Pregnancy and Darkroom Chemicals
Slhavens
precautions that I should take while in the darkroom. Thanks for the info!
Sherry
CoolPhotog
Congratulations!!!! I would highly recommend that you contact Kodak directly
(or the manufacturer who's chemicals you are using) @:
Eastman Kodak Company
Communications and Public Affairs Publications
343 State Street
Rochester, NY 14650
(800) 242-2424
Request the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) on the chemicals you are using.
I would ask them specifically about using during your pregnancy. As always,
safe handling of chemicals prevents skin absorption by wearing gloves and
breathing by good ventilation and a respiratory mask.
Ken Taschner
Ken Taschner
Michael A. Covington
>Just got the news yesterday! Now I'm wondering if there are any special
>precautions that I should take while in the darkroom. Thanks for the info!
>Sherry
Well, there will be people who tell you "don't go near any chemicals...
don't go out under the full moon... etc. etc. ... you can't be too
careful"...
but as for *known* hazards, I am aware of none in black-and-white
photography. I hope the conversation will stick to the question of known
hazards. Last time the question came up, the "you can't be too careful,
avoid EVERYTHING!" sentiment prevailed. And of course it was completely
uninformative, because we wanted to know about actual evidence for hazards.
Color chemistry is much more complicated and I'm somewhat wary of it.
lemonade
<jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
> Slhavens wrote:
>
> > Just got the news yesterday! Now I'm wondering if there are any special
> > precautions that I should take while in the darkroom. Thanks for the info!
> >
> > Sherry
>
> Congratulations. I am not a physician, nor a woman, so my advice may be
> insufficient.
>
> IMAO, whatever precautions you need to take in the darkroom to ensure the
> safety (broadly interpreted) of you baby you should be taking anyway to ensure
> your own. Perhaps now is the time to review your darkroom procedures anyway.
In general, a developing fetus is more sensitive to insults that an adult.
In particular, there are particular time frames within development that are
radically sensitive to particular chemicals. So, if you read J-DB's reply
carefully, he is giving you conservative advice with regards to your own
health. I have no doubt though that some people will read it the other way,
whence it will become reckless advice for the baby.
I do not believe much is known about the hazards of black & white chemistry
specifically with regard to pregnancy, but the following advice seems a
reasonable minimum:
1. Avoid colour chemistry of any kind entirely.
2. Avoid all chemicals in powder form (this may be more controversial).
3. Avoid toners entirely.
4. Developer would seem to be one of the more worrisome chemicals, and
some, such as Rodinal, more worrisome than e.g. Xtol (which is
unfortunately a powder).
5. Ensure more than adequate ventilation in your darkroom, use tongs and gloves.
6. Ask yourself: while I am pregnant and nursing, do I really need to be in
a darkroom at all? Perhaps now is the time to learn PhotoShop; or better,
to get outside in the fresh air with your camera, and get some excercise
and relaxation taking pictures. You can always print them later.
Congratulations on the upcoming blessed event, and best wishes for an
eventual healthy, happy and wise post-adolescent.
--
Due to the intolerable volume of spam these days, I no longer supply a
valid email address.
artfish
papers on each chemical product from the mfg.. this should
give you a good start if not all the info you need. They are required to
provide them by law. If the product is a trade secrete your doctor
can request them for you.
lemonade wrote in message ...
Jean-David Beyer
> Just got the news yesterday! Now I'm wondering if there are any special
> precautions that I should take while in the darkroom. Thanks for the info!
>
> Sherry
Congratulations. I am not a physician, nor a woman, so my advice may be
insufficient.
IMAO, whatever precautions you need to take in the darkroom to ensure the
safety (broadly interpreted) of you baby you should be taking anyway to ensure
your own. Perhaps now is the time to review your darkroom procedures anyway.
Off the posted topic:
I once saw an interesting set of images in a book about self-portrature. A
woman did a series of nudes of herself from when she suspected pregnancy (in
herself) until the baby was born. All used the same pose and lighting. In the
book, I believe she selected images about a month apart for about 10 months.
Very interesting. You might wish to do this. It might be useful later when
asked (by the child) where do babys come from?
--
Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. The answer is No.
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Jean-David Beyer
> 2. Avoid all chemicals in powder form (this may be more controversial).
While powders are more of a problem than liquids, since they are easily airborne,
remember that most dry photographic chemicals are not powders, but crushed
crystals. E.g., salt is not a powder and corn-starch is a powder. Metol,
hydroquinone, even Amidol (2,4 diaminophenol dihydrochloride), sodium thiosulfate
(if you mix it yourself), sodium sulfite, potassium bromide, ... , are all
crystals.
Richard Knoppow
>Get the MSDS (material safety data sheets)
> papers on each chemical product from the mfg.. this should
>give you a good start if not all the info you need. They are required to
>provide them by law. If the product is a trade secrete your doctor
>can request them for you.
>
>lemonade wrote in message ...
>>In article <36366840...@exit109.com>, Jean-David Beyer
>><jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Slhavens wrote:
>>>
>>> > Just got the news yesterday! Now I'm wondering if there are any
>special
>>> > precautions that I should take while in the darkroom. Thanks for the
>info!
>>> >
>>> > Sherry
>>>
>>> Congratulations. I am not a physician, nor a woman, so my advice may be
>>> insufficient.
>>>
>>> IMAO, whatever precautions you need to take in the darkroom to ensure the
>>> safety (broadly interpreted) of you baby you should be taking anyway to
>ensure
>>> your own. Perhaps now is the time to review your darkroom procedures
>anyway.
>>
>>In general, a developing fetus is more sensitive to insults that an adult.
>>In particular, there are particular time frames within development that are
>>radically sensitive to particular chemicals. So, if you read J-DB's reply
>>carefully, he is giving you conservative advice with regards to your own
>>health. I have no doubt though that some people will read it the other way,
>>whence it will become reckless advice for the baby.
>>
>>I do not believe much is known about the hazards of black & white chemistry
>>specifically with regard to pregnancy, but the following advice seems a
>>reasonable minimum:
>>
>>1. Avoid colour chemistry of any kind entirely.
>>
>>2. Avoid all chemicals in powder form (this may be more controversial).
>>
>>3. Avoid toners entirely.
>>
>>4. Developer would seem to be one of the more worrisome chemicals, and
>>some, such as Rodinal, more worrisome than e.g. Xtol (which is
>>unfortunately a powder).
>>
>>5. Ensure more than adequate ventilation in your darkroom, use tongs and
>gloves.
>>
>>6. Ask yourself: while I am pregnant and nursing, do I really need to be in
>>a darkroom at all? Perhaps now is the time to learn PhotoShop; or better,
>>to get outside in the fresh air with your camera, and get some excercise
>>and relaxation taking pictures. You can always print them later.
>>
>>Congratulations on the upcoming blessed event, and best wishes for an
>>eventual healthy, happy and wise post-adolescent.
>>
>>--
>>Due to the intolerable volume of spam these days, I no longer supply a
>>valid email address.
>
>
The original posters address has been cut off the thread.
I think that MSDS are not very helpful in evaluating the hazards of
packaged photographic chemicals. The warnings in them are often aimed
at those who have bulk storage of the raw chemicals not a small amount
of packaged or mixed solutions.
Kodak does have new MSDS for most of their products on their web
site http://www.kodak.com These address to some degree the hazards of
the mixed and working solutions.
In general, neither B&W or color packaged chemistry is particularly
hazardous but its wise to take simple precautions.
In order for any chemical to hurt you it has to get on or into your
body. The first precaution is to keep chemicals off your skin and out
of your mouth. Rubber or plastic gloves will keep the chemicals off
your skin. No one is going to drink the stuff but certainly the
chemicals should be kept where unauthorized people (like little kids)
can't get to it.
Also note that many of the chemicals used in both B&W and color
photography are used elswhere in industrial processes. There is a
large body of information existing about all of them. However it
information which is not easy for a layman to interpret. MSDS are
likely to scare you off rather than provide practical information. No
amateur photographer is going to have hundereds of pounds of Sodium
Sulfite or anything else sitting around.
In the case of some substances the MSDS can be quite misleading.
Selenium Toner, for instance, contains Selenium in a relatively
non-hazardous form and in rather small amounts. Powdered pure
Selenium is very toxic but in the toner it is not. As has been
pointed out many times there are non-prescription anti-dandruf
shampoos on the market containing Selenium compounds (e.g. Sel-Sun).
I have _never_ heard of any reports of birth defects tracable to the
mother working in a photo-lab, particularly an ameteur lab where
exposure to the chemicals in minimal.
I agree that the advise on which to base the decision of whether to
work with photography or not during pregnancy should come from a
better source than a Usenet discussion forum. The NIH, for instance,
likely has some information. OTOH, there are no warnings to pregnant
women on packaged photo chemicals as there are now on tobacco products
and alcoholic beverages.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
lemonade
wrote:
> Selenium Toner, for instance, contains Selenium in a relatively
> non-hazardous form and in rather small amounts. Powdered pure
> Selenium is very toxic but in the toner it is not. As has been
> pointed out many times there are non-prescription anti-dandruf
> shampoos on the market containing Selenium compounds (e.g. Sel-Sun).
Interestingly, selenium is also an essential nutrient. I used to enjoy a
breakfast cereal which boasted of its high selenium, and chromium, content.
Alas, both are also poisons, as are such good things as Vitamins A and D.
By the way, the key ingredient in non-prescription gray-undoing hair
colouring agents, like Grecian Formula and Clairol's Just For Men, is
supposed to be lead, in some form. Having never used either of them, of
course, I can't confirm that, but I heard it on a TV newsmagazine, so it
must be true.
> I have _never_ heard of any reports of birth defects tracable to the
> mother working in a photo-lab, particularly an ameteur lab where
> exposure to the chemicals in minimal.
That's a start, but not very reassuring, due a) to the small numbers of
pregnant women working in amateur darkrooms; and b) to the fact that an
actual defect noticeable at birth is a rather extreme amount of damage.
What if it just knocks 10 points off your son's IQ? Good luck ever finding
that out, certainly without really, really looking for it. I believe it's
only relatively recently (20 years?) that the problems caused by
dry-cleaning shops were really recognized, even though in many of the
little ones, you could actually see the owners getting nuttier and nuttier
every year.
> better source than a Usenet discussion forum. The NIH, for instance,
> likely has some information. OTOH, there are no warnings to pregnant
> women on packaged photo chemicals as there are now on tobacco products
> and alcoholic beverages.
Such warning labels usually involve huge political fights. Photography,
especially amateur darkroom work, covers just too small a population of
pregnant women, and has too many universal, ACHTUNG!! hazard warnings on
the chemicals anyway, to command either much investigation or political
action.
Michael A. Covington
"the dose makes the poison" -- lots of things, even water, are hazardous in
large amounts but not in small amounts.
--
Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.mindspring.com/~covington <><
Jgestar
>>precautions that I should take while in the darkroom. Thanks for the info!
>>Sherry
>
As a practicing chemist for twenty years, with experience in chemical safety
and chemical hygiene, I felt I had to add my opinion to this discussion.
There have been some useful suggestions posted in this thread. The best two
suggestions are to wear gloves and consult Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs).
These suggestions apply to ALL darkroom workers, pregnant or not.
Everyone should have gloves to wear in the darkroom. Pick gloves that are
comfortable or you won't wear them. I always use gloves when I mix chemicals
from concentrates or powders, develop film, or tray process without tongs.
Absorbtion through the skin is the most likely manner of exposure for darkroom
workers and chemical workers in general. Dishwashing gloves are good if they
are comfortable. Disposable gloves work well too, if they are thrown away
after use.
Reading MSDSs allows you to make your own decisions about the hazards of a
particular chemical and how you should prudently handle that chemical. Once
you have that information, you can exercise your best judgement and act
accordingly.
Kodak's MSDSs are some of the best I have read (and I have read a lot of bad
MSDSs!). They contain information on concentrates and working solutions. They
contain information on chemical handling, personal protection, disposal, and
toxicology. The Kodak MSDSs are easy to access on their web site. Go to
www.kodak.com and run a search for msds using the find function.
Unfortunately, Ilford and Agfa do not have easy access to MSDSs on their
websites.
Tom Gould
Jean-David Beyer
> Good advice. BTW, one can add that the first principle of toxicology is
> "the dose makes the poison" -- lots of things, even water, are hazardous in
> large amounts but not in small amounts.
You are right about that. Recent visitors to this newsgroup may have missed
the fact that
M. Alice Ottobini, a toxicologist, wrote a book, "The Dose Makes The Poison"
that I heartily recommend. The second edition is ISBN 0-442-02556-4 for the
paperback version.
NJFotomakr
Makepeace Lake/Weymouth Furnace
Black and White Photography
msz...@hotmail.com
> Slhavens wrote in message <19981026222819...@ng123.aol.com>...
> >Just got the news yesterday! Now I'm wondering if there are any special
> >precautions that I should take while in the darkroom. Thanks for the info!
> >Sherry
I can tell you that I think it would be a
good idea to stay out of the darkroom
for a while, at least while you are
pregnant, and if you plan on breast-
feeding. Most of the chemicals in B&W
photography are absorbed through the
skin, and tend to be hazardous to your
internal organs. One of my professors
in college gave us sheets of information
on why it was so important to practice
safe darkroom procedures. One of the
reasons for avoiding the darkroom if
you were pregnant was that there was a
higher rate of 'pinhead' babies to be
born to mothers who were exposed to
these chemicals. I wish I could find
these for you.
A good reference to look into is
"Health Hazards Manual for Artists" by
Michael McCann. It lists the chemicals
and some health problems related to
the chemicals. I don't know if it
particularly states anything about
pregnancy though. But it should give
you enough info to decide what to do.
Being as how I was pretty sure that I
had decent darkroom safety practices,
I did get a nasty case of 'contact
dermatitus'. I always wear gloves in the
darkroom.
Just thought I would try to give you
some useful info. Good luck, and
congratulations!
Melissa Ricardo, BA -FA-photography
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
BLevey1995
>> >precautions that I should take while in the darkroom.
Hi. I'm six months pregnant and I'm concerned about the darkroom chemicals as
well. I was told at one point that the general chemicals were okay but that I
should stay away from any toners. Also, that gloves would be a safe
precaution. Did you find any info to the contrary??? What precautions are you
taking?
Elisa
lemonade
(BLevey1995) wrote:
> Hi. I'm six months pregnant and I'm concerned about the darkroom chemicals as
> well. I was told at one point that the general chemicals were okay but that I
> should stay away from any toners. Also, that gloves would be a safe
> precaution. Did you find any info to the contrary??? What precautions are
If you look at the packages of any darkroom chemical, they are full of
ACHTUNG!! HAZARD warnings for everybody. So I don't think pregnant women
should be any safer, that's for sure.
Besides gloves and tongs, you must also make sure that the ventilation is
more than adeqate.
But a question: while you are pregnant and nursing, do you really have to
be in the darkroom at all? Perhaps this is a good time to learn Photoshop,
or to go outside on healthy shooting expeditions, where you can get fresh
air, exercise, and relaxation. You can always print the negatives later.
SB9090
worse thing to do was to eat in the darkroom. The chemicals are easier to
ingest if you eat while surrounded by fumes. Don't know how accurate, but
sounds interesting. BTW, I developed contact dermititus (sic?) by repeated
contact w/color printing chemicals. I did wear gloves to mix, but still came
into contact with the stuff too often. It cleared up after several years, but
can reoccure if I get my hands into developer too much. Just a word to the
wise.
Steve Brown
Bialecki
helpful.
Best Wishes on the new one to be!!! :)
Dennis Bialecki
BLevey1995 wrote in message <19981116120352...@ng23.aol.com>...
>>I'm wondering if there are any special
>>> >precautions that I should take while in the darkroom.
>
>Hi. I'm six months pregnant and I'm concerned about the darkroom chemicals
as
>well. I was told at one point that the general chemicals were okay but
that I
>should stay away from any toners. Also, that gloves would be a safe
>precaution. Did you find any info to the contrary??? What precautions are
you
>taking?
>Elisa
BLevey1995
being in the darkroom, especially that I am out of the critical first
trimester. He said that the absorption rate through the skin is very slow and
even emersing my hands in the chemicals would pose hardly a risk. He also said
that the odor has not been related to toxicity. Other than wearing gloves, he
said there is no reason to skip the darkroom.
>But a question: while you are pregnant and nursing, do you really have to
>be in the darkroom at all? Perhaps this is a good time to learn Photoshop,
>or to go outside on healthy shooting expeditions, where you can get fresh
>air, exercise, and relaxation. You can always print the negatives later.
I have been out of the darkroom since August when we moved and my darkroom is
being built now..I've been waiting already..why should I wait until March if I
don't have to?????
BLevey1995
www.kodak.com and download their material safety sheets for each chemical.
I'll be doing that and I will send along any pertinent info that I get.
Elisa
Richard Knoppow
The MSDS on the Kodak web page are more complete than most and give
an indication of the real hazard of using prepared chemicals in the
darkroom. Most MSDS are written around industrial use and storage of
very large amounts of materials and for very long term chronic
exposure. This can be very misleading and unessarily frightening. The
chemicals used in ordinary B&W amateur photography do not pose a
serious hazard. They should be used with some understanding of what
they are and simple protections will suffice. Keep your hands out of
the solutions, even though they mostly won't hurt you. Using tongs is
good practice just from the standpoint of avoiding getting
fingerprints on prints and keeping from mixing solutions together.
Gloves can help when you really need to get your hands in as when
developing sheet film in trays. Use Nitrile gloves rather than Latex
to avoid the fairly common alergy to Latex.
There really is no need to ever get your hands in color chemistry at
all.
lemonade
bleve...@aol.com (BLevey1995) wrote:
> According to the toxicologist at Kodak, there is no reason that I should avoid
> being in the darkroom, especially that I am out of the critical first
> trimester. He said that the absorption rate through the skin is very slow and
> even emersing my hands in the chemicals would pose hardly a risk. He
also said
> that the odor has not been related to toxicity. Other than wearing gloves, he
> said there is no reason to skip the darkroom.
If you think about it, the response from the fellow at Kodak is
self-conflicting. On the one hand he says that darkroom work is safe
because the absorption rate is slow, and the odour is not (actually, has
not been- that may mean no one really checked) related to toxicity, &c-
suggesting that the chemicals are inherently safe. But on the other hand,
he says that darkroom work is safe because you are out of the critical
first trimester- suggesting that the chemicals do reach the fetus and can
interact with it in potentially harmful ways.
This issue has been discussed in this NG several times now. The upshot is
that pregnant darkroom workers form just too small a population, and the
warnings on chemicals already severe enough for everybody, to warrant doing
the tests required to really find out what's what. Sure, with regular black
and white darkroom work, and regular precautions, you are unlikely to cause
major birth defects. But, as I mentioned in a previous thread on this
subject, what if you just knock ten points of your son's IQ? Good luck ever
finding that out.
>
> >But a question: while you are pregnant and nursing, do you really have to
> >be in the darkroom at all? Perhaps this is a good time to learn Photoshop,
> >or to go outside on healthy shooting expeditions, where you can get fresh
> >air, exercise, and relaxation. You can always print the negatives later.
>
> I have been out of the darkroom since August when we moved and my darkroom is
> being built now..I've been waiting already..why should I wait until March if I
> don't have to?????
Indeed.
T. L. & J. James
week in an in-house darkroom. My skin is never in contact with chemicals.
Although the right equipment makes this easier (roller transport, Jobo, etc.),
good work habits are cheap. I wear heavy gloves for most things and light
disposable gloves for fiddly things like pulling sheet film from a tray of
stabilizer. Doesn't slow me down a bit.
Terry James
Richard Knoppow wrote:
--
*****************************************************************
Terry James E-mail: lhp....@ns.sympatico.ca
BLevey1995
>that pregnant darkroom workers form just too small a population, and the
>warnings on chemicals already severe enough for everybody, to warrant doing
>the tests required to really find out what's what. Sure, with regular black
>and white darkroom work, and regular precautions, you are unlikely to cause
>major birth defects. But, as I mentioned in a previous thread on this
>subject, what if you just knock ten points of your son's IQ? Good luck ever
>finding that out.
>
>>
I don't really appreciate the sarcasm. My husband is a pediatrician and there
is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that I will be knocking any points off my son's IQ..
If it were the case, your mom must have spent a lot of time in the darkroom.
Steve1chsn
BFD.....
>there
>is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that I will be knocking any points off my son's
>IQ..
Right,that's his point - no evidence!
>your mom must have spent a lot of time in the darkroom.
YOU don't appreciate sarcasm? Let's see, pot....kettle....black!
------------------------------------------------------
steve vancosin --
"It is not events that disturb people. It is what they make of them."
lemonade
(BLevey1995) wrote:
> >This issue has been discussed in this NG several times now. The upshot is
> >that pregnant darkroom workers form just too small a population, and the
> >warnings on chemicals already severe enough for everybody, to warrant doing
> >the tests required to really find out what's what. Sure, with regular black
> >and white darkroom work, and regular precautions, you are unlikely to cause
> >major birth defects. But, as I mentioned in a previous thread on this
> >subject, what if you just knock ten points of your son's IQ? Good luck ever
> >finding that out.
> >
> >>
>
> I don't really appreciate the sarcasm. My husband is a pediatrician and there
> is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that I will be knocking any points off my son's IQ..
> If it were the case, your mom must have spent a lot of time in the darkroom.
Perhaps what you appreciate least is a view that conflicts with what you
want to hear. There are two possible reasons why there is no evidence that
a given activity is harmful: either it is not harmful, or simply, no one
has checked, either at all, or carefully enough.
In this case, while the first might be true, the latter is definitely true.
And it will remain so, for the reasons I already pointed out: the affected
population far too small, and the general hazard warnings for everybody
already loud enough, to warrant any special investigation. However, if
enough people like yourself come along who are deaf to the possibilities,
that investigation may one day be done. And who knows, you may even be
proved right.
BLevey1995
>
>>your mom must have spent a lot of time in the darkroom.
>
>
>
>
BLevey1995
>want to hear.
NOT!!! Drinking alcohol is found to cause problems in pregnancy so I don't
drink no matter how much I would love a glass of wine, especially after reading
your messages. If it were proven dangerous, I wouldn't do it. Why are you so
determined to make me feel guilty over something that I shouldn't feel that way
about?
Don Reed
>
> >This issue has been discussed in this NG several times now. The upshot is
> >that pregnant darkroom workers form just too small a population, and the
> >warnings on chemicals already severe enough for everybody, to warrant doing
> >the tests required to really find out what's what. Sure, with regular black
> >and white darkroom work, and regular precautions, you are unlikely to cause
> >major birth defects. But, as I mentioned in a previous thread on this
> >subject, what if you just knock ten points of your son's IQ? Good luck ever
> >finding that out.
> >
> >>
>
> I don't really appreciate the sarcasm. My husband is a pediatrician and there
> is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that I will be knocking any points off my son's IQ..
What does your pediatrician husband recommend?
Steve1chsn
Good one!!
lemonade
Let me see if I can redirect this thread to be something that could again
make it of value to others who might come across it.
There are two categories of risks, which might be called risks of chance
and risks of ignorance (formally, ontological and epistemological risks).
These are very different although they are usually conflated in the
literature on risk management.
An example of an ontological risk is Russian roulette: one bullet in the
chamber, the spinning is a random process, your chances of death are 1/6.
Example of epistemological risk: someone asks you to play Russian roulette,
but doesn't let you check the gun first: it may have no bullets in it, or
it may have bullets in all six chambers, or anywhere in between.
These are radically different situations. In the first, a definite
probability can be assigned to the two possible outcomes, and a decision
can be based upon that- what that decision should be can be debated, on
various grounds, but at least there is some definite knowledge to go on.
As for the second, some people argue that ignorance is the same as genuine
randomness, and so one can assign probabilities a priori. However, for
various reasons, best exemplified in the now-famous "Let's Make a Deal
Problem" (as popularized by Marilyn vos Savant, holder of the World's
Highest IQ (TM), in Parade magazine several years ago), this view is false
and leads to objectively wrong assessments of risks.
The fact is that in the second situation, the risks simply cannot be
properly evaluated, and there is no rational way to deal with them, other
than to avoid them entirely if possible. In the case of the first example,
because the potential harm is so disastrous, one could say that that is the
correct response in that circumstance too.
With regard to pregancy and darkroom chemicals, we are in a situation which
at the present time has a large part falling in the category of risk of
knowledge. The relevant information on which to base a decision is simply
not there, and making up an assessment of the risk out of thin air, a
popular response (one which by the way was mandated for government agencies
under the Reagan administration), will simply not affect or address the
reality of the situation, whatever that may be.
However, we are not in a situation of total ignorance: for example, we can
reasonably say that it would be unwise to work with colour chemicals in an
amateur situation, since this seems to be dicey enough even when not
pregnant. Again, the truth is not known fully, but this is an eminently
reasonable and surely not Chicken-Little course of action.
As for black and white work, there is a great variety of chemicals that may
be involved, in powder (sorry, crushed crystal...) or liquid form. There
are precautions one can take to minimize exposure, but surely not to
eliminate it. Some chemicals are clearly worse than others, and one would
want to be particularly wary of all toners and most if not all developers,
in particular ones like e.g. Rodinal, that seem to have even more urgent
hazard warnings for even regular use than normal; as well as ones
containing metol, which provokes allergic reactions. Other than that rough
outline though, there really isn't that much more to go on. For example,
one would think that non-indicator stop bath, since it is just really
strong vinegar, should not be a problem; but it may cause respiratory
distress, which, although not harmful long term to the mother, might cause
distress to the infant, which, because it is in active development, might
in itself be harmful.
So the only rational course of action is the following: ask yourself, is
there any compelling reason for you to be in a darkroom while you are
pregnant and nursing? For example, if it is your livelihood, and you might
starve yourself and your fetus if you gave it up, obviously the choice is
clear. But if you are just doing it for fun or amusement or whatever other
comparatively frivolous reason, then, is it not possible to amuse yourself
some other way, where the risks are more ontological and easily combatted,
than to face the epistemological risks to the fetus of darkroom work? And
if, for whatever reason, you will in the end work in the darkroom while
pregnant and nursing, avoid colour work and toners entirely, use chemicals
in liquid form, avoid what appear to be the most harmful ones, minimize
your exposure through gloves, tongs, more than adequate ventilation, and by
not staying in too long at one time, or too frequently; and relax in the
knowledge that you took all prudent precautions that were available to you
in your own particular life circumstances.
Hancolor2
being more dangerous than others. I'm fairly new to darkroom so I still have
alot to learn about all the products available. Specifically, which chemicals
are more dangerous? And what chemicals would you recomend as being most safe?
(which develop, stop bath, and fixer). Also, what about the Berg toner that is
odorless? What would you think of that?
Just wondering.
Sharon
Jgestar
Let me try and address the question "What precautions should a pregnant
darkroom worker take?"
Inform yourself and protect yourself accordingly. This applies to all darkroom
workers, not just pregnant ones.
Informing yourself takes homework. The best way to do this is to consult the
material safety data sheets (MSDSs) on the Kodak web site. These are some of
the best MSDSs I have read. They define the risks of using a particular
chemical, both as a concentrate and as a dilution. And yes, Kodak has defined
the risk of these chemicals to pregnant mothers. They have done extensive
testing on lab animals, including pregnant lab animals. These tests are
required by law. I say this not to get into the ethics of using lab animals,
but to show that the risks are very well defined. If the risks of a particular
chemical appear extreme, then by all means avoid that chemical.
Unfortunately, Ilford and Agfa do not have this information on their web sites
(how about it you two?)
In addition, the MSDSs recommend equipment that may be needed to work with the
chemical safely. If the MSDS recommends wearing gloves, then wear gloves. If
the MSDS recommends using a well ventilated room, then use one. Use common
sense to reduce your exposure.
The greatest risk to a fetus is during the first few weeks of gestation. That
means to start informing and protecting yourself when you begin planning to
become pregnant, if not before.
Inform yourself, make a decision you are comfortable with, and act accordingly.
Don't let someone else make your decisions for you.
Tom Gould
(jge...@aol.com)
lemonade
(Hancolor2) wrote:
I'm afraid my comment on certain developers appearing more dangerous than
others is simply a stab in the dark: the only thing I can tell you for sure
is that metol, an ingredient in certain developers, is known to provoke
allergic reactions; and that the warning on the Rodinal package impressed
me as being much more urgent than most, and I seem to recall reading the
ingredients somewhere, wherein it seems to me were found some well-known
somewhat worrisome organic chemicals. Rodinal is my preferred film
developer, by the way. I would also guess that Xtol would be one of the
safer developers, although unfortunately it is only available in powder
(crushed crystal...) form, and I don't know the full ingredient list.
As for stop bath, I've only used regular acetic acid bath, but I seem to
recall others here mentioning they used stop baths consisting of citric
acid solutions, which would be better. I have no idea whatsoever about the
harmfulness of the indicators used in stop bath, nor do I have any
recommendations for fixers, alas.
I don't know what's in the Berg Toner. Anyone else?
mccl...@my-dejanews.com
http://www.msdssearch.com
In article <19981121205039...@ng100.aol.com>,
Richard Knoppow
>I'm not pregnant, but was interested in the comment about certain developers
>being more dangerous than others. I'm fairly new to darkroom so I still have
>alot to learn about all the products available. Specifically, which chemicals
>are more dangerous? And what chemicals would you recomend as being most safe?
>(which develop, stop bath, and fixer). Also, what about the Berg toner that is
>odorless? What would you think of that?
>Just wondering.
>Sharon
A few developers are relatively more toxic than others. Pyro is
probably at the head of the list this way. All are toxic to some
extent. There is little danger in using prepared devlopers, especially
those in the form of liquid since there is no dust from them.
Nothing can be toxic if it can't get into your body. The key to
safety is to protect yourself from entry of the chemical.
Despite the heat of this thread (there is another like it in the
Alternative processes mailing list just now) there is low hazard to
the packaged developers sold by the major manufacturers.
One hazard is from Metol, a very widely used developer, which can
seisitize some people. Once sensitized contact results in a severe
exzema like rash which can be quite debilitating at its worst. This
can be avoided entirely by the used of gloves or tongs.
Dust from packaged powdered chemicals can be avoided by cutting off
a corner of the package (most come in paper packages now) and holding
it just under the surface of the water while mixing. No dust this
way. Otherwise a dust mask may be a good idea.
The MSDS posted by Kodak on their web site are much more useful
than most for evaluating the actual hazards of the materials covered.
The typical MSDS is written for industrial purposes where large
amounts of a substance are being used or stored. They cover such
detail as fire hazards which simply do not apply to the small amounts
of material found in home darkrooms.
Note that there are some chemicals used in photography, especially
in alternative processes, which can be quite hazardous even in small
amounts and need especial care in handling in any amount. Even
something like Potassium dichromate falls into this catagory since it
is capable of causing very severe skin burns which heal very slowly
and is a carcinogen. It is not often encountered in ordinary
photography. Any substance containing Mercury should be avoided
entirely.
Click
lemonade
> Informing yourself takes homework. The best way to do this is to consult the
> material safety data sheets (MSDSs) on the Kodak web site. These are some of
> the best MSDSs I have read. They define the risks of using a particular
> chemical, both as a concentrate and as a dilution. And yes, Kodak has defined
> the risk of these chemicals to pregnant mothers. They have done extensive
> testing on lab animals, including pregnant lab animals. These tests are
> required by law. I say this not to get into the ethics of using lab animals,
> but to show that the risks are very well defined. If the risks of a particular
> chemical appear extreme, then by all means avoid that chemical.
With respect, I disagree with your contention that the risks to pregnant
women have been well defined. For example, to give concreteness to the
debate, I reproduce below the relevant parts of the MSDS from Kodak for
Dektol, a standard paper developer which I've used and consider low-hazard
personally. You'll note that after all the warnings for the general
population, the only mention they have pertaining to pregnant women is that
there are no materials in it known to cause reproductive defects. They do
not specify in any way how this conclusion was reached, i.e. whether it is
because no one has tested for those effects or whether there has been
extensive testing, and of what kind; nor do they account for any possible
synergistic effects (effects resulting from exposure to chemicals in
combination). Further, testing on pregnant lab animals is not at all
adequate to determine the potential hazard to pregnant women, especially
since, aside from basic genetic differences the human brain undergoes a
much more extensive development process in utero. Finally, the term
"reproductive defects" in this use is a technical legal term, which I
presume would at the present time cover only major noticeable birth
defects. The possibilities I raised earlier, such as a subtle IQ
impairment, would simply be beyond the scope of the investigations
envisaged. By this I mean, that if such effects were known, I presume they
might be included in this term, but if there were a standard battery of
tests to determine "reproductive defects", they certainly could not cover
this situation
The information in this MSDS, while useful, does not in any way constitute
a precise, well-grounded and thorough characterization of the risks
involved to pregnant women.
Extracts from Kodak MSDS on Dektol:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
Concentrate:
CONTAINS: Hydroquinone (000123-31-9); 4-(methylamino)phenol sulfate
(000055-55-0); Sodium carbonate, monohydrate (005968-11-6)
WARNING!
MAY CAUSE BLOOD DISORDERS BASED ON ANIMAL DATA
HARMFUL IF INHALED OR SWALLOWED
DUST IRRITATING TO THE EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT
REPEATED EXPOSURE TO DUST MAY CAUSE EYE INJURY
CAUSES SKIN AND EYE IRRITATION
MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTION
HMIS Hazard Ratings:
Health - * 2, Flammability - 0, Reactivity - 0, Personal Protection - F
NFPA Hazard Ratings:
Health - 2, Flammability - 0, Reactivity (Stability) - 0
Working solution:
CONTAINS: Hydroquinone (000123-31-9); 4-(methylamino)phenol sulfate
(000055-55-0)
WARNING!
CAUSES SKIN AND EYE IRRITATION
MAY CAUSE ALLERGIC SKIN REACTION
HMIS Hazard Ratings:
Health - 2, Flammability - 0, Reactivity - 0, Personal Protection - C
NFPA Hazard Ratings:
Health - 2, Flammability - 0, Reactivity (Stability) - 0
NOTE: HMIS and NFPA hazard indexes involve data review and interpretation that
may vary among companies. They are intended only for rapid, general
identification of the magnitude of the potential hazards. The personal
protection index is only intended for general guidance on personal protection
equipment (PPE) that is suitable for the potential hazards of the material.
PPE (e.g., respirators) may not be needed if engineering controls (e.g., local
ventilation) are adequate. An asterisk (*), in the HMIS health field,
designates potential chronic or target organ hazards. To adequately address
safe handling, ALL information in this MSDS must be considered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. HANDLING AND STORAGE
Personal Precautionary Measures:
Concentrate: Avoid breathing dust. Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and
clothing. Use with adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. The
routine use of a nonalkaline (acid) type of hand cleaner and regular
cleaning of working surfaces, gloves, etc. will help minimize the
possibility of a skin reaction.
Working solution: Avoid contact with eyes, skin, and clothing. Use with
adequate ventilation. Wash thoroughly after handling. The routine use of a
nonalkaline (acid) type of hand cleaner and regular cleaning of working
surfaces, gloves, etc. will help minimize the possibility of a skin
reaction.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS/PERSONAL PROTECTION
Exposure Limits:
[...]
Ventilation: Good general ventilation (typically 10 air changes per hour)
should be used. Ventilation rates should be matched to conditions.
Respiratory Protection:
Concentrate: If engineering controls do not maintain airborne concentrations
below recommended exposure limits, an approved respirator must be worn.
Respirator type: Dust. If respirators are used, a program should be
instituted to assure compliance with OSHA Standard 29 CFR 1910.134.
Working solution: None should be needed.
Eye Protection: Wear safety glasses with side shields (or goggles).
Skin Protection: Wear impervious gloves and protective clothing appropriate
for the risk of exposure.
Recommended Decontamination Facilities: Eye bath, washing facilities, safety
shower
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Effects of Exposure:
General:
Contains: 4-(methylamino)phenol sulfate. May cause blood disorders based
on animal data.
Inhalation:
Concentrate: Harmful if inhaled. Airborne dust irritating. May cause
irritation to the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract. In contact
with strong acids or if heated, sulfites may liberate sulfur dioxide gas.
Sulfur dioxide gas is irritating to the respiratory tract. Some asthmatics
or sulfite-sensitive individuals may experience wheezing or chest
tightness.
Working solution: Expected to be a low hazard for recommended handling.
Eyes:
Concentrate: Causes irritation. Airborne dust irritating. Repeated
exposure to dust may cause eye injury.
Working solution: Causes irritation.
Skin: Causes irritation. May cause allergic skin reaction.
Ingestion:
Concentrate: Harmful if swallowed. May cause irritation of the
gastrointestinal tract. Some asthmatics or sulfite-sensitive individuals
may experience wheezing, chest tightness, stomach upset, hives, faintness,
weakness and diarrhea.
Working solution: Expected to be a low ingestion hazard.
Acute Toxicity Data:
Data for Concentrate:
Oral LD-50 (rat): 0.5-5.0 g/kg
Skin irritation: moderate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Introduction: This environmental effects summary is written to assist in
addressing emergencies created by an accidental spill which might occur during
the shipment of this material, and, in general, it is not meant to address
discharges to sanitary sewers or publically owned treatment works.
Summary: Data for the major components of this material have been used to
estimate the environmental impact of this material. This material forms a
moderately alkaline aqueous solution, and this property may cause adverse
environmental effects. However, this material, itself, has not been tested for
environmental effects.
It is expected to have the following properties: a moderate biochemical oxygen
demand and may cause oxygen depletion in aqueous systems, a high potential to
affect some aquatic organisms, a high potential to affect secondary waste
treatment microbial metabolism, a moderate potential to affect the germination
and/or early growth of some plants, a low potential to bioconcentrate. After
dilution with a large amount of water, followed by secondary waste treatment,
this material is not expected to cause adverse environmental effects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. REGULATORY INFORMATION
- Material(s) known to the State of California to cause cancer: None
- Material(s) known to the State of California to cause adverse reproductive
effects: None
Carcinogenicity Classification (components present at 0.1% or more):
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): None
- American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH): None
- National Toxicology Program (NTP): None
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): None
- Chemical(s) subject to the reporting requirements of Section 313 or Title
III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 and
40 CFR Part 372: Hydroquinone
lemonade
say that my attention was drawn to the fact that, although Dektol contains
hydroquinone, the section on cancer read to the effect that, materials
known to the State of California to cause cancer: none. Well, perhaps, but
there is a lot more to the hydroquinone story than that. And surprise, upon
checking the MSDS on D-76, what did I find:
[...]
Contains : Hydroquinone. In F-344 rats, chronic oral administration of
hydroquinone has resulted in the formation of benign kidney tumors thought
to be secondary to nephropathy. Hydroquinone-induced nephropathy following
oral administration has been noted in the male F-344 rat, but not in other
species or rat strains tested. Although an increase in mononuclear cell
leukemia in F-344 female rats has been reported following chronic oral
administration of hydroquinone, this finding was not reproduced in a
subsequent study. There was no evidence of carcinogenicity in male mice
following chronic oral administration of hydroquinone; some evidence of
carcinogenic activity was shown in female mice by an increase in
hepatocellular neoplasms which were primarily benign adenomas, although
this finding was not reproduced in a subsequent study. No skin tumors were
reported in mice following long-term dermal application of hydroquinone.
Therefore, neoplastic responses have not been consistent across route of
exposure, species, or sex. Hydroquinone is generally negative in bacterial
mutagenicity tests; there is evidence for the clastogenicity (chromosome
breakage) of hydroquinone in vivo and in vitro. The relevance of the
chromosomal effects in test animals in predicting human risk is unclear.
[...]
15. REGULATORY INFORMATION
- Material(s) known to the State of California to cause cancer: None
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the section above on hydroquinone does not appear at all on the
Dektol MSDS, even though Dektol concentrate in fact contains 50% more
hydroquinone by weight than D-76. Thus, as to the contention that MSDS's
define precisely the risks involved, this proves, beyond the arguments I
advanced in a previous post, that that view is false: in fact the MSDS's
are not necessarily even consistent with each other.
Ultimately, this section on hydroquinone demonstrates rather well my
contention: the risks to pregnant women are not at all well characterized.
(If the tests above are not consistent across murine species and sex, how
can they be extrapolated to pregnant women?) They may be low or moderate
(presumably they are not exceptionally high, although even this hypothesis
is only supported anecdotally), but ultimately, they are unknown.
Richard J. Fateman
Acetic acid, as has been noted, is poured on salad and eaten, since
vinegar is 5% acetic acid.
Sulfur dioxide, one of the gasses released from fixer,
is used to preserve/bleach raisins.
Hydrogen Sulfide, released from some toners, is a nasty
(and in high doses, deadly) gas. You are not likely to breathe
this without knowing it, however.
Without knowing what else you do with your time, it is hard
to say what is riskier. For example, if you said "Since I
can't work in my darkroom, I think I'll have a beer and smoke
a few cigarets." or "I'll drive for 10 miles to the movies".
there would be something to compare to.
By and large, I think that taking medical advice from this
group is not a great idea.
And a pediatrician is a specialist for babies and children;
a specialist for pregnant women is an obstetrician.
--
Richard J. Fateman
fat...@cs.berkeley.edu http://http.cs.berkeley.edu/~fateman/
Jean-David Beyer
> Hydroquinone is an ingredient in skin-lightening cream.
> Acetic acid, as has been noted, is poured on salad and eaten, since
> vinegar is 5% acetic acid.
Right, and while glacial acetic acid is around 100% and 28% us around
28%, the working solution is only about 1.5% acid in water. Safer to
drink (before you put prints init) than vinegar.
> Sulfur dioxide, one of the gasses released from fixer,
> is used to preserve/bleach raisins.
Breathing that is no fun, and you will not do it for long.
> Hydrogen Sulfide, released from some toners, is a nasty
> (and in high doses, deadly) gas. You are not likely to breathe
> this without knowing it, however.
I would not bet on that. An inspector for the state DEP (or a related
agency) went to test an oil refinery for H2S and died from it before
completing the test. I assume he could smell it as well as you or I
(though I do not know this). He sure should have been alert for it
since that was what he was going to test. Did not help, though.
--
What is the difference between Windows and an Etch-a-Sketch?
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Jim Stewart
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
I've spent a little time in oil and geothermal fields so I know a little
about H2S. It is possible to stumble into a large concentration of the
gas and be overcome immediately. Alternately, legend has it that if you
are working around the gas and you can smell it then after a while you
can't, it's time to get out quick, as just before it becomes lethal it
painlessly burns out your smell receptors and you can no longer smell it.
Jim
Jgestar
the darkroom, many good recommendations have been made in this thread:
-- Consulting your doctor or obstetrician is probably the best one. Internet
advice and opinions are worth what you pay for them.
-- Wear gloves in the darkroom. Be aware that latex gloves can cause allergic
reactions in sensitized individuals.
-- Do not eat or drink in the darkroom. Chemicals could be transferred from
your hands to your food.
-- Work in a well ventilated darkroom.
-- Avoid breathing airborne powders by wearing a dust respirator or pouring
them from below water level. Better still, stick to liquid formulations.
In my opinion, darkroom workers should inform themselves and protect themselves
accordingly, pregnant or not. Please take this as a recommendation to work
prudently, carefully, and intelligently in the darkroom. I stick with my
assessment of MSDSs as the best way to inform yourself. MSDSs summarize the
toxicological data known at the time of publication. The toxicological data is
obtained by extensive testing with mammals (rats, mice, rabbits, and dogs).
These animals have the same organs and biochemical pathways as humans. If
anything, the tests may overestimate the toxicity by exposing the animals to
extreme dosages of the chemical and overwhelming the animals protective
metabolic pathways.
In my opinion, a prudent darkroom worker will evaluate the "risks" involved and
evaluate whether or not a less "risky" alternative exists. If and when they
decide to work with a chemical, a prudent worker should have almost no exposure
to the chemicals he or she is working with. A prudent worker does not eat,
drink, or taste the chemicals. A prudent worker does not bathe in the
chemicals or splash them on his or her skin. A prudent worker wears gloves and
long sleeves as protection against unexpected splashes. A prudent worker works
in a well ventilated darkroom and does not inhale airborne powders.
Obviously, other opinions do vary.
Tom Gould
(jge...@aol.com)
lemonade
(Jgestar) wrote:
> prudently, carefully, and intelligently in the darkroom. I stick with my
> assessment of MSDSs as the best way to inform yourself. MSDSs summarize the
> toxicological data known at the time of publication. The toxicological
data is
> obtained by extensive testing with mammals (rats, mice, rabbits, and dogs).
> These animals have the same organs and biochemical pathways as humans. If
> anything, the tests may overestimate the toxicity by exposing the animals to
> extreme dosages of the chemical and overwhelming the animals protective
Some quick definitions and elaborations on these points may be appropriate here:
Toxicity: potential to cause poisoning, i.e. the ruining of cells, organs
or tissues. This is indeed fairly well evaluated for human exposure by
testing on animals of various other species, for more or less the reasons
given above (the organs and pathways are similar, homologous, or otherwise
equivalent, not necessarily the same).
Mutagenicity: potential to cause changes in the DNA, or more generally, the
chromosome structure. An indicator of carcinogenicity, and a source of
damage in itself. Not necessarily well evaluated by testing across species,
but not terribly poorly so evaluated either.
Carcenogenicity: potential to cause cancer. Substantially less well
evaluated by testing across species, but what can you do?
Reproductive defect hazard: pototential to cause damage to presumably
either the fetus, or more generally, the reproductive organs. I believe
this usually refers to gross obvious defects, such as limb aberations,
Down's syndrome and the like. May or may not be well evaluated by testing
across species.
Miscellaneous neonatal or developmental impairments: things like an
eventual reduced IQ, lower birth weight, susceptibility to the development
of allergies, etc. Anything involving the brain would likely not be well
evaluated by testing across species, certainly not on rats and mice, since
our brains undergo much more extensive development in utero. The rest again
may or may not be well evaluated by testing across species; for example our
immune systems, while similar in many ways to those of a rat or a mouse,
are still quite different.
lemonade
<jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
> Right, and while glacial acetic acid is around 100% and 28% us around
> 28%, the working solution is only about 1.5% acid in water. Safer to
> drink (before you put prints init) than vinegar.
This post arrived on my server one week late. But let me ask the resident
experts: what about the indicator(s)? I know there must be only an
extremely tiny amount of it in solution, but which ones are they
(phenolphthalein?), and do they render the stop poisonous, or at least
harmful?
J-DB's post was in response to someone talking about how various chemicals,
such as hydroquinone, are used in e.g. cosmetics, and so we shouldn't get
so uptight about their possible harm during pregnancy. But one need not get
so exotic: recall that ethanol, as commonly and possibly healthily used in
beverages, is in fact very harmful to the fetus, as well as, eventually, to
the adult liver.
Michael Gudzinowicz
lemonade <le...@lime.org> writes:
>In article <3658898B...@exit109.com>, Jean-David Beyer
><jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>> Right, and while glacial acetic acid is around 100% and 28% us around
>> 28%, the working solution is only about 1.5% acid in water. Safer to
>> drink (before you put prints init) than vinegar.
>
>This post arrived on my server one week late. But let me ask the resident
>experts: what about the indicator(s)? I know there must be only an
>extremely tiny amount of it in solution, but which ones are they
>(phenolphthalein?), and do they render the stop poisonous, or at least
>harmful?
regarding its toxicity. However, it has been in use in industry for a long
time, and hazards seem to be minimal.
>J-DB's post was in response to someone talking about how various chemicals,
>such as hydroquinone, are used in e.g. cosmetics, and so we shouldn't get
>so uptight about their possible harm during pregnancy. But one need not get
>so exotic: recall that ethanol, as commonly and possibly healthily used in
>beverages, is in fact very harmful to the fetus, as well as, eventually, to
>the adult liver.
doses, is mutagenic and has an effect on the reproductive system. The
latter effects would suggest that it should be avoided in pregnancy. There
are "problems" in estimating whether there is a danger at darkroom
exposure levels, since the animal studies used exceedingly high doses for
a prolonged time.
A prudent person should minimize exposure to reactive chemicals during
pregnancy although the risk may seem non-exisitent. There are no
all-encompassing predictive tests for teratogenic compounds. If a compound
is positive in a test, it should be avoided, however, a negative result
does not ensure safety.
Presently there are a number of drugs on the market which are known to
cause birth defects/developmental abnormalities. Since manufacturers don't
have a perfect testing protocol, they advise against use during pregnancy.
Eventually, the warnings are ignored by consumers or doctors, and on
occassion, problems are reported to the manufacturer and/or the FDA in the
US. Unfortunately, only a very small percentage of adverse drug reactions
are reported, even when the reactions are acute and obviously linked to the
drug. Proving that incidental exposure to other "environmental" chemicals
might have developmental effects is very difficult in comparison, so the
data base is thin except for very potent compounds.
As you mentioned, ethanol causes fetal alcohol syndrome with facial
abnormality and other problems, and it varies in severity. It was noticed
because it was common and obvious. Rare and less obvious problems may
never be associated with their cause even if they are noted.