There seem to be very strong reactions to this subject.Are people getting more concerned about the environmentalists threatening analog photography than the continuously fading availability of their materials?
Anyway, I'm sure you have a few good points. People have a tendency to overdo things when trying to please political correctness. I don't know for certain what needs and what needs not to go to hazardous waste. I'm going with 'better safe than sorry'. However, in the end, it is not about money. It's nice if they pick it up for free, and I'm probably paying for it through taxes, but there is no price tag on a polluted lake, three-eyed fish or cancer-stricken relative. And one thing is for certain, polluted water often comes back to the ones who polluted it first.
All the best. Regards Ralph W. Lambrecht http://www.darkroomagic.comThis electronic message contains information that is confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. This information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, printing or any other use of, or any action in reliance on, the contents of this electronic message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and destroy the original message immediately.
P don't print this e-mail unless you really have to On Nov 29, 2009, at 17:57, Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Ralph W. Lambrecht" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Nicholas,Are you really suggesting that it is better for the environment to dump my chemicals drown the drain and pollute the water supply, despite the fact that waste management picks it up for free?No, I'm quite beyond that. I've been a card-carrying registered tree hugger since 1967, attended the first Earth Day conference in the US in 1970(?), etc., etc.. I am not a stick-in-the-mud or a Luddite, far from it. It is a matter of priority and where money is best spent. I am suggesting that the haz-mat facilities concentrate theirlimited and valuable resources on detoxing what is truly hazardous, and not spend their time assuaging guilt by detoxifying the non- toxic. Compared to the piss and shit getting flushed down the toilet, developer - mineral salt and boiled tree bark extract is about what it amounts to - is like fresh rainwater.If it were really poisonous - made from Methyl Mercury or some such - I would be the first in line not just calling the haz-mat truck but giving up photography all together. In San Francisco we have a phenomena of people buying $35 carbon- offset certificates and then go driving monster SUV's, claimingthat since they bought the certificate their SUV is now non- polluting. These people have simply purchased an indulgence:permission to commit sin with the promise of avoiding Hell's fire. And, Ralph, you have to know that nothing comes for free -- you are paying for that waste pickup with tax money. It would be better if haz-mat was charged separately and have it clearly spelled out what _has_ to be treated, not leaving it up to whim. The developer, if poisonous, should have a surcharge added to it to pay for recycling and a mandatory requirement to recycleshould be prominently placed on the package. I believe the EU has such a policy regarding electronics and automobiles.So, yes, I am suggesting that flushing used developer is _less polluting_ than haz-mat disposal. Haz-mat disposal creates pollution by its very operation; is the pollution it creates detoxing developer greater than the pollution of the developer itself - I believe it is. Nicholas O. Lindan Cleveland Engineering Design, LLC Cleveland, Ohio 44121= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ====================================================================== To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.