I had such exposure for quite a few years, but I don't think it has any
relevance to prostate cancer.   Nothing we can do about it now..

Photo chemicals?  I see sunlight at least once a week...

(I might be a nerd rather than a geek)

I've been doing photography since the 60s when I was about 30.  Until
the middle 70s I did black and white when I started color, doing both
developing and printing.   I don't think the black/white chemicals are
particularly dangerous, but some of the color chemicals are.   The major
carcinogen in photographic chemistry is formaldehyde, which is used in
color chemicals.   For most of this time, I took precuations including
using gloves, having a good exhaust in my darkroom, and separating the
chemicals from the rest of the darkroom by an improvised "hood" with a
plastic curtain.  I had stopped doing a lot of processing by the late
80s, and I was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2000.  Today,  I still
develop black and white film in a closed tank and with good ventilation.
 I have my color film processed commercially.   I scan my negatives and
print digitally.

As you note, probably anecdotal information like this isn't of much use.
 Personally,  I think that cancers of the throat or lungs or possibly
system wide diseases like leukemia would be more likely to be caused by
exposure to such chemicals than prostate cancer would be.  I like to
point out when people talk about risk factors is that we can't easily
avoid the two most significant ones: being a man and getting old.  Since
one is six men in the US will be diagnosed with prostate cancer some
time in life,  it is not too mysterious why any one of us is in this club.

Best of luck!

<snip>

So, in the '50s, I worked as a maintenance fitter in a Uranium mine
and processing plant following the progress from the mined ore thru to
the yellow cake.

I've also eaten a lot of genetically modified food, including fruit
and vegetables that were aerial-sprayed with carcinogenic toxic
chemicals.

Toss a coin on it and it will land on it's edge.

"There are no facts, only interpretations"

-- Reader to complete...
-- Please reply to this ng as my email adress is fake:

-- Regards

-- CC

Not much in photo, maybe a little, but most of my time has been with
soldering electronics from my very early teens and still do at age 63.  
I know I've breathed in the smoke from soldering numerous times.  I've
worked in places where there is a lot of soldering.  Most of the
commercial places use fans to blow away the smoke and also use
ventilation.  Lead is bad too, but I'm not sure how much goes up in
smoke.  

dalej

I was a photographer for about 34 years and breathed and soaked in lots
of related chemicals. Cibachrome chemistry was plastered with skulls
and crossbones, but realistic provisions to avoid contact and breathing
it were not enough. Early C-41 color negative and E-3 and E-4 reversal
chemistry were almost as bad. Before the price of silver exploded in
the 1970s, black and white film and paper was loaded with it. And... as
others have noted... when you spend 8 to 12 hour days in the darkroom,
you don't get much sunlight, nor fresh air. Still, it was not as bad as
the days of Daguerreotypes which were processed with mercury vapor.

I have known many photographers who developed severe allergic reactions
to fixer (sodium thiosulphate), and either had to quit the business or
be fanatical about wearing rubber gloves. In the most extreme case, I
knew a guy who's lungs became so sensitized, he would start gasping
before we got close enough for me to even smell it.

Stavros said, "Nothing we can do about it now." Probably not for
ourselves, but if people hadn't reported those adverse reactions,
manufacturers would never have taken steps to reformulate.In England,
Illford switched from sodium thiosulphate to Phenedone, which tested
comparatively well for low health risk.

Despite the overwhelming trend to digital photography, there are still
hundreds of thousands of people in the world who are in contact with
photo chemicals, and there is validity to looking more deeply into a
possible cancer connection.

No known exposure for me.
Steve U

   Yes I did darkroom work 30 years ago, but for the last 20 I work with
lead daily which I think  is much worse.  Keep looking.....

Interesting question.  I worked in a black and white photo lab from 5/67 to
7/68.  I worked in two different facilities for the federal government  over
that time. They were old labs with no environmental controls except for the
A/C to keep the temperature constant for some of the automated machines.
The second lab I worked in had no automated processing, and the darkrooms
were small and crowded. There was a small exhaust fan in the print lab, and
the A/C was the second best in the entire building.   We would pour powdered
fixative into the five gallon mixing vat and then go on break as the air was
filled with the powder.  I did not work there that long, but one never knows
what effects chemicals have on individuals.

In 1999 I came across a similar request about how many of us had grown up on
farms. The question was posed because of the increase in agricultural
chemicals that came to be after World War II.  DDT, 2-4D, and host of other
chemicals came about in the 1950's.  It was the age of wonderful chemicals,
and they were considered as relatively safe to handle or ingest.  Yes, I did
grow up on a farm, and yes we did use various chemicals. I only worked on
the farm until I was 17, and then returned to the farm life for a short
spell in 1972 and 1973.  Amongst old farmers who worked their whole life on
the farm I don't think there is any higher rate of prostate cancer than any
other group.  I know and am related to many who farmed their whole lives,
and really cannot count that many with PCa.

None of this can prove anything unless you could interview a LARGE group and
get some hard data as to chemical exposure over a lifetime.  We are all
exposed to a large variety of chemicals, both natural and man made, every
day.  It will be very hard to isolate any that would cause most cancers
(some are obvious, such as tobacco, asbestos, creosote, etc.) .  The
prostate is not really exposed to the chemicals we ingest or are exposed to.
Unlike the lungs, liver, kidneys, bladder, skin, etc., the prostate is
rather isolated from most of the junk our bodies are exposed to.

Anyway, it is an interesting question and raised some interesting responses.

Dale P
Denver, CO

No, but I did work in gas stations and other mechanics' milleus from Age 13
to 20+ and used to blow out with an air hose the asbestos during brake jobs.
Is that close enough?

I'm happy to see you are cleared for RRP.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chemicals and pollutants detected in human umbilical cord blood

http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/execsumm.php

Body Burden - The Pollution in Newborns
A benchmark investigation of industrial chemicals, pollutants and
pesticides in umbilical cord blood

"In a study spearheaded by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in
collaboration with Commonweal, researchers at two major laboratories
found an average of 200 industrial chemicals and pollutants in
umbilical cord blood from 10 babies born in August and September of
2004 in U.S. hospitals. Tests revealed a total of 287 chemicals in the
group. The umbilical cord blood of these 10 children, collected by Red
Cross after the cord was cut, harbored pesticides, consumer product
ingredients, and wastes from burning coal, gasoline, and garbage."

Mercury (Hg) - tested for 1, found 1
Pollutant from coal-fired power plants, mercury-containing products,
and certain industrial processes. Accumulates in seafood. Harms brain
development and function.

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - tested for 18, found 9
Pollutants from burning gasoline and garbage. Linked to cancer.
Accumulates in food chain.

Polybrominated dibenzodioxins and furans (PBDD/F) - tested for 12,
found 7
Contaminants in brominated flame retardants. Pollutants and byproducts
from plastic production and incineration. Accumulate in food chain.
Toxic to developing endocrine (hormone) system

Perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) - tested for 12, found 9
Active ingredients or breakdown products of Teflon, Scotchgard, fabric
and carpet protectors, food wrap coatings. Global contaminants.
Accumulate in the environment and the food chain. Linked to cancer,
birth defects, and more.

Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (PBCD/F) - tested for 17,
found 11
Pollutants, by-products of PVC production, industrial bleaching, and
incineration. Cause cancer in humans. Persist for decades in the
environment. Very toxic to developing endocrine (hormone) system.

Organochlorine pesticides (OCs) - tested for 28, found 21
DDT, chlordane and other pesticides. Largely banned in the U.S. Persist
for decades in the environment. Accumulate up the food chain, to man.
Cause cancer and numerous reproductive effects.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) - tested for 46, found 32
Flame retardant in furniture foam, computers, and televisions.
Accumulates in the food chain and human tissues. Adversely affects
brain development and the thyroid.

Polychlorinated Naphthalenes (PCNs) - tested for 70, found 50
Wood preservatives, varnishes, machine lubricating oils, waste
incineration. Common PCB contaminant. Contaminate the food chain. Cause
liver and kidney damage.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) - tested for 209, found 147
Industrial insulators and lubricants. Banned in the U.S. in 1976.
Persist for decades in the environment. Accumulate up the food chain,
to man. Cause cancer and nervous system problems.

Source: Chemical analyses of 10 umbilical cord blood samples were
conducted by AXYS Analytical Services (Sydney, BC) and Flett Research
Ltd. (Winnipeg, MB).