• 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.

JenCliBee

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2009
Messages
533
Location
W.Midlands
Lisa_Perry75 said:
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?!


LOL, real personalities come out done they, point proven!!!!!, no reason at all for comment like that especially when it had absolutley nothink to do with you.



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 with sound science.
I for one could not make head nor tails of the second part of your statement either

it wasnt at all to disprove a point, and making a comeback comment is what i expected but to throw science at it yes fair enough, to word it as though your talking down to someone is a completely different story.

TBH, i still dont agree lol, low PH for certain fish is bad or am i wrong... i never actually said discus would die from low ph, i thought i actually said unless you ARE keeping discus or marine there would be no point in RO simply becasue it would drop PH to low. I never mentioned anythink about just AMAZONIAN fish?, and i thought and this comes from various long term fish keepers that LOW ph can have detremental effects on fishtank bactera?, again i guess i will have a scientifis reply back telling me otherwise.


Look forward to it ceg lol :p

jen
 

Joecoral

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2007
Messages
680
Location
Carmarthenshire
JenCliBee said:
Lisa_Perry75 said:
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?!

LOL, real personalities come out done they, point proven!!!!!, no reason at all for comment like that especially when it had absolutley nothink to do with you.

What Lisa said is worded no more harshly than this sharp retort:
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 :) :)

And like Clark said, that is just how Clive talks, it should not be interpreted as talking down to you.
It does however stand out from most other posts by other people and therefore serves its purpose perfectly
 

aaronnorth

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
3,941
Location
worksop, nottinghamshire
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


Jen, you will probably have the whole of UKAPS going against your comment here, and it is not because we are a bunch of bullies, but that is Clive's method of speech, he uses examples to help get his point across, (the Matrix pops up a lot :p ), he has taught a vast majority of people some very valuable information, and on speaking on behalf of UKAPS, i think i would be right in saying we all respect his writing methods, and ways of thinking.
sorry you feel that way,
Aaron.
 

JenCliBee

Member
Joined
30 Mar 2009
Messages
533
Location
W.Midlands
aaronnorth 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


Jen, you will probably have the whole of UKAPS going against your comment here, and it is not because we are a bunch of bullies, but that is Clive's method of speech, he uses examples to help get his point across, (the Matrix pops up a lot :p ), he has taught a vast majority of people some very valuable information, and on speaking on behalf of UKAPS, i think i would be right in saying we all respect his writing methods, and ways of thinking.
sorry you feel that way,
Aaron.


Ah well lol, if they go against the comments and gang up so be it, i wont lose any sleep over it tbh, im not the sort of person to just back down against any discussion untill actual facts are given to validate the so called argument. As far as i can make out from the comment he gave himself is thats his personal view... if you are going to make an argument back.... state facts of actual documentation to prove the comments made. He may well have them? but they arnt given which leads me to this is his own personal view and not come from a reliable source.


Again this isnt to be offencive to anybody, im not that sort of person... Ive gave my view and got a reply which seemed a little sarcastic towards how i write!!!. I am sorry if my puctuation and wording isnt upto scratch but i thought this was a plant forum not an english lesson?

anyways

jen
 

Mark Evans

Expert
Joined
13 Jun 2008
Messages
6,483
Location
newark notts.
Jen, i understand where your coming from, really i do....BUT i can say hand on heart Clive is the most reliable guy on this site. he has a way in writing things that may confuse from time to time, but i can assure you he's a diamond.

it's not like me to defend someone when there getting a kicking..... but for Clive i would.....he's aright jen, truly :D
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,243
Location
Chicago, USA
Guys, thanks for your support. 8) It's regrettable that a discussion descends into personal attacks. This always has the effect of lost productivity, is so unpleasant, and is such a time waster. I'm neither a politician nor a patron, so I have no intent to be either politically correct or to patronize. My only interest is to understand the truth. If JenCliBee feels that my responses to her arguments were made with humiliation in mind then I must apologize for that. This is never the intent. My intent is to provoke thought and to engage the brain because too many people are misguided without checking the facts for themselves. When an alternative idea is proposed, those who adhere strictly to preconceived notions feel threatened. That is a personal issue and needs to be eliminated in order to determine the truth. Personal issues aside, I stand firm on the data gathered from my own experiences and that of our colleagues.

For your information I have challenged the notion of so-called "hazardously low pH" by running a planted tank on pure RO+ EI+CO2+ inert but high CEC substrate. The tank ran for years with no problems. pH often ran into the low 4's and sometimes high 3's. I've never experienced a the dreaded and mythical "pH crash". The inmate population included discus, dwarf chichlids and tetras, all of which can be considered Amazonian, which make up the bulk of the fish sold in pet shops. I have not performed an analysis on fish originating from high KH/alkaline waters, so this is why I specifically use the word "Amazonian" - to distinguish New World tropicals from African species, for example.

My question to JenCliBee is have you actually tested the theories regarding low pH put forth by the individuals, or have you merely accepted their data as fact? The hobbyist at home can test just about any theory as long as it does not require access to specialized equipment. Go get some fish and put them in RO water without tap addition and see for yourself what the results are. The only prerequisite is that you have to be good at keeping fish so that you can determine whether a fish dies (or suffers injury) due to pH shock - or whether by blunder in basic husbandry.

The real disappointment is that no "pro dechlorinator" advocate has yet challenged the basic assumption of the OP. That's where the arguments really ought to have been directed. So I'll jump ship for the sake of balance:

Paging Dave Spencer; your claim is that adding dechlorinator has resulted in a net increase in shrimp mortality, yet are there not other shrimp keepers such as LondonDragon, Joecoral and George Farmer who use dechlorinator and don't suffer increased invert mortality? Is it possible that your reported mortality is a coincidence or false correlation? Just like fish, shrimp die of a myriad of reasons. Why blame dechlorinator? Were there other differences in technique or product addition that might explain the mortality figures? Where are all the invert anoraks? Can we please return to the argument at hand? We need to know the outcome...

Cheers,
 

Dave Spencer

Member
Thread starter
Joined
3 Jul 2007
Messages
1,387
Location
N. Wales
ceg4048 said:
Paging Dave Spencer; your claim is that adding dechlorinator has resulted in a net increase in shrimp mortality, yet are there not other shrimp keepers such as LondonDragon, Joecoral and George Farmer who use dechlorinator and don't suffer increased invert mortality? Is it possible that your reported mortality is a coincidence or false correlation? Just like fish, shrimp die of a myriad of reasons. Why blame dechlorinator? Were there other differences in technique or product addition that might explain the mortality figures? Where are all the invert anoraks? Can we please return to the argument at hand? We need to know the outcome...
Cheers,

You know me better than to speculate on unsubstantiated rubbish when this hobby is full of evidence to the contrary. :D All I did was state that I have ceased dechloronating, and with no apparent problems. As I said to Stu, I was losing shrimp long before I stopped dechloronating. I am pretty sure the mortality of my shrimp has nothing to with whether I do or don`t dechlorinate. Now if somebody could solve this for me....

Anyway, getting back on track, I have noticed one thing that is surprising. Nobody has mentioned the potential effect on the bacteria colony. If I was to post this thread on TFF, I reckon virtually all posts would be in relation to the filter colony.

Dave.
 

Stu Worrall

Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
7 Sep 2008
Messages
1,986
Location
Flintshire, North Wales
ceg4048 said:
....

Paging Dave Spencer; your claim is that adding dechlorinator has resulted in a net increase in shrimp mortality, yet are there not other shrimp keepers such as LondonDragon, Joecoral and George Farmer who use dechlorinator and don't suffer increased invert mortality? Is it possible that your reported mortality is a coincidence or false correlation? Just like fish, shrimp die of a myriad of reasons. Why blame dechlorinator? Were there other differences in technique or product addition that might explain the mortality figures? Where are all the invert anoraks? Can we please return to the argument at hand? We need to know the outcome...

Cheers,
Just to clarify it was me that mentioned about the shrimp in the quote below
stuworrall said:
just wondering dave but you know you said you found it hard to keep shrimp, do you think this could be related due to some copper buildup?
Dave hadnt said anything about the dechlorinator killing them, I just put out the statement above to get some conversation going about the subject as I dont have much knowledge on it. as dave has said he'd lost shrimp before he stopped with the dechlorination. I dont think I want to test it out in my tank as my shrimp population is currently recovering from a recent gas disaster :(
 

Fred Dulley

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2007
Messages
561
Location
Cardiff, Wales
Dave Spencer said:
I have noticed one thing that is surprising. Nobody has mentioned the potential effect on the bacteria colony. If I was to post this thread on TFF, I reckon virtually all posts would be in relation to the filter colony.
Dave.



Actually I did.


"I use Prime just in case. The way I look at it, we want to minimize the ammonia in our tanks, therefore I'll use Prime in order to preserve as many nitrfiying bacteria as I can so that they can help to keep the ammonia low. Of course the plants will be using some ammonia themselves but some help from bacteria doesn't hurt. I'd rather use it than regret not using it."


ceg4048 said:
Go get some fish and put them in RO water without tap addition and see for yourself what the results are. The only prerequisite is that you have to be good at keeping fish so that you can determine whether a fish dies (or suffers injury) due to pH shock - or whether by blunder in basic husbandry.

Hi, Clive. I presume you mean RO that has been treated with remineralising salts? Otherwise pure RO is surely detrimental to fishes health?


Btw, I'm loving thris thread. It's fascinating. Thanks.
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,243
Location
Chicago, USA
Fred Dulley said:
ceg4048 said:
Go get some fish and put them in RO water without tap addition and see for yourself what the results are. The only prerequisite is that you have to be good at keeping fish so that you can determine whether a fish dies (or suffers injury) due to pH shock - or whether by blunder in basic husbandry.

Hi, Clive. I presume you mean RO that has been treated with remineralising salts? Otherwise pure RO is surely detrimental to fishes health?
Hiya Fred,
Well, you know, I was doing the remineralization thing at the onset because I too was concerned about the "detrimental to fishes health" concept. The tank is large and I kept having to buy lots of mineralizer which annoyed me, so I kept reducing the amount I added every water change. After awhile I ran out of powder and never bothered to replace it. I didn't even use baking powder to adjust KH. The tank just kept humming along. Of course I was dosing massive quantities of dry powder nutrients which has a significant effect on TDS. This was the only parameter I paid attention to. After I was satisfied that the tank could handle 3X EI without problems, I just kept lowering the nutrient levels and the TDS until the Apistos bred. So carbonate alkalinity (KH) was virtually zero but TDS was near zero. It was under these conditions that pH, due to CO2 addition fell to very low values with no negative consequences. The fish bred repeatedly with ease. So as far as I was concerned the "RO detrimental to fishes health" scenario was demonstrated to be much less valid.

Now probably, if I would have done a water change using high KH water, the story might be different as the fishes adjustment to a sudden KH change is delicate.

stuworrall said:
Just to clarify it was me that mentioned about the shrimp in the quote below
stuworrall said:
just wondering dave but you know you said you found it hard to keep shrimp, do you think this could be related due to some copper buildup?
Dave hadnt said anything about the dechlorinator killing them, I just put out the statement above to get some conversation going about the subject as I dont have much knowledge on it. as dave has said he'd lost shrimp before he stopped with the dechlorination. I dont think I want to test it out in my tank as my shrimp population is currently recovering from a recent gas disaster :(
Oh, sorry mate, I'd misread that. Copper is another can of worms. I won't go there except to say please don't blame TPN or CSM+B!

Dave Spencer said:
You know me better than to speculate on unsubstantiated rubbish when this hobby is full of evidence to the contrary. :D
Rubbish is good mate. We like to play with rubbish. :lol:
Dave Spencer said:
Anyway, getting back on track, I have noticed one thing that is surprising. Nobody has mentioned the potential effect on the bacteria colony. If I was to post this thread on TFF, I reckon virtually all posts would be in relation to the filter colony.
This is also easy to test. Although we can't measure populations of bacterial colonies directly we can measure ammonia. This would have to be done in a mature unplanted tank. If untreated tap is used in a water change, one could simply measure the ammonia for the next few days. If the chlorinated water does significant damage to the bacterial colonies, then an ammonia spike should be noted. This can be further extended (in an unpopulated tank) by incremental addition of chlorine to determine the extent of the damage and to determine concentration levels which correlate to the damage.

Cheers,
 

chris1004

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2008
Messages
565
ceg4048 said:
Although we can't measure populations of bacterial colonies directly we can measure ammonia.
Cheers,

Hi Clive,

I thought that you champion test kits as useless pieces of trash!!!!!! :lol: :lol:

Only pulling your leg mate.





Iv'e read through this thread with some interest and agree entirely with the earlier points made with regard to duty of care of our pets. In my opinion everything we do MUST originate from this core otherwise we really shouldn't be keeping them. I really struggle with the notion of putting a cost on the wellbeing of ones pets, in this instance our fish.

An absolute bare minimum should be to remove chlorine, chloramines and heay metals with dechlorinator surely? After all the cost is minimal and it can save an awfull lot of long term damage being done to the fish.

Most of you are aware of my paranoia for water quality I'm sure (god knows I've banged on about it to much) and I imagine that people see my opinions and methods as extreme (100% reminaralised RO water 100% of the time) and that may be founded to some point but I can assure the doubters that I see their methods of using untreated tap water just as extreme and even a tad irresponsible. Indeed, part of me wonders how they feel about their fish if it all. Do they see the fish as just decoration that can be easily replaced?

Now the above is supposed to be a rhetorical question and shouldn't warrent the mutitude of brash replies that it doubtless will. I've already had the in depth arguments on this forum so we don't need to cover old ground (please). We all have our methods and opinions but the core role as fishkeepers is to care for their wellbeing and we should never loose sight of this aim. Fact is dechlorinator costs pennies in the scheme of things.
 

John Starkey

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2007
Messages
1,599
Location
worcester
Once again I wholeheartedly agree, we must care for the fish like we would any other pet,
Regards john
 

Dave Spencer

Member
Thread starter
Joined
3 Jul 2007
Messages
1,387
Location
N. Wales
I bet far more fish have been killed via CO2 than through not dechloronating. The only time any fish have died due to my stupidity is through gassing.

Very few of us are so overwhelmed with a duty of care that we would give up our pressurised CO2.

Dave.
 

chris1004

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2008
Messages
565
Hi Dave,

Good point, but co2 is absolutly necessary for our hi-tech planted tanks. Given the choice I'm sure we would all rather not have to bother with it. Ultimatly though i would hassen to guess that most co2 disasters are avoidable and a large % of those that do occur could with more care/observation/maitenance be avoided.

It is just a distraction from the main point of discussion though which is essentially water quality.


By dechlorinating we avoid Dichlorobromomethane poisioning from tapwater.

"The syptoms of exposure to this compound may include irritation of the skin, eyes, mucous membranes and respiratory tract. It may also cause narcosis. Other symptoms may include nausea, dizziness and headache. It may also cause liver and kidney damage. Central nervous system effects may also occur". (NTP, 1992)

The key points as far as us fishkeepers are concerned are the internal organ and central nervous system damage which can occur over time and will remain undetectable until the fish is belly up. At which point somthing else will probably be blamed for the fishes death, such is ignorance.

It is true that many more fish will be killed by other means such as gassing, overfeeding, poor tank husbandry, etc, (not in my tanks if I have anything to do with it though). That really is no excuse to ignore the damaging effects of long term exposure to heavy metals, chlorine and chloromine. Especially if as stated chlorine is an irritant to the mucas membrane and eyes, to expose a fish to a constant source of irritation is simply cruel. I know how much my eyes sting when I've been to my local swimming pool which is treated with chlorine.

As I previously said, dechlorinator in the scheme of things costs pennies, so why risk not using it?
 

GreenNeedle

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2007
Messages
2,727
Location
Lincoln UK
This isn't really a new argument. I was reading pretty much a rubbishing of the 'ph is too low' a long while back and I link the thread off APC below. This was from 2006 and Edward was talking of Ph 3.7 with no problems although like Ceg he was talking of Amazonian species (tetras.) I think Edward makes a lot of bold statements r.e. other things but on this one it is pretty much correct :) and has a few people I would respect agreeing.

http://www.aquaticplantcentral.com/foru ... crash.html

Like I said before £10 a year for pond dechlor is not a lot. I could get it cheaper by searching but I can't see the point in spending time to save myself a couple of £ a year (says mr cheap) :lol:.

No idea what my Ph is, nor KH nor GH. I used to test but I have moved a couple of times since I last did. I can smell the chlorine/chloramine in the water though.

I won't go into Ph/KH problems as science is not my strong point. Ignoring everything I am told until proven otherwise is my strong point which means that I ignore most theories/myths until I see that they are at least viable. It has long been known that Ph problems are in fact KH problems though as far as I can tell. It is however (AFAIK) much easier to test Ph than KH as in general the tests are more reliable (AFAIK) for PH. Therefore we are 'taught' about Ph crash rather than testing for KH which is much harder to get accuracy :)

Still My Ph is ????, My KH is ???? and my GH is ????.

My only concern with water is that it is free of Chlorine/Chloramine and that it is crystal clear. I would suggest mine may be challenging Dave and Saintlys for clarity. Mark can vouch for that when he next sees it.

Dave - I recently used Pimafake and Melafake to treat my sick corys. Cherry mortality rose from 0 to a decent percentage!!! Not kiling all of them but there were deaths ;) They are supposed to be natural (West Indian Bay Oil and Cajaput Oil) and not affect anything :) It could be the same problem as the Corys had that killed the shrimp so can't say for sure it was the oils as the 2 were of course side by side. However once the Corys were sorted out I continued the Melafake for a week and the deaths continued. For the 2 weeks after stopping the Melafake (where there was still a little froth being formed on the water surface) the deaths continued. 70% water change last week seems to have stopped the deaths.

Was just wondering if it may be something in anything you use that has done it?

AC
 

Dave Spencer

Member
Thread starter
Joined
3 Jul 2007
Messages
1,387
Location
N. Wales
This thread was never anything to do with cost either. Buying dechlorinator is the least of my expenses. It is also nothing to do with convenience.

To get to the heart of why I started this thread, all I can say is that I have no long term observations of whether or not dechlorinating harms my fish or bacteria colony in any way. Obviously, if you can cite reliable information that it does Chris, then I would go straighrt back to dechlorinating at water change.

Hopefully, enough evidence can be accumulated on this thread to say whether we should or shouldn`t dechlorinate our water, and not have us all doing it "just in case", or because we mistakenly believe we have to.

Dave.

EDIT: Andy, I have never added anything other than ferts to my tanks. I have healthy, active shrimp for around two months, then they die one after another. I have noticed they take on a pinkish tinge before dying. Maybe I should start another thread in the invert forum.
 

JamesC

Member
Joined
3 Jul 2007
Messages
1,273
Location
Bexley, Kent
Dave Spencer said:
To get to the heart of why I started this thread, all I can say is that I have no long term observations of whether or not dechlorinating harms my fish or bacteria colony in any way. Obviously, if you can cite reliable information that it does Chris, then I would go straighrt back to dechlorinating at water change.
Not dechloring probably doesn't harm fish long term but I'd guess that it does irritate their gills etc short term. As for filter bacteria try washing your filters out in fresh tap water and see how much of a hit they take. From my experience it is a big hit. I really can't see why for just a tiny cost people can't be bothered to dechlor.

As I mentioned earlier my friend thought I was stupid when I added dechlor to my tanks. He hadn't added it for many years and never had any problems until that one day when almost immediately after doing the water change the fish were gasping at the surface. Soon afterwards they started dying. He rushed out and brought some dechlor which when added helped with the gasping, but he still lost most of his fish. Does he dechlor now? You bet.

A lot may depend on your local water board but do you really want to risk the livelyhood of all your fish on whether the water board may one day add a large amount of disinfectant to clear up a problem that has occured? IMHO anyone who thinks they are being clever by not dechloring are just plain crazy

James
 

chris1004

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2008
Messages
565
Dave Spencer said:
Obviously, if you can cite reliable information that it does Chris, then I would go straighrt back to dechlorinating at water change.

I do understand where your coming from mate but all I can really offer you as evidense is every book I've ever read on fishkeeping, every LFS owner I've ever spoken to and a common sense argument for dechlorinating tapwater.

Neither Chlorine, Chloramine or heavy metals have any place within the confinements of an aquarium, all of which could harm your fish and/or filtration bacteria and are easy and cost little to remove. So instead of asking why use dechlorinator maybe the question should be why not? Of course an awfull lot depends upon the tapwate that you are blessed with of course.

I can't say to you its because of this long word or that chemical reaction because thats not who I am. I am a simple working class regular guy who reads the occational book and listens to other experienced and qualified aquarists. Personaly I think common sense should prevail in most things. I know your looking for scientific definitive answers, I haven't got them, sorry mate, perhaps Clive will help.



The best advise that I ever received years ago was to concentrate on looking after the quality of your water and the rest will fall into place.

Its certainly stood me in good stead.
 

ceg4048

Expert/Global Moderator
UKAPS Team
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Messages
9,243
Location
Chicago, USA
Hi James,
I don't think it's necessarily a matter of being clever, crazy or cheap. For me it's a matter of being pragmatic or efficient. Since I keep large tanks, maintenance is a major issue. If I only had a nano or a 10G, then cleaning filters in tank water and squirting a few drops of prime would be easy. But when you have to deal with a thousand liters worth of tank space then the effort required of every task performed, even a minor task, is magnified tremendously.

Filter cleaning with tap? I do it all the time. Just try cleaning an Eheim 2080. Fully loaded with media and water it weighs over 60 pounds. There are three huge main media trays and a few pads and an auxiliary tray. That is a lot to clean, so I cart the filter out to the lawn, wheelbarrow style (thank God it has wheels) dump the water out, pull out the trays and basically do a high pressure "car wash" with the garden hose. Imagine how inconvenient this is during the winter. I want to minimize the amount of energy and time spent doing this task - and I've got two of these things plus an FX5. I therefore prioritize energy expenditure on mechanical cleaning and I never worry about carefully preserving filter bacteria by hauling around (what feels like) a ton of ceramic to clean in tank water - and I see no negative effects. Now maybe you experience negative effects of filter cleaning with tap due possibly to Kent water being more heavily chlorinated than Southern Water, and/or maybe I have much more media per unit tank volume so that I can absorb more of a bacterial population hit than you can. Again, I would have to adjust my procedures based on the situation and on the effects. Since there are no discernible effects there is no point in changing the procedure.

I totally agree with your assessment that this methodology is quite risky. If a beginner asked my opinion on dechlorination then of course, I would unhesitatingly suggest it's use. But because we have more knowledge through our experiences we understand the consequences and we are capable of a much more accurate risk assessment than any beginner is capable of, which it seems to me is inherent in Dave's question.

Cheers,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top