you're lucky, it's possible that such waste would be accepted by a local landfill if you can properly identify what's in it for them.

You'd be surprised at what most landfills will accept.

I do not recommend dumping the stuff directly onto the ground because not only is it a very nasty thing to do, but you also open yourself up to potentially expensive problems anywhere down the road. There doesn't seem to be any statute of limitations on how long you'll be liable for the cleanup of such a site. Don't do it.

Bottom line:

Just ask the local wastewater plant and/or the landfill if they'll accept it or not. Chances are, they'll take it if things are done properly.

Good luck

Oh, and just an anecdote: A locally famous photography teacher died of an unusual form of Cancer here recently. That particular cancer is associated exclusively with exposure to D-76. Nice to know I spent my youth with my hands dunked in that stuff and breathing the fumes from it!

Jim H

That's enough to persuade anyone to go digital.

I think that was the point of some people in this thread. Making mountains out of mole hills to make a point. Using unscientific fears to convert - nay enlighten people.

Meanwhile miles and miles of earth is being ripped up to get the precious metals required to make electronic circuitry, but we can't see that, so it must be more environmentally friendly! Not to mention the disposal of batteries, ink, etc...

Regards, Art.

The cost of a digital camera is a capital cost. A computer, also a capital cost, is almost always used for much more than digital photographs alone. The capital cost to the environment (one time) of ripping materials from the earth is less in the long run than the operating cost (ongoing and repeated) of ripping materials from the earth for chemical photography. Yes, digital is more environmentally friendly.

It's not at all easy to determine such matters; which is more environmentally friendly. I was amused to hear recently that supermarkets in the U.K are beginning to advertise a 'carbon' component to the price of imported fruit. For example, a kilogram of apples imported from Chile might be half the price of a kilogram of similar apples grown in the U.K. The idea is, if you advise people that the cheaper apples are less 'environmentally friendly' because they have to be transported across vast distances by ships which spew CO2 into the atmosphere (and you attach a figure to this), then responsible, environmentally aware consumers are more likely to buy the more expensive product. Having done so, they are slightly poorer than they could be, from the monetary point of view, but feel good that they have helped the environment.

This is a 'feel good' idea which is totally fallacious, however. It doesn't take into account such facts that the British apple picker and orchard worker probably spews CO2 into the atmosphere as he drives to work each day and, with his much higher wages than his Chilean counterpart, buys more items like computers and darkroom chemicals, TV sets and a new car every few years which all contribute to some degree of environmental destruction.

Unless you have precise details on the entire chain of production, from the mining of the basic metal ores (to build the machinery and ships) and production of all components associated with the final product, to the living standards and consumption habits of the workers involved in all facets of the production, including the ways in which the owners of such operations spend their profits, then the best general guide to the 'environmentally friendliness' of a product is its price tag.

A $100 cup of coffee is likely to be less environmentally friendly than a $2 cup of coffee.

I think you are making too many assumptions about Chilean workers and their economic station in life and too many assumptions about the UK worker and their environmental awareness.

I wonder if you think any environmental concern or any effort at conservation is merited.

But of course it is easier to introduce diverting anecdotes about UK apple orchard workers than it is to address the issue of digital capital cost versus film/chemical operating costs.

The point of the anecdote is that neither is easy. In order to make such assessments, you need vast amounts of information. However, whatever product you are talking about, the price of that product is generally a fair indication of the amount of energy already expended in its production plus a profit component that will be expended on further energy in the future. It doesn't make much difference if you are talking about apples from Chile or DSLRs from Canon. If the energy is supplied from the burning of coal and oil, as most of it is, then pollution goes into the atmosphere. It doesn't necessarily make a difference to the environmental impact if the energy was used for a capital item or not, although it seems to be the case that for the (busy) working photographer, the capital cost of a digital camera is paid for within a fairly short period of time by the savings in film, chemicals and processing costs, in which case one could argue that a digital camera is more environmentally friendly than the old-fashioned film camera.

However, I doubt this is the case for the amateur. I took around 14,000 shots with my first digital camera, the Canon D60, more photos than I had previously taken in my entire life with film cameras, yet the cost of buying and developing the 389 rolls of 36 exposure film which would have given me 14,000 shots was little more than half the cost of the camera plus flash cards.

Considering that I would never have taken 14,000 shots in that time period had I continued using film, I think it's a fair assumption that my move into digital photography has contributed to environmental degradation.

Oh never mind ... not worth it.

Regards, Art.

If you have a question on any chemical get a Material Safety Data Sheet {MSDS} from the manufacturer. They are free and may even be available on the internet. The MSDS will tell you the dangers of the chemical and the proper means of disposal.

Wow.. this sure has been a long post and so many vaired ideas what to do wth the chemiclas from darkrooms etc.. my my..

I am new here.. but I have owned and used and built and operated 17 color darkrooms. I have processed massive amounts of color film and color prints

I do know that a Nuetralizing tank MUST be added to your system if you want to keep your septic sytem alive.

how to neutralize your chemicals... ?? baking soda is the simple solution

that combined with massive amounts of water will provide a simple safe soltuion to the problem..

but that was the technology that was employed 30 years ago..

"baking soda" !

I dont know of any tests or studies to provide time tested results over an exteneded period of time such as decades of disposal in remote areas.. but I do live in a very remote area.. that has / had no plumbing at all.. no running water, no septic tanks.. no toilets even.. no flulsh toilets.. we used very old technology called "honey buckets" when the bucket ws full... bag it up and dump it into a 55 galon drum.. these bags would quickly freeze @ 50 below zero outside.. then the waste would be incinerated at the local dump at the other end of town. but we have had no problems here in 30 years.. but I am sure some people have other methods and other facts..

baking soda was used to neutralize chemiclas for a lot of years before digital ever came along.. it was mandantory to have a neutralizing tank built in-line with your processing machines or units.. but living so remote I am not aware of the issues at hiand.. I just know that using baking soda has caused no problems here or anyplace else i have lived and worked in my hobby.