Re: what's happening to Kodachrome.

[Steve Shapiro <sgshiya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Subject: Re: what's happening to Kodachrome.


>>The residual is cyanide.  It was declared highly hazardous and Kodak was
limited to two or three labs in the continental US in order to continue
manufacture and development of this film, mostly due to the very particular
resolving particularities and to the economic and political nature of the
patent, I'm sure.


There is a big Copper mining concern in Utah that uses Cyanide literally by
the open boxcar load. Hundreds of tons of the stuff yearly. Certainly, if
they can clean the effluent well enough, Kodak can do the same with the
tiny fraction of the amount they might produce. I would be interested in
learning where this story was reported.

Incidentally, most any chrome plater uses cyanide in the plating baths.
There are no laws saying that there can be only this or that number of such
companies.

I would be interested in any additional information you can point me to.

Cheers,

RM

Bob Maxey, I'm neither going to get into a big argument with you, nor take
time to do any directed research; but the sources are accumulative including
closed circulation, pro club mailings from Kodak.  Ask any pro lab owner or
manager.

The simple fact is:  While major uses for cyanide and it's derrivitive
content have produced a disposal industry that thrives ... and thrives us on
the planet quite well... , the cost effective and reliable use by small
individual users have pushed industry standards for Kodachrome processing up
and into a large foactory arena.

Kodak maintains only three sites where Kodachrome is processed, any pro
camera shop that offers to process this film can explain that to you.

The pro photo journals, and trade magazines are filled with and have been
filled with offers for licenses and machines for minilab Kodachrome
processors over the last few years.  However, permits for disposal and cost
for containers to dispose of the toxic waste from this systems makes it of a
profit margin so small it might not pay for the employee to run the thing.

Last thing I read, the possibility of selling the mini lab units for home
uses was the most profitable for the manufacturer, or for one hour labs to
offer tham as convnience to their regular services; but there reomains the
hazzard caution that is more easily controlled by large companies who can
maintain a qualified staff for such disposal operations than some high
school kid working for a mini lab at $5 an hour who might just go outside
and dump a cyanide container out on in the parking lot near the dumpster.

Besides the large insustrial use, a person at home would offer more reliable
control over this substance disposal, I agree; but when dealing with the
public at large ... I refer back to the image of a kid dumping the stuff ont
the street.

Get it?

Steve