• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
  • You can now follow UKAPS on Instagram.

Anybody Else Given up on Dechlorinating?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dave Spencer

Member
Thread starter
Joined
3 Jul 2007
Messages
1,389
Location
N. Wales
I haven`t been able to keep shrimp long before I stopped dechloronating. :(

Dave.
 

Stu Worrall

Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
7 Sep 2008
Messages
1,987
Location
Flintshire, North Wales
Dave Spencer said:
I haven`t been able to keep shrimp long before I stopped dechloronating. :(

Dave.
oh, maybe they just dont like you then mr spencer :lol:

my cherry population is getting back up to speed again after my "gassing" incident so should have some for you to try soon :)
 

Graeme Edwards

Founder
Joined
21 Jun 2007
Messages
1,161
Location
Wirral/Chester Cheshire.
I de-chlorinated, always have, always will. Even in a tank with no fish I dechlorinate. I feel I have a duty of care to my fish/live stock. No matter how small the risk, its still a risk and I dont know about you guys who dont doit, but im never happy loosing fish as a result of my own lack of care :!:

Heavy metals have been mentioned and also high copper levels. It may be different in a planted tank as plants use these heavy metals. But I have come to learn from Dian Walstad, that these heavy metals will bind to cell structures in organisms, once it has attached its self it can be dislodged by a different heavy metal, this dislodging causes break downs in the cell walls, and over time degradation of an organ, scales, mucus membranes, what ever...... This means we are potentially harming our fish.
That was put very basically and there are more scientific descriptions in the book, but you get where im going with it.

So, for that reason, im adding it.

Cheers. :)
 

John Starkey

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2007
Messages
1,601
Location
worcester
Here here Graeme,fish health is paramount,and its our duty as a fish lover/keeper to do our upmost to care for them,
regards john.
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,181
Location
Chicago, USA
Good grief guys let's not go completely over the top. As JamesC has pointed out, there is always a risk when using a municipal water supply. At any moment, say a bacteria outbreak, they can dump large amounts of prophylactic chemicals in the water without warning. So it's a logical preventative measure to add dechlorinator.

If one were truly dedicated then using RO water would be an absolute prerequisite to eliminate chlorine, heavy metals, bacteria, viruses and so forth. Will we all commit to that? No, probably not. Why? Because the equation of acceptable risk versus cost is satisfied in part by using dechlorinator, which certainly doesn't rid the tank of heavy metals. Water purity anoraks like Ed Seeley and Chris1004 take no prisoners, as the success of their breeding programs depend on pristine water quality, so they accept no substitutes.

One of my favourite hobbyists on the web is Don 'Z-Man' Zilliox who stated that he's routinely kept and bred sensitive fish such as A. cacatuoides in municipal waters. You can still find some of his articles on chichlid-forum.com.

The bottom line is that fish die of lots of things overfeeding (which tops the list), poor maintenance, sociological stress, thermal shock, viral or bacterial infections, predation, jumping, CO2 overdose. If we eliminated all of those causes, I suspect we'd find that the long term effects of municipal water quality is not really all that terrible. Does it exacerbate these other issues? Sure it does, but by how much? It's easy to bash municipal water but how many people actually have an autopsy done when a fish dies to determine cause of death? All we really have is reported correlation, no real data to demonstrate causality. Someone comes up with an idea, it seems plausible, and so it becomes accepted as fact. I mean, how do we explain Dave Spencer's reported correlation between dechlorinator addition and shrimp mortality? It may be totally unrelated. We simply haven't gathered sufficient data to determine the relationship.

Does anyone even know how long a given species is supposed to live in captivity? All we have are statistical averages. Apistos reportedly have a 2 year average life span, yet in my planted tanks, my apistos live as long or longer in untreated municipal water dosed with massive quantities of nitrate and phosphate salts (which are supposed to be soooo toxic to all life on earth) assuming that I avoid gassing them into oblivion of course.

Anyway, standard aquarium practice dictates that we add dechlorinator, and it's certainly a good idea, but the deletion of dechlorinator ought not be considered as some sort of sacrilege.

Cheers,
 

TDI-line

Member
Joined
11 Nov 2007
Messages
1,535
Location
Yaxley, Peterborough
George Farmer said:
UKAPS accepts no responsibility for any harm caused to fish for not dechlorinating.

But would or could UKAPS accept responsibility for any benefit in said caused to fish for not dechlorinating, eg. proven multiple spawning of fish. ;)


I do dechlorinate.
 

JenCliBee

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2009
Messages
533
Location
W.Midlands
If one were truly dedicated then using RO water would be an absolute prerequisite to eliminate chlorine, heavy metals, bacteria, viruses and so forth.


No really a fair argument, RO water by it self would drop your PH level to low for all or most fish, so adding tap water to balance would still have to be done still leading to the clorine, heavy metals etc etc.... so dechlorinating would still be nessersary. hence why for most that dont require soft water an RO unit would be pointless unless it is really required ie. marine and most commonly freshwater ...discus.


Making an arguement towards NOT having somethink that isnt really nessersary for the reasons above is as good as not making the argument at all :p


no offence ment :p just thought id stick my ore in lol
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,181
Location
Chicago, USA
JenCliBee said:
If one were truly dedicated then using RO water would be an absolute prerequisite to eliminate chlorine, heavy metals, bacteria, viruses and so forth.

No really a fair argument, RO water by it self would drop your PH level to low for all or most fish, so adding tap water to balance would still have to be done still leading to the clorine, heavy metals etc etc.... so dechlorinating would still be nessersary. hence why for most that dont require soft water an RO unit would be pointless unless it is really required ie. marine and most commonly freshwater ...discus.

no offence ment :p just thought id stick my ore in lol
Sorry, sounds plausible, but I'm not really buying any of this for the following reasons;
1. Is it one of the Ten Commandments carved in granite that Thou Shalt Only remineralize RO using tap water? Wither be thy GH booster or any commercial remineralizers? So this is not really a valid argument. :p
2. No Amazonian fish, (and certainly no discus) and no plant has ever died from a low pH. In fact, the lower the better. Low pH has zero detrimental effect. This is another dogmatic principle originated in The Matrix, that has clouded the judgement of many fishkeepers and plant keepers alike. KH is a different story, but again, GH booster solves that worry. Chlorine from municipal water supply never needs to enter the tank.

JenCliBee said:
Making an arguement towards NOT having somethink that isnt really nessersary for the reasons above is as good as not making the argument at all :p
Golly I have absolutely no idea what this means - and I kept thinking about this until my head spun (like that girl The Exorcist :wideyed: ). One always needs to argue, whether for having something or against. Examining all dimensions of an issue is fundamental to the scientific method. That was the only way mankind emerged from the cesspool of The Dark Ages and into the enlightened period of The Renaissance.

The idea here is not to issue forth dogmatic principles to add, or to not add. Each hobbyist needs to make that determination for himself/herself. The purpose is to understand the truth of an issue. To understand the risks/rewards. Only by understanding the truth can rational decisions - and therefore progress, be made. What about those hobbyists in countries where municipal water supply is not chlorinated? In this case dechlorination would be absurd but RO may still be a good idea due to possible increased levels of pathogens. Suppose someone has a plant only tank? Is dechlorination still worthwhile? Can it be possible that a dechlorinating agent, which is a chemical, can have a deleterious effect on some fauna - more so than the level of chlorine present in the municipal water supply? Isn't this a possibility? Wasn't that the point of the OP in the first place? All I'm saying is that we need to understand the environment, the issues, the risks and the options available so that we can make common sense decisions instead of making declarations about being the champions of fishdom merely because we have chosen a specific path or procedure.

Cheers,
 

JenCliBee

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2009
Messages
533
Location
W.Midlands
ceg4048 said:
JenCliBee said:
If one were truly dedicated then using RO water would be an absolute prerequisite to eliminate chlorine, heavy metals, bacteria, viruses and so forth.

No really a fair argument, RO water by it self would drop your PH level to low for all or most fish, so adding tap water to balance would still have to be done still leading to the clorine, heavy metals etc etc.... so dechlorinating would still be nessersary. hence why for most that dont require soft water an RO unit would be pointless unless it is really required ie. marine and most commonly freshwater ...discus.

no offence ment :p just thought id stick my ore in lol
Sorry, sounds plausible, but I'm not really buying any of this for the following reasons;
1. Is it one of the Ten Commandments carved in granite that Thou Shalt Only remineralize RO using tap water? Wither be thy GH booster or any commercial remineralizers? So this is not really a valid argument. :p
2. No Amazonian fish, (and certainly no discus) and no plant has ever died from a low pH. In fact, the lower the better. Low pH has zero detrimental effect. This is another dogmatic principle originated in The Matrix, that has clouded the judgement of many fishkeepers and plant keepers alike. KH is a different story, but again, GH booster solves that worry. Chlorine from municipal water supply never needs to enter the tank.

JenCliBee said:
Making an arguement towards NOT having somethink that isnt really nessersary for the reasons above is as good as not making the argument at all :p
Golly I have absolutely no idea what this means - and I kept thinking about this until my head spun (like that girl The Exorcist :wideyed: ). One always needs to argue, whether for having something or against. Examining all dimensions of an issue is fundamental to the scientific method. That was the only way mankind emerged from the cesspool of The Dark Ages and into the enlightened period of The Renaissance.

The idea here is not to issue forth dogmatic principles to add, or to not add. Each hobbyist needs to make that determination for himself/herself. The purpose is to understand the truth of an issue. To understand the risks/rewards. Only by understanding the truth can rational decisions - and therefore progress, be made. What about those hobbyists in countries where municipal water supply is not chlorinated? In this case dechlorination would be absurd but RO may still be a good idea due to possible increased levels of pathogens. Suppose someone has a plant only tank? Is dechlorination still worthwhile? Can it be possible that a dechlorinating agent, which is a chemical, can have a deleterious effect on some fauna - more so than the level of chlorine present in the municipal water supply? Isn't this a possibility? Wasn't that the point of the OP in the first place? All I'm saying is that we need to understand the environment, the issues, the risks and the options available so that we can make common sense decisions instead of making declarations about being the champions of fishdom merely because we have chosen a specific path or procedure.

Cheers,


Ahhh right, i can see your one of these people that has to try make someone look stupid infront of a whole forum to make your self feel better, one on every forum lol congrats :) :)
 

Lisa_Perry75

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2007
Messages
778
Location
Southampton
Yeah sorry I've just re-read - I'll shut up... :oops:

PS Clive always uses scientific knowledge in all his points, if that makes you feel stupid thats kind of your problem isn't it? If I don't understand something I'll go look it up, and I end up learning more in the process. Whats wrong with that?!
 

Joecoral

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2007
Messages
686
Location
Carmarthenshire
JenCliBee said:
Ahhh right, i can see your one of these people that has to try make someone look stupid infront of a whole forum to make your self feel better, one on every forum lol congrats :) :)

I don't think that's Clive intention at all Jen. You attempted to disprove a point he made by using your own reasoning, and he replied using sound science.
I for one could not make head nor tails of the second part of your statement either
 

Superman

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Messages
1,804
Location
Cheltenham
JenCliBee said:
Ahhh right, i can see your one of these people that has to try make someone look stupid infront of a whole forum to make your self feel better, one on every forum lol congrats :) :)
I think your being unfair to him here, his method of delivering his comments makes people stop, look and listen. I'm sure he's not trying to make you feel stupid but trying to pass on his knowledge. It's up to you if you take it or not.
I've learnt loads of facts from him and without his delivery, I don't think I would of taken as much notice TBH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top