So far I haven't seen such a regulation proposed, nor can I imagine how it could be reasonably enforced.
graywolf wrote: > Ah, but the problem is that Mr Joe Littleguy is a lot easier to regulate than > Mr Big Industry Lobbiest. Now of course their are only about 0.1% as many > folks doing chemical based photography, but that never did stop the lawmakers > from doing their thing. In fact they like it because they are not going to > loose enough votes to hurt. > > Reason and logic have nothing to do with law. > > > Scott Loveless wrote: > >> Rebekah wrote: >> >>>> So, I guess the best thing is to talk to a local lab (mini or >>>> otherwise) and see if they'll take the used fix for proper disposal >>>> according to whatever the local law is. >>>> >>>> >>> Thanks, I'll see if anyone around here will take it :o) >>> >>> rg2 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> I think you guys are over-reacting. These photo chemicals that we buy >> at the local camera shop are formulated so that J. Random Photographer >> gets decent results with tap water. If a handful of photographers are >> developing a few rolls a week, they're not going to hurt a damn thing. >> We're not talking about a commercial lab. We're talking about one >> person dumping twenty ounces of chemical that contains a very tiny >> amount of silver down the drain. YOU DO MORE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT >> EVERY TIME YOU START YOUR CAR THAN YOU'LL DO IN A WEEK'S WORTH OF >> PROCESSING. >> >> Excuse me while I go pee in the river. >> >> > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
