PWC and Prime

[mfdrookie516]

Actual Video Showing Man Poisoning $5,000 Worth of Corals and Fish | reef tools


the effects of chlorine on fish.....

I dont see how this is even a logical reply... we're talking small levels of chlorine, that may or may not be detoxified by prime instantly... we're not talking about handfuls of powdered chlorine being tossed in to the tank... even then, there's no prime being added to the tanks prior to this chlorine being tossed in, so that brings absolutley no relavence to this thread. I guess we can all take away from this that putting handfuls of dry chlorine in your tank is not a good idea, but I'd be willing to be 99% of us already knew that.

 

[mr_X]

Unsubstantiated.

I don't disagree that it's possible, despite the overwhelming evidence, but this kind of comment needs to put it its proper place.

Like it's been said already (by me) in this thread, the burden of proof is not on those of us who use pythons as tens of thousands(likely hundreds of thousands) of fish live in tanks where pythons are used and they thrive. The burden of proof is on those who, with no evidence to date, suggest it is somehow torture.

i said that adding chlorine to a tank with livestock in it is putting them through unnecessary stress. you(someone) said that it's unsubstantiated. according to dictionary.com, unsubstantiated means "unproved or unverified". i just proved that it kills them.

 

[roundar]

i said that adding chlorine to a tank with livestock in it is putting them through unnecessary stress. you(someone) said that it's unsubstantiated. according to dictionary.com, unsubstantiated means "unproved or unverified". i just proved that it kills them.

Yeah, pouring huge amounts of oxyclean or similar powdered bleach product is obviously the exact same thing as pouring tap water into a tank. Basically your argument is that if a HUGE amount of anything can kill a fish, they should not be exposed to even trace amounts. Any rational person can see this is ridiculous. Your post is a clear sign that the anti-python argument is grasping at straws.

(EDIT: See my sig. based on your post, it sounds like you'd be interested to know that large amounts of dihydrogen monoxide can KILL a person. Better rid your home of even trace amounts.)

 

[mr_X]

we can go on and on. smoking one cigarette a day can kill you.

 

[hippy guy]

No it can't mr x. Give it a rest man, if you have to argue, start your own thread, but your being difficult for the aafe of being difficult

 

[Crick127]

we can go on and on. smoking one cigarette a day can kill you.

The Chlorine example you gave is not the same thing. Exposing the fish to a small amount of chlorine is by no means the same thing as dumping chlorine powder into the tank. That would be like saying eating steak is bad for you. If you eat red meat for lunch and dinner every day you will probably end up with health problems later in life. If you eat a red meat every now and then there will be no adverse effects.

 

[Crick127]

Heck for that matter we drink chlorine in our water every day. See what happens if you intake a large amount of chlorine.

 

[Sergie]

Smoking has been proven to cause a shorter life. I dont think he's being difficult, just trying to prove a point. Smoking one day can't kill you. But smoking one everyday will shorten your life. We know that keepers have had success with tap and then prime with no losses. But whose to say that it is not shortening their life?

 

[jeffp]

Smoking has been proven to cause a shorter life. I dont think he's being difficult, just trying to prove a point. Smoking one day can't kill you. But smoking one everyday will shorten your life. We know that keepers have had success with tap and then prime with no losses. But whose to say that it is not shortening their life?

which is why the burden of proof is on him. we can't prove that the repeated possible short term exposure DOESN'T harm the fish, you can't prove that something doesn't happen. but he should be able to prove that it DOES harm the fish.

 

[Crick127]

Smoking has been proven to cause a shorter life. I dont think he's being difficult, just trying to prove a point. Smoking one day can't kill you. But smoking one everyday will shorten your life. We know that keepers have had success with tap and then prime with no losses. But whose to say that it is not shortening their life?

Actually, people have been using de-chlorinzers (many brands not just prime) for many years now. I had my first fish tank 12 years ago and a that was one of the first items given to me at the LFS. Whether using a python etc which is a newer method or using a bucket with fresh water (maybe the chlorine issue would not apply, but all the other issues mentioned of letting it sit, ph etc) it is safe to say this has been done for a very long time and there are documented accounts of individuals whose fish have lived a very long time.

 

[Sergie]

I understand that people have had success in their eyes and have kept fish alive for a very long time, but unless you do a scientific expirement, no one will know for sure how long they couldve lived if they were using non tap water. I'm not trying to argue, I can see why both sides can be passionate, but unless someone has done a side by side comparrison from birth, one fish in conditioned tap, one in RO, and have studied breathing during water changes, appetite, color, the ability to fend off diseases...ect, no one has a strong arguement that chlorine in small amounts has some or no effect on a fish. I'm a saltie, but I figured I'd put my two cents in.

 

[Crick127]

I understand that people have had success in their eyes and have kept fish alive for a very long time, but unless you do a scientific expirement, no one will know for sure how long they couldve lived if they were using non tap water. I'm not trying to argue, I can see why both sides can be passionate, but unless someone has done a side by side comparrison from birth, one fish in conditioned tap, one in RO, and have studied breathing during water changes, appetite, color, the ability to fend off diseases...ect, no one has a strong arguement that chlorine in small amounts has some or no effect on a fish. I'm a saltie, but I figured I'd put my two cents in.

No scienti6fic experiment is needed. A little research on google can tell you the average lifespan of a specific fish in the wild. For examples sake, if a Cichlid in the wild has an average life span of 5 years but yours are dying after one year something is wrong. Buy many people have cared for fish for similar long periods of time. I personally have no problem with either method. A couple of years from now a new method will probably come up! It kind of hits you the wrong way when someone implies that you are torturing you fish which is probably the term every one flipped out about. Most of us love our little fishes!

 

[Sergie]

Yeah I hear ya. Fishkeeping changes fast

 

[jetajockey]

That's exactly what it was, terminology. Making claims that using a python for tap to tank refill is torturing or poisoning the fish is a huge statement.

Mostly because it implies that the tons of people who do it are hurting their fish either willingly or in ignorance.

From what I understand about dechlorinators is that they work instantly, so either they do or they don't.

Assuming that they do work as reducing agents, i.e. on contact and immediately, then the chlorine/chlorine poisoning long term argument has no validity at all, because chlorine (and it's effects) are instantly nullified as water is added to the tank.

We see that this is true based on the fact that many people use this method without any consequence, so the burden of proof is on the person making the claim otherwise.

Anyhow, a more valid argument against tap-to-tank direct filling would be exposing fish to high levels of Co2/low O2 water that is commonly the case with tap water. But even that argument would need some actual substance to it, it sounds like a plausible theory but still needs some kind of data/testing to show just how big of a problem it is.

 

[Deep Seven]

For a true experiment you'd probably want to compare 100 fish vs 100 fish. Comparing one fish you might just be looking at differences in the individual animals instead of the effects of the water changes.

Also, the life expectancy of animals in the wild can be subjective. Some animals do better in captivity then the wild. For all the information we have about the natural world, we don't even know all the animals that exist, much less their real life expectancy in the wild. For the most part they try and find the oldest animals and base their findings off that.

With enough money and predjudice, you can "prove" almost anything.

 

[Flossie]

To each their own. Congratulations to dollabill for living in a place where he has access to clean water that doesn't require the use of chemical additives. It sounds lovely, but there are folks out there who would be appalled at his use of "PBA leeching plastic trashcans" used to contain a water source. Are they right? Who knows. But his method works well for him.
Jeta has successfully raised and cared for countless fish using what seems to be a rather successful (for him) method to obtain his water sources. Obviously, some people are appalled by his use of chemically de-chlorinated municipal water. Is he right? Who knows. But.. Well you get my point. Dollabill's use of a natural water source may be far worse for the fish owner who has the misfortune to live downstream from a power plant. And jeta's use of tap water may not be a good choice for the next person. That's the great part of the hobby. We all get to see what works best for us and then have great success using our own methods.
My main problem is the use of terminology like "torture" and "praying for your fish". Lets all remember, unless we have shunned the use of gasoline powered engines, eliminated our energy usage and our phosphate laden detergents and soaps, and begun recycling 100% of our disposable goods.... We are all contributing to the torture of fish and the degradation of their natural habitats. These folks are attempting to create safe and healthy environments for their fish. And there is always more than one way to do that.

That was amazing.... lol