Re: [Killietalk] water that does not contain chloramine

[Paul_Jablinski at notes.udayton.edu]

Thanks, Dwright,  I will get some.
Bro. Paul

-----killietalk-bounces+paul_jablinski=notes.udayton.edu at aka.org wrote:
-----

To: killifish discussion list <killietalk at aka_org>
From: Wright Huntley <whuntley at verizon_net>
Sent by: killietalk-bounces+paul_jablinski=notes.udayton.edu at aka.org
Date: 02/13/2004 12:42PM
Subject: Re: [Killietalk] water that does not contain chloramine

Bro. Paul,

You don't need to be a chemist to live with water that has been treated
with chloramine. It is no worse than chlorine, but does require slightly
*different* water conditioner in most cases. In fact, I suspect it is
used at enough lower levels that it may even be a bit less harmful to
many fish. [Less is needed in the supply, because it is so stable, and
reaches the far end of the system with greater residual strength.]

The problem is just one of being aware that it may need a slightly
different treatment ("Prime," "Amquel," "Ammo Lock 2," etc.) than what
you have been using. Hypo-based dechlor products are very good at
removing the chlorine from *either* chlorinated or chloraminated water.

They just don't take care of the small burst of ammonium/ammonia that
may be present with chloramine-treated water. Charles claims a
miraculous immunity, but most normal aquarists have had to use a
different product or their fish suffer from exposure to that burst of
poisonous stuff if hypo is used when "Prime" is called for.

If you use a dechloraminator, and only have chlorine, it may cost a few
pennies more, but it works just fine. [The concentrated bulk ones, like
"Prime" may actually be cheaper in many stores per gallon of tank water
treated.] Right now, most aquarists in major urban areas have learned to
make the switch, and are living quite comfortably with chloramine in
their tap water.

It is not "if and when it gets to bad water" as chlorine is every bit as
bad as chloramine. Worse, actually, as it can cause cancer! It is just
that you must make a tiny change in water treatment method when (not if)
the EPA gets around to making Dayton change over. Chloramine will not
dissipate by aerating overnight, and it is desirable to use a slightly
different product to neutralize it, if you must do that chemically. It's
not harder, or more difficult, and it isn't much more expensive. It is
different, that's all.

Many of us, with larger fishrooms, long ago learned to use carbon
filtration, so we don't even have the modest cost of sodium thiosulfate
any more, and have complete freedom from either chlorine or chloramine.

It isn't being a good chemist dealing with "bad water." It is being a
good aquarist and being aware that the basics do change, once in a
while, and we must just adjust to that when it happens. It would be
unreasonable to give up on your fish just because you refuse to switch
from "Novaqua" to "Amquel." Please hang in there! Change lots of that
water. :-)

HTH

Wright

Paul_Jablinski at notes.udayton.edu wrote:

> I do not understand the fine points of chemistry of water, but I do know
> that changing water as often as possible keeps the fish in excellent
health
> and they breed very well.  So far I have not had any problems with Dayton
> water.  If and when it gets to the point of bad water, then, I would just
> give up keeping fish.  It's no big deal for me.  But for now everything
is
> fine.
>
> Sincerely,
> Bro. Paul
>


--
Wright Huntley - Rt. 001 Box K36, Bishop CA 93514 - whuntley at verizon_net
                    760 872-3995

           YOUR CHILD'S FIRST LESSON IN SOCIALISM

           http://boortz.com/ads/chapter020504.html



 To join the AKA see http://www.aka.org/pages/join.html
Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/


To join the AKA see http://www.aka.org/pages/join.html
Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/