Find Out Here, Whether Your Water Supply Is Chloraminated

[andywg]

This article contradicts your view.

That article merely reviews what the bottles claim to do on their labels. It does not discuss the science of the point.

Read any of the scientific articles on the actual chemical reactions. They show that any de-chlor with sodium thiosulphate will prevent the chlroine agent being harmful. Those that harp on about dealing with chloramines also have an agent to bond with the ammonia, which we have all spent time developing a colony of bacteria to do.

If anything, your great idea of providing people the information they need to make a choice is superfluous. So long as they use any dechor that at least contains sodium thiosulphate then the chloramines will not be an issue. It's that simple.

By putting this information up it makes it appear that many de-chlors will leave fish subjected to chloramines which just isn't the case.

I do not feel this is massively off topic at all. You were prefectly happy to say that this will be a very valuable tool, but now someone is questionning how valuable it is you are requesting they go and dredge up a 2 year old thread.

 

[Jules H-T]

OK then, assume that I concede that if you're using a Sodium Thiosulphate solution you are free from being concerned with this information.

Approach it from another angle please. What if someone's supply is not chloraminated? What does that tell them? There is an argument that they need not be treating at all, since Chlorine is so easily removed by aeration.

Assume for a moment that the reader subscribes to this idea. How do they know whether they can stop treating without exposing their fish to Chloramines without ringing up their water company? In this thread.

Whether there is justification for saying that chloramines do not harm your fish and therefore all treatments are irrelevant, is aside from the exercise here. If you want to start a massive thread about your own experiences of treating or not treating, or the science of the damage chloramines do to fish (I notice that you ignore my referring you to your own posted article detailing the damage it does do), then please do it elsewhere.

This thread is to provide information, that I believe is relevant to one's treatment regime. The absence of Chloramines is as important as their presence. I have used it to decide that treating my own (Bristol) water is a waste of time and money, but I didn't want to spoon feed anyone that or paint the picture that I was trying to persuade anyone that my choice was justified. I had hoped, in vain it seems, that people could either take or leave the information.

 

[Ferris]

Can you two agree to disagree before i lose the will to live.

 

[andywg]

OK then, assume that I concede that if you're using a Sodium Thiosulphate solution you are free from being concerned with this information.

Approach it from another angle please. What if someone's supply is not chloraminated? What does that tell them? There is an argument that they need not be treating at all, since Chlorine is so easily removed by aeration.

Assume for a moment that the reader subscribes to this idea. How do they know whether they can stop treating without exposing their fish to Chloramines without ringing up their water company? In this thread.

That they can, or they can view other material which indicates that not treating the water (for chlorine or chloramines) has no effect on the fish. Just pumping the water straight in the fish tank does little to no harm on mature tanks.

Whether there is justification for saying that chloramines do not harm your fish and therefore all treatments are irrelevant, is aside from the exercise here. If you want to start a massive thread about your own experiences of treating or not treating, or the science of the damage chloramines do to fish (I notice that you ignore my referring you to your own posted article detailing the damage it does do), then please do it elsewhere.

Why should I? The comments came in through perfectly acceptable discussion around comments made in this thread. And comments about the necessity of treating at all are given in a large number of threads, so do not think this is special "treatment" (geddit?).

This thread is to provide information, that I believe is relevant to one's treatment regime. The absence of Chloramines is as important as their presence. I have used it to decide that treating my own (Bristol) water is a waste of time and money, but I didn't want to spoon feed anyone that or paint the picture that I was trying to persuade anyone that my choice was justified. I had hoped, in vain it seems, that people could either take or leave the information.

Just because the usefulness has been debated, why does that make the likelihood of someone reading or not reading any different? This is the internet, people can take anything any of us write, or leave it. Just because some have a different point of view does not mean any exercise is instantly futile.

 

[Jules H-T]

Because it's off topic Andy. The thread is about finding out whether your area's supply is chloraminated or not, nothing more. It is about statement of fact.

If you want to argue about whether dechlorinator is even worth using then how about you start a thread entitled "is it worth using dechlorinator or not"?

If you're not interested in finding out whether your supply is choraminated or helping me document chloraminated supplies, then you have no business here!

Edit: Sorry Ferris, missed your request. Will only post in relation to the collection of data.

 

[andywg]

Because it's off topic Andy. The thread is about finding out whether your area's supply is chloraminated or not, nothing more. It is about statement of fact.

If you want to argue about whether dechlorinator is even worth using then how about you start a thread entitled "is it worth using dechlorinator or not"?

If you're not interested in finding out whether your supply is choraminated or helping me document chloraminated supplies, then you have no business here!

Edit: Sorry Ferris, missed your request. Will only post in relation to the collection of data.

Ah forgive me.

I must have missed the recent post by the Admin and Mods stating that no topics may deviate at all from the title of the thread. Perhaps we should also stop repetition and hesitiation, then we can invite Nicholas Parsons to be a moderator!

I shall leave you in peace to sulk that not everyone came in to pat you on the back for being able to email a couple of water companies.

 

[Ferris]

Edit: Sorry Ferris, missed your request. Will only post in relation to the collection of data.

I'm only joking, don't worry

 

[Jules H-T]

Because it's off topic Andy. The thread is about finding out whether your area's supply is chloraminated or not, nothing more.

I shall leave you in peace to sulk that not everyone came in to pat you on the back for being able to email a couple of water companies.

Either that, or tell me whether your supply is chloraminated or not, eh? Even if you don't think it matters, eh? Eh?!

If you can find out for me, then I've got a "pat on your back" with your name written all over it. Will give you something 'scientific' to do

 

[Tolak]

Since you went through all the trouble of researching various water companies, it would be wise for folks to contact them, and learn about any seasonal or weather related increases or decreases to any additives. Chat it up with the water company personell, you may learn a lot about your individual water supply.

Even though I’m not from the UK, this may apply to members who’s water supply comes from an open body of water. My source of origin is Lake Michigan, an open body of water that was in years past used as an open sewer, as the Chicago River used to flow into it. The river was, and still is the end point of many sewer lines; the lake was the water source. This was a big problem, so they reversed the flow of the river in 1900.

Any time there is foul weather, the lake gets churned up, and waste that had settled out gets mixed in. This means the water company adds more chlorine, chloramine, and stabilizing agents. For a few days after a storm I avoid water changes, you can smell the chlorine in the water, who knows what you can’t smell.

The same applies after a really heavy rain. In order to keep basements from flooding, they will open the locks on the river, letting 100+ years of waste wash into the lake. Everything from residential sewers to metal plating waste has, and in some places still does run into the river.

During mild weather, especially in the summer, none of this is a problem. I can and have gotten by without dechlor on adult fish, juvies do fine with a little sodium thiosulfate. The small amount of ammonia produced does no harm, and is easily dealt with by mature bio filtration. This is not the case in the winter, or after foul weather. A good water conditioner like Prime, which deals with chlorine, chloramine, ammonia and heavy metals, is needed.