From: Judy Seigel (email@example.com)
Date: 05/19/01-05:45:41 PM Z
On Sat, 19 May 2001 FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
> Considering the following statement (also from the same site): "When released
> to land, chromium compounds bind to soil are not likely to migrate to ground
> water. They are very persistent in water as sediments. There is a high
> potential for accumulation of chromium in aquatic life," does it mean it is
> better to pour the wash water from gum print to the ground than down the
That's a really good question Dave. I'd love to see the answer from
someone who really KNOWS & isn't just guessing, though I think the odds
for that are not great....
Meanwhile the statements seem so *general* and so unrelated to our
particular usage, they do not reassure that following them -- as we can
decipher to follow them -- is going to be doing the "right" thing.
However, in answer to the question about why not bring the water to the
hazardous waste site : a bag of maybe 25 grams of combined pigment and
chromium compound (which is mostly pigment) is much easier to carry than x
gallons of water.
What I wonder about is, if it's 26 grams of dichromate in, is it 25 grams
out? Which is to say, if one uses over a period of time an amount of
sensitizer with 26 g am di, has all of that come out in the wash water, or
does x amount remain in the print, transmogrified ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:40 AM Z CST