[pure-silver] Re: Kodak Discontinuing All Black and White Paper
- From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:56:18 -0700
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Valvo" <dvalvo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:38 PM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Kodak Discontinuing All Black and
White Paper
> Other reasons paper manufacturers have to change the way
> they make products
> are:
>
> Raw material supplier changes raw materials...for
> environmental
> reasons...for cost savings ...for what ever you can think
> of
> Raw material supplier discontinues component.... ...for
> environmental
> reasons...for cost savings ...for what ever you can think
> of
> Govt regulations makes Kodak and other manufacturers
> change products for
> environmental reasons.
>
> Note: all Kodak papers were made with formaldehyde
> hardener. Probable
> reason paper coatings were moved to Brazil may have been
> to overcome US govt
> coating restrictions. It costs a lot of money to move a
> product. Regulations
> may have killed the products not Kodak. Once regulators
> get a bug up their
> ass they can shut a company down. They may have asked "Do
> you make it with
> FA? ans, "yes." "How much goes into the making?" We
> weigh in 'X'. But we
> can only measure we are taking out Y but we think zero
> remains. Regulators
> conclude X-Y must remain in the product...BAD!
> (Weighing and measuring
> are two different things and will NEVER EQUAL each other)
>
> Only one paper was made with without FA. Polymax Fine
> Art. If the above
> is the reason wasn't worth keeping that.
>
> Note: I'm guessing regarding cause. No recent inside
> info.
>
> Dave
>
There were other changes that I know of, one was the
restriction on the use of Cadmium and its compounds. I think
the restrictions have more to do with the use at the factory
than the amount in the product. I suspect that Kodak got out
of the paper making business mainly because of the costs of
polution control. Paper mills tend to be highly poluting for
some reason.
Polution controls seem to be rather haphazard in some
ways. For instance, the restrictions on Mercury, which along
with Cadmium is among the most dangerous of polutants, has
eliminated Mercury cells from the U.S. market but not
flourescent lamps. The lamps carry warning that they contain
Mercury and to "dispose of correctly" whatever that means. I
understand (perhaps wrongly) that a flourescent lamp
contains more Mercury than a Mercury cell. I've also been
told that the difference is that there is a recycling
program for the lamps but not the cells.
Both Mercury and Cadmium are harmful and should be
controlled but it seems to me that there must be a more
rational way of doing it.
Formaldehyde is a traditional tanning agent used for
hardening emulsions in manufacture but there are other
substances such as gluteraldehyde which can take its place
and may be superior in some ways. I suspect Kodak's
environmental control problems may have included many
substances.
We have just had a mild earthquake here.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
=============================================================================================================
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.
Other related posts:
