Less Silver Pollution Thanks to Digital Photography
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 12.13.05
We had thought about the potential environmental benefits of digital photography a few times in the past, but had forgotten the idea until recently when a few news items about it passed through the wire. Two articles in particular - Swedish Capital Sees Less Silver Pollution Thanks to Digital Photos and Digital Photography Reduces Pollution - report the claim of experts that digital photography has helped reduce silver pollution in the water of Sweden's capital. "Tests have shown that silver levels have dropped by more than half in five years in the waters of the Stockholm archipelago." More digital photography means that there is less developing of conventional silver-halide film, and nowadays at least 90% of all cameras sold in Sweden are digital. "Helena Parkman of the Swedish Environmental Board said silver ions can be more toxic to water organisms than mercury. Silver in its metallic form is far less toxic." So all you digital photographers out there, know that you may have helped to fight silver pollution without even being aware of it. ::Associated Press via ENN, ::SR International
not just silver-- (which is the one thing they *did* recycle)you wann areally be grateful? Here's but one quote from the IJC about Lake Ontario:
"We continue to witness in our communities the tragic consequences of industrial poisons -- deformed wildlife, reproductive failures, hormone disruption, weakened immune systems, birth defected babies. and exceedingly high rates of cancer. They are undoubtedly a direct result of the chemical barrage. In the community of Rochester New York, within a five mile radius of Kodak, the state's largest polluter, over 40 children have been diagnosed with central nervous system cancer. This is cancer of the brain and/or the spinal column"
thank heavens we now have digital medias (sure the act still has to be cleaned up there as well, but a huge step!)
The making of computer chips (including CCDs, etc) is also quite polluting.
Digital cameras generate the same kind of pollution as any other plastic and computer based product.
"The making of computer chips (including CCDs, etc) is also quite polluting."
Certainly, and that is an area where progress should be made and can be made, but consider how many films people will develop in a camera's life (they may keep it twenty years, whatever). That's quite a lot.
I just got into a discussion with an in-law about this. She's concerned about eco issues, but she was convinced that digital pics weren't as good as film, and harder to get prints.
I had to explain to her that in many cases you can get your digital prints faster than film prints, and that instamatic 35mm cameras produce poor quality pics, and better digitals can now outdo them. Plus, with digitals, you can see if that photo you just took was blurred or not.
Having proof of the impact of developing may just be the final straw that produces another digital convert.
The switch to digital should have also reduced paper usage, and at least on one front, it reduces wasted prints of unwanted photos. I'm not sure how much silver polution comes from disposed prints, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were significant.
Sadly, many (ignorant) people dose themselves with quack medicine in the form of "colloidal silver", which causes heavy metal poisoning and argyria. It's very unfortunate, but all the natural health and organic food stores in Berkeley stock and sell colloidal silver. All the studies that I've come across testing colloidal silver suggest that it is worse than useless; at super low concentrations, it bio-accumulates, but does nothing until it reaches dangerous levels. At higher concentrations, it kills bacteria, but only because it is so toxic.
Interesting poing, MGR, about the lifetime pollution of a product. But, in defence of Addled_B, how long do you think a digital camera will last? Even if it doesn't break (like mine did after 2 years,) soon they will make them with better resolution, or better optics, or both.
And a dilligent treehugger will say, "well, I'll just resist the urge because what I have will be good enough." But then OEMs will put out cameras that have better batteries, or some other 'green' feature.
Funny, I was involved in a debate about this the other day.
The environmental impact of photography is an interesting one. Don't just figure on the costs (in all terms) of the upgrade cycle of the digital cameras. What about the hardware that many photographers use to do their post-processing? Computer equipment is a major source of bother, both at manufacture and disposal.
As far as developing goes, most places will reclaim the silver from their used fix anyway - there's a lot of money to be scrabbled back that way.
Chatting about Kodak is a separate issue - one of industrial pollution that besets every industry (most paricularly the electronics industry), and that has nothing to do with the end use, development, whatever.
As for this:
> and that instamatic 35mm cameras produce poor quality pics, and better digitals can now outdo them.
Well, let me just say, heh. Because this is not the palce for the old film v. digital debate. But it is good practice to compare like for like. Pro gear with pro gear, for example, as opposed to "instamatic" to "better digitals". Digital P&S doesn't come close.