# Anybody Else Given up on Dechlorinating?



## Dave Spencer (10 Jun 2009)

After several occassions where I have forgot to dechlorinate during a water change, and then running out of the stuff without the time to buy some more in, I decided to stop.

Neither during the times I forgot, nor since stopping dechlorinating totally, have I noticed any problems.

So, are there many others of you out there that don`t bother dechlorinating at water change time?

Dave.


----------



## Garuf (10 Jun 2009)

Haven't used the stuff for about 2 years, never had a single problem.


----------



## ceg4048 (10 Jun 2009)

Me neither, not with Southern Water - but I haven't kept any uber-expensive, uber-sensitive fish. No casualties and no impact on filter bacteria in 3 years.  

Cheers,


----------



## johnny70 (10 Jun 2009)

how big a water change are you guys doing? if I'm only doing 10% or so I don't bother with it. But larger ones I always do.


----------



## chump54 (10 Jun 2009)

i use it, mainly because my water smells of chlorine and I have lost the odd fish after a 50% water changes when I've run out.


----------



## Dan Crawford (10 Jun 2009)

I don't use it mate, i gave up all that when i spawned discus in cold water (that hadn't been de-chlorinated  )


----------



## LondonDragon (10 Jun 2009)

I haven't used the stuff in the last 4 years, never had any problems!!


----------



## GreenNeedle (10 Jun 2009)

I can smell it when I run the tap but I use pond dechlor which lasts for yonks anyway 

Approx 10ml per week for 60 or so litres so a Â£10 500ml bottle lasts 50 weeks. near enough a year 

AC


----------



## George Farmer (10 Jun 2009)

I still use it most of the time, as a precautionary measure, but realise many may be fine without it...

UKAPS accepts no responsibility for any harm caused to fish for not dechlorinating.


----------



## AdAndrews (10 Jun 2009)

i am always careful with dechlorinating the water, i use too much of the stuff just to make sure, dunno why though after reading this.


----------



## JamesC (10 Jun 2009)

I have no need for it as I use RO water but I have a friend who didn't dechlor for years and then one day he lost nearly all his fish after a water change, most likely due to higher than normal chloramine levels. Rushed out and brought some dechlor and all was well afterwards.

Somebody else I know of used to tricke feed his koi pond with tap water until one day he came home to dead fish. Can't remember the exact details of what happened but it was something that the water board got wrong.

You may get away with it for ever but it only takes one little error. The choice is yours.
James


----------



## zig (10 Jun 2009)

I used to use it all the time and then I stopped for a year or so, I would let the water sit instead if possible but not always, but then recently I had some fish deaths after water changes (I very very rarely have fish deaths usually fish jumping out of the tank or something silly like that) so I am back using it now for good. I use Seachem prime, very economical. Better safe than sorry, you could have a wipeout one day.


----------



## Stu Worrall (10 Jun 2009)

i dont for top ups but do for 50% water changes.  I wouldnt want to risk the wter board having a problem and boosting the chlorine in the water to compensate. For instance after the recent Alwen incident welsh water boosted the chlorine output to ensure no bugs were in the supply and lots of people noticed the difference in taste. Im not sure if this would have any possible effect on my fish/shrimps so for now I keep on dosing.

Dave, you wouldnt have been affected by this as you mainly get Dee water


----------



## John Starkey (10 Jun 2009)

Hi all,I use seachem prime on every water change because of the amount (50g) I remove /replace,5mls per 50g straight in the tank,never lost any fish yet ,
Regards john


----------



## aaronnorth (10 Jun 2009)

i use it when i remember, if i run out i dont panic about it though,
I used to use POND Doctor which for Â£6 500ml treated 11,250litres, but i recently changed over to seachem prime, which costs Â£10 500ml, but treats 20,000litres  

Prime is about the only decently priced dechlorinator out there, especially for seachem too!
thanks.


----------



## Joecoral (10 Jun 2009)

I also use prime for every water change


----------



## JenCliBee (10 Jun 2009)

It's usually long term effects it has on fish.. ie not just clorine etc etc but heavy metal removal, pond dechlol would be best value... but getting from a wholesaler it works out even cheaper lol .

leaving water to stand for 24 hrs gases off clorine etc but still wont remove any heavy metals that may be present 


interesting really that many people dont use it, comment above about spawning discus in untreted water is easily done, usually the chemicals in tap water(unless some change has made the water board add more) doesnt usually kill fish straight off but long periods of time subjected to these chemicals of course will have an effect longterm... and may well shorten a fishes life a tad.


----------



## Fred Dulley (10 Jun 2009)

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.


----------



## a1Matt (10 Jun 2009)

JenCliBee said:
			
		

> leaving water to stand for 24 hrs gases off clorine etc but still wont remove any heavy metals that may be present



As well as the heavy metals, I have heard that if your water board uses chloramine instead of chlorine this can not be gassed off.

I could smell the chlorine in my water for 2 days last week when I was drinking it (which is unusual) so I am not risking it!


----------



## Dave Spencer (10 Jun 2009)

a1Matt said:
			
		

> I could smell the chlorine in my water for 2 days last week when I was drinking it (which is unusual) so I am not risking it!



I can smell it too on rare occassions, so I would consider dechloronating then. Other than that, I don`t think I am going to bother any more. I was always forgetting to do it anyway.

Dave.


----------



## Stu Worrall (10 Jun 2009)

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 Spencer (10 Jun 2009)

I haven`t been able to keep shrimp long before I stopped dechloronating.  

Dave.


----------



## Stu Worrall (10 Jun 2009)

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   

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 (10 Jun 2009)

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 (10 Jun 2009)

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 (11 Jun 2009)

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 (11 Jun 2009)

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 (11 Jun 2009)

> 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 


no offence ment  just thought id stick my ore in lol


----------



## John Starkey (11 Jun 2009)

GOOOOOO Girl,  well said jen,
regards john.


----------



## ceg4048 (12 Jun 2009)

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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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.  
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


Golly I have absolutely no idea what this means - and I kept thinking about this until my head spun (like that girl The Exorcist  ). 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,


----------



## Joecoral (12 Jun 2009)

BAM! Clive just dropped a knowledge bomb! booya


----------



## Superman (12 Jun 2009)

If only Clive's brain could be hooked upto the internet for us to google.
No offense to anyone else, but I love reading Clive's posts.
Could we have a "View Clive's Posts" in the menu bar?


----------



## Joecoral (12 Jun 2009)

Superman said:
			
		

> No offense to anyone else, but I love reading Clive's posts.
> Could we have a "View Clive's Posts" in the menu bar?



I second this notion!


----------



## aaronnorth (12 Jun 2009)

I too, could not make heads or tails of your comment Jen! no offense  
thanks


----------



## Lisa_Perry75 (12 Jun 2009)

Why does dechlorination add copper? I don't understand this, sorry.


----------



## aaronnorth (12 Jun 2009)

Lisa_Perry75 said:
			
		

> Why does dechlorination add copper? I don't understand this, sorry.



I cant find any post which says copper is added with dechlornation?
Some have said copper levels build up if you dont dechlorinate, but plants use copper anyway.
thanks.


----------



## JenCliBee (12 Jun 2009)

ceg4048 said:
			
		

> 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


----------



## Lisa_Perry75 (12 Jun 2009)

Yeah sorry I've just re-read - I'll shut up...  

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 (12 Jun 2009)

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 (12 Jun 2009)

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.


----------



## JenCliBee (12 Jun 2009)

Lisa_Perry75 said:
			
		

> Yeah sorry I've just re-read - I'll shut up...
> 
> 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 

jen


----------



## Joecoral (12 Jun 2009)

JenCliBee said:
			
		

> Lisa_Perry75 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (12 Jun 2009)

> 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  ), 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 (12 Jun 2009)

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
> 
> 
> 
> ...




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 (12 Jun 2009)

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


----------



## ceg4048 (12 Jun 2009)

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 (12 Jun 2009)

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.   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 (12 Jun 2009)

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 (12 Jun 2009)

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 (12 Jun 2009)

Fred Dulley said:
			
		

> ceg4048 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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.


Rubbish is good mate. We like to play with rubbish.   


			
				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 (13 Jun 2009)

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!!!!!!   

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 (13 Jun 2009)

Once again I wholeheartedly agree, we must care for the fish like we would any other pet,
Regards john


----------



## Dave Spencer (13 Jun 2009)

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 (13 Jun 2009)

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 (13 Jun 2009)

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 Â£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 Â£ a year (says mr cheap) .

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 (13 Jun 2009)

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.


----------



## Fred Dulley (13 Jun 2009)

Thanks, Clive. Very interesting


----------



## JamesC (13 Jun 2009)

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 (13 Jun 2009)

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 (13 Jun 2009)

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,


----------



## chris1004 (13 Jun 2009)

Clive, do you clean all three of these large filters at the same time?


----------



## ceg4048 (14 Jun 2009)

Hi Chris,
           It depended on my mood, to tell the truth. If I was annoyed/cold or if the Pinot Grigio in the fridge had chilled sufficiently I would abandon the effort midway through. If it was a nice day outside I would clean them all. Mostly I settled on an alternating strategy, something like #1 & #2 this week and  #2 &#3 in three weeks. Mate, you have no idea what Major Drag Supreme that is.  I won't even go into how to maintain water temperature during wintertime changes, or cleaning of tubing/diffusers. Tiptoe through the tulips with media trays? Forget about it :!:  Although, perhaps the filter that was not cleaned that week would act as a buffer until the other two got up to speed. They are very high capacity...

As I said, this is just a corner cutting manoeuvre that worked in this case and that may not apply to other cases. If I had expensive fish or had other, more stringent goals, I would have adjusted the methods to reduce risk.  

Cheers,


----------



## chris1004 (14 Jun 2009)

I can imagine the work invoved mate I know how long my planted tank takes and its a lot smaller than yours. I have two externals but by the time I've done the water change, done the gardening, cleaned the glass, hood, lights etc, stripped down the pipework cleaned and reinstalled it, cleaned the filters and anything else that needs doing the best part of a day goes. It doesn't help that i have a number of other tanks either, fortunatly the others are much simpler affairs just plain glass tanks with internal filters in the main with only ambient room lighting so therefore need much less maintenance but collectivly they still take up a fair ammount of time. Its a labour of love though and which I always feel good about when I'm on top of things.  

I do understand your rational behind your maintenance schedule but don't think that I would have the balls to do it for fear of causing a breakdown in the nitrogen cycle. But you know me and my paranoia anyway, I just wouldn't sleep well for worry after doing that. Nothing that smirnoff wouldn't sort out though....


----------



## jonny_ftm (2 Jul 2009)

Hi,

I don't know if I missed it reading through most of the thread, but I didn't see anyone talking about simply letting the water rest in an open reciepient for 24-48h

That's the best natural method to get all your chlorine evaporated. If on a hurry, an oxygenator added to the reciepient will do it in 12h-24h. It has a big advantage: no stange chemicals added and chlorine evaporates away instead of being binded and kept in water. It is a scientifically proven way

I do 60% WC /week and never used any chemical except ferts


----------



## Dave Spencer (2 Jul 2009)

jonny_ftm said:
			
		

> ....It has a big advantage: no stange chemicals added and chlorine evaporates away instead of being binded and kept in water. It is a scientifically proven way
> 
> I do 60% WC /week and never used any chemical except ferts



From what I understand, chloramines do not evaporate away.

Dave.


----------



## Stu Worrall (2 Jul 2009)

Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> jonny_ftm said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nope, they definately dont and we do get them added where we are dave


----------



## FiltranZer (3 Jul 2009)

With this information that I got in this discussion  I think it will really a big help to my problem.,





_________________
Furnace filter


----------



## Stu Worrall (3 Jul 2009)

FiltranZer said:
			
		

> With this information that I got in this discussion  I think it will really a big help to my problem.,


welcome to ukaps filtranzer.  what was your problem by the way?


----------



## jonny_ftm (3 Jul 2009)

I see, didn't think about chloramines,

Hopefully, in Switzerland, chloramines aren't ont the list of allowed substances for treating tap water. They use gas Cl2 or rather Chlore dioxyde.

Tap water here is very poor in nitrates (lower than 4ppm), mean value of 2ppm, so chloramine formation is unsignificant

I'll keep in mind that if things change, I have to take care


----------



## davidcmadrid (8 Jul 2009)

I been using Aquatan for about 3 years now . Upping the anti with EI recently based on a 5L bottle it will cost me 12 pence a week to treat the water. A year back i forgot to do it and promptly had a tank of of Algae ( so i assume i broke the nitrogen cycle ) ..  even if it kills nothing in the tank I suppose i still hold the idea the fish dont like Chlorine or Chloramine and see a difference between stressing them and killing them and dont want to do either. From what i can see of planted aquariums thus far there is a lot of money spent in areas where its not needed  presenting savings opportunities before id consider cutting out water treatment.


----------



## davidcmadrid (8 Jul 2009)

chris1004 said:
			
		

> I can imagine the work invoved mate I know how long my planted tank takes and its a lot smaller than yours. I have two externals but by the time I've done the water change, done the gardening, cleaned the glass, hood, lights etc, stripped down the pipework cleaned and reinstalled it, cleaned the filters and anything else that needs doing the best part of a day goes. It doesn't help that i have a number of other tanks either, fortunatly the others are much simpler affairs just plain glass tanks with internal filters in the main with only ambient room lighting so therefore need much less maintenance but collectivly they still take up a fair ammount of time. Its a labour of love though and which I always feel good about when I'm on top of things.



Know what you mean about the time , I am looking at ways of cutting down the time needed at the minute. Bought myself 2 wheelie bins ( 12 pounds )  and a little eheim pump. Pump the water out into the first bin and wash everything in it once its settled , keep that water for the flowers. Fill second bin with fresh water add what needs to be added and then pump it into the tank with the same little drop in eheim. Saved myself a boat load of time doing it tonight for the first time, feeling right chuffed


----------



## chris1004 (8 Jul 2009)

Do you wheel the bins through your house then? Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?

I noticed that you now spend 12 pence a week on dechlorinating, just out of interest how many litres (aprox) is that for?


----------



## Dave Spencer (8 Jul 2009)

davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> From what i can see of planted aquariums thus far there is a lot of money spent in areas where its not needed  presenting savings opportunities before id consider cutting out water treatment.



But as I have pointed out on this thread, it is nothing to do with saving money.  

Dave.


----------



## davidcmadrid (8 Jul 2009)

Do you wheel the bins through your house then? Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?
[/quote]

No I wheel them through the house.


			
				chris1004 said:
			
		

> I noticed that you now spend 12 pence a week on dechlorinating, just out of interest how many litres (aprox) is that for?



About 130 Litres at the minute changed per week.


----------



## davidcmadrid (8 Jul 2009)

Dave Spencer said:
			
		

> davidcmadrid said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didnt suggest that you did  But i suppose I assumed it a factor and as its so cheap do do it that its imvho not worth not doing it. Others have mentioned cost so i calculated my own cost of doing it. Aquatan which i use theoretically contains some slime coat products for the fish also  but i am thinking of changing to prime given i want to have the option of dropping purigen into the filter.

It has just occurred to me that Aquatan talks about binding heavy metals so i must check to see if it is effectively taking trace elements out of the water before and after the water change ( treatment )


----------



## Dave Spencer (8 Jul 2009)

davidcmadrid said:
			
		

> But i suppose I assumed it a factor and as its so cheap do do it that its imvho not worth not doing it.



This is what I am wondering though. Do we do it because everybody else does, and have always done so, or is it genuinely a necessary process. I have my doubts as to its importance, to be honest.

Dave.


----------



## chris1004 (8 Jul 2009)

Dave Spencer,

I don't think anyone is suggesting that your being tight mate by not dechlorinating, or even that you wish to save the money as the cost is so negligable that its not really worth mentioning other than to point out that it shouldn't be a factor when deciding wether to dechlorinate or not. The time it takes to use isn't really a serious argument for or against IMO either (sorry Clive).

Which really only leaves the question of whether chlorine, chloramines and heavy metals are desirable or not and how much damage is done to the filter bacteria colony by ommiting this step and what stress if any is caused to the flora or fauna.

I do think your looking for confirmation that emmiting to dechlorinate is ok but doubt whether you will be happy with any opinion contrary to this until you have lost a tankfull of fish or some geeky boffin type of water quality fanatic can spiel off 500 long and barely deciferable words about the pro's and cons of dechlorinating. 

The truth of the matter for me though is that dechlorinating tapwater doen't go even close to the type and quality of water that I want to keep my fish in. So I will make no further comment on this thread as I feel that I have already said to much (I've already given you one really big word that I can't even pronounce(Dichlorobromomethane))and possibly upset one or two people. I also feel that I have already answered your original question to the best of my ability and have nothing further to add. If thats not enough for you then I wish you luck in seeking the answers that you want.

The following link has some real information in it and some links to articles published on the subject and should be good for a read if your that interested.

http://atlas.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua/art_chlorine.htm

Regards, Chris.

I have just re-read the above and thought it sounded harsh but believe me when I say it really isn't meant to sound that way. I toyed with the idea of changing it or even toning it down but simply couldn't think of any other way to put it all so decided to leave it as it is please don't take offence Dave we all have our own opinions and methods thats for sure and if we didn't where would we be? Still at square one I guess all as identical clones, now that would not do!!!


----------



## Dave Spencer (9 Jul 2009)

chris1004 said:
			
		

> Dave Spencer,
> I do think your looking for confirmation that emmiting to dechlorinate is ok but doubt whether you will be happy with any opinion contrary to this until you have lost a tankfull of fish.......



I have no problems at all with the tone of your thread Chris.   However, I do take great exception to the above comment. I have been accused of being lazy and can`t be bothered to dechlorinate, a cheapskate, and now I don`t care about my fish.

I started this thread to see if anybody had any real, hard evidence that dechlorinating is a necessary process. I wish people would read this thread and its sentiments properly. 

I am not going to apologise for not following the "thou shall" and Thou shalt not" laws of this hobby verbatim. I guess my tank water would seem like poison to you chris, but my fish say otherwise.  How you can say using tap water is irresponsible is a completely unfounded statement.

I am very familiar with the link that you supplied, chris.



			
				chris1004 said:
			
		

> If thats not enough for you then I wish you luck in seeking the answers that you want.



I don`t "want" any particular answer, I want the truth behind whether dechlorinating is a necessary step or not. I hope you are not suggesting that I don`t listen to advice and only hear what I want to hear.  

Dave.


----------



## davidcmadrid (9 Jul 2009)

David,

Whilst i reference cost as a factor in my decision not to look deeper into the issue , I would by no means like that my reference to cost as inference that it was a factor in your own decision.


----------



## Dave Spencer (9 Jul 2009)

No worries Mr Madrid.  

This thread didn`t really go in the direction I hoped. I will just have to follow my own observations.

Dave.


----------



## jonny_ftm (9 Jul 2009)

Hi,

In my area, gas chlore is used, not chloramine. I never used a product. Only letting water rest for 48h. Never had deseases over 9 months now, doing 50% weekly WC


----------



## chris1004 (10 Jul 2009)

Dave Spencer,


So much for butting out and not making any further comment........




> "I have been accused of being lazy and can`t be bothered to dechlorinate, a cheapskate, and now I don`t care about my fish."..........



Now your being a drama queen  ......I never once said you were a cheapscate or implied it and in fact went out of my way to do the exact opposite on at least two occations . You yourself have implied by your very first post that you couldn't be bothered to dechlorinate anymore, not at all sure where the "lazy" bit came from perhaps you could point that out? 
As for the last point about wether you care about your fish or not given my previous answers and those of other aquarists all I can say is, "if the cap fits wear it". 



> I started this thread to see if anybody had any real, hard evidence that dechlorinating is a necessary process. I wish people would read this thread and its sentiments properly.



I've been through this thread from start to finish you have made a total of 11 posts 10 of which are pretty much one liners and the biggest post you made was your last one which I am discecting now. Of the other 10 posts at least half have no real bearing on the subject and are just simple retorts to other posts. Your "sentiments" have never been perfectly clear right from the start with the heading of the thread. all you asked was "has anybody else stopped dechlorinating?". 




> I am not going to apologise for not following the "thou shall" and Thou shalt not" laws of this hobby verbatim. I guess my tank water would seem like poison to you chris, but my fish say otherwise.  How you can say using tap water is irresponsible is a completely unfounded statement.



I neither expect or want you to appologise for not blindly following (laws is the wrong word entirely) "advice from other fishkeepers in this hobby" (is a more accurate way of putting it). Yes your tankwater does seem like poison to me and I wish you would tell me where I can get my hands on some talking fish  . What I actually said was that IMO not dechlorinating tapwater is a tad irresponsible. Furthermore I am not the only one to believe this, if you think that my 20+years of experience is worthless surely James c, Zig or Fred Dulley are worth listening to, to name just a few? I know that I am a bit of an anorac when it comes to water quality (obsessive even) but I have never once ever, anywhere on any thread, on this or any other forum, said that "using tapwater is irresponsible". Hell, where do you think mine comes from before I filter and treat it??  



> I don`t "want" any particular answer, I want the truth behind whether dechlorinating is a necessary step or not. I hope you are not suggesting that I don`t listen to advice and only hear what I want to hear.




All I can say to that mate is "if the cap fits wear it".  



I understand from previous posts that you have a big problem keeping shrimp alive. Now before I start I would like to point out that I've never kept anything without fins by design but it appears to me the problem is essentially simple. You are poisoning them. Ok so it might not be chlorine and I would hassen to gues you are feeding them right, temperatures are ok etc.? That only pretty much leaves water quality as an issue, I think?

Bottom line for me is that chlorine and chloromines are in tapwater with the sole intention of killing stuff, as I'm trying to do the exact opposite they are surpluss to requirements.  

Regards (and that really is me finished on this topic (horaay!! i hear you all cry)) Chris.


----------



## Dave Spencer (11 Jul 2009)

chris1004 said:
			
		

> So much for butting out and not making any further comment........



I suspect you only do this when you have the final word.  



			
				chris1004 said:
			
		

> Your "sentiments" have never been perfectly clear right from the start with the heading of the thread. all you asked was "has anybody else stopped dechlorinating?".



You are right on this one chris, I should have given this thread a more appropriate title.



			
				chris1004 said:
			
		

> if you think that my 20+years of experience is worthless



You are right on this one too chris.   I have spent many years moving with my job, being trained up by so called "experienced" people. Some of them were just plain stuck in their ways, and they confused this with experience and, dare I say, intelligence. 

Nice attempt trying to rope in the likes of Zig etc., but I beleieve they run their tanks and water differently to you.  



			
				chris1004 said:
			
		

> All I can say to that mate is "if the cap fits wear it".



Hey chris, congratulations, you have got your yourself a really funny catch phrase now.   I look forward to having a good laugh on your threads.  Such a shame you had to butt out, or have you.....  

Dave.

You try to appear clever, but your thinly veiled patronising comments do you no service my friend.  

P.S. Exactly how much is a "tad irresponsible"? Anybody know?


----------



## zig (11 Jul 2009)

Lads, ladies etc I'm going to close off this discussion as its getting somewhat wayward.

There are lots of interesting views here over many pages, more than enough IMO for the individual to make up their own mind one way or the other on this topic.

If anyone feels they need a right of reply please take it to pm, thankyou.


----------

