Switched from prime to safe- dead fish

[Doc-Fish]

By the way, I gave the patent number for fujitsu developer patent. It clearly shows that fujitsu has a patent for a photographic developer that uses the same class of chemicals as Seachem uses.

How is that not sufficient ? had you read the patent (you didnt clearly) you wouldnt have come up with the thiosulphate comment

 

[Doc-Fish]

ok hang while i look on our database for papers for you. I guess you want me to post quotes from inside the papers? i doubt you will go and read the abstracts.

 

[Doc-Fish]

Publications on various dechlorinator compounds used in aquaculture.

Impacts on Streams from the Use of Sulfur-Based Compounds for Dechlorinating Industrial Effluents

Abstract

"We evaluate environmental impacts associated with sulfur-baseddechlorinating agents (sodium bisulfite and sodium thiosulfate)commonly used in industrial wastewater treatment by presentingdata from two examples for Department of Energy facilities inTennessee and Kentucky. One case involved a fish kill (> 24,000 fish) caused directly by sodium bisulfite; the second describes a near-miss situation resulting from over-dosing with sodium thiosulfate. Toxicity tests showed that overfeed situations withsodium thiosulfate or sodium bisulfite can depress pH and dissolved oxygen, causing mortality of fish. Bacteria also can metabolize some sulfur-based dechlorinating agents, thereby increasing the potential for reductions in pH and concentrationsof dissolved oxygen. Although removing toxic levels of chlorine is important when releasing chlorine-containing wastewaters to aquatic systems, waste-treatment plant operators should also beaware of significant impacts that can occur if sulfur-based dechlorinating agents are used to excess."

Ryon, M.G., Stewart, A.J., Kszos, L.A. et al. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution (2002) 136: 255.

I will get you others when i get home, however please read the supplied patent numbers, these will give you detailed chemical reaction mechanisms. I doubt even your friend could argue with the science behind the equations.

 

[RD.]

LOL, WTF does that paper have to do with anything? I assume that intelligent folks here are not overdosing, or using in excessive quantity. Everything in excess will have an environmental impact, including vitamins being dumped in the water. Big deal. Millions of hobbyists world-wide use sodium thiosulfate to reduce chlorine in their aquariums. So do many/most commercial facilities, including many public aquariums.

You state: "And yes i am a professional (not sure how thats relevant)"

Well sir, you are the one that chose your user ID, and introduced yourself with your long list of letters after your name. I know a fish food manufacturer that holds a PhD, and could also call himself Dr.

Big whoop.

It is no surprise what some of the basic components are in both Prime & Safe, it is also no surprise that their products have been surrounded behind a cloak of proprietary information since their inception. Seachem started many years ago as a father & son team working out of their families garage, a true American success story.

I just thought it funny that a Scotsman from across the pond, that works in bee genetics, has somehow become an expert on the exact chemical make up the Seachem line of water conditioners, and all of their potential reactions. No agenda you say? Hmmmmm.

And when I asked for peer reviewed papers, I meant regarding Seachem and Prime/Safe, and specifically what you stated as far as them causing a rise in pH, and releasing free ammonia into the aquarium.

 

[Doc-Fish]

You asked for peer reviewed papers, to my knowledge none have been specifically done on the product themselves. Regarding how relevant the paper is, i thought that would be clear... The product in question uses the chemical in the paper, the paper relates to the affect of that chemical in a water system and how it affects fish. Just how more relevant do you think it needs to be?

regarding posting my qualifications.

Many people claim this and that on forums, i gave my name and details, anyone wishing to check on me is welcome. I can be traced by my fellowship to the Royal Society (Biology) or my full membership of the Royal Society (chemistry), both are world renowned accreditation's, they were not posted to boast, they were posted because as the very first line i posted states.I am aware that even suggesting a Seachem product wasnt a direct gift from God, could inflame a response, which obviously it has.

I posted information from both Seachems OWN patent and other patents that the reporting patent officer cited, this is standard practice.

I suggest you get one of your Dr friends to explain the patents to you, THEN come back and try and argue the point. Everything i said is in both the patents and paper, you can argue with me all you like, you cant argue with the chemistry!

I dont have a preference for any of the products mentioned, as stated i dont use a dechlorinator as i dont need one (nor do most people).

Unfortunately you gave away the depth of your scientific and chemistry knowledge with the silly statement regarding Thiosulphate, had you read the patents you would have seen that the patent was from a photography product, you would also see it uses the same class of chemical but as a photographic developer!

My intention was merely to add information, with that in mind i will add some you wont like.

The seachem product first breaks down into a formaldehyde product! Again it is mentioned within the patents (if you dont understand them i can explain them to you), so how keen are you on adding Formaldehyde to your aquarium?

And before you demand evidence of this, i will again state.. It is in the Seachem patent, the same seachem you trust as the CEO is a stand up guy, or do you refute what his company says about their own product?

Anyway which part of the chemical equation in the patents do you disagree with?

I am not sure if you dispute whats in the product, or if you dispute the reactions involved??

Or more likely blowing steam about something you have no knowledge of? By all means carry on and attack me, i feel i have given all the evidence thats needed, if you wish to ignore what the company filed as a patent that is fine with me, i will simply ignore you. I hate doing that, but i refuse to waste time when i have supplied all the information that would be needed by most rational people. Keep wasting your money it makes no difference to me.

One final point i missed.

Where do i say the products contain the same thing? infact i said one was a chemical and one a bacteria!! They are far fr4om being the same, which is what you state!! can you see just how wrong you have all this?

Just so others are not confused

Seachem Prime Does not contain ANY of the same things as Seachem safe!! one is bacterial and one chemical, ignore the nonsense about them containing the same things..

The other thing you got wrong..I am not Scottish, i have lived here for 3 years . Just how wrong can one person be in a single post!

 

[kewpiefishypewpie]

I don't know Doc, stating that you're okay with a little chloramine (chlorine and ammonia) in your tank and not okay with "too many chemicals" (chlorine and ammonia are chemicals) doesn't really check out to me. Ammonia is only poisonous to fish, big whoop. Then you state that Seachem has a "cult like following". It certainly sounds like someone has an agenda. All this compounded with you joining a forum and starting an argument with one of the more knowledgeable members here (RD) is really making me feel like you're full of it.

 

[Doc-Fish]

I don't know Doc, stating that you're okay with a little chloramine (chlorine and ammonia) in your tank and not okay with "too many chemicals" (chlorine and ammonia are chemicals) doesn't really check out to me. Ammonia is only poisonous to fish, big whoop. Then you state that Seachem has a "cult like following". It certainly sounds like someone has an agenda. All this compounded with you joining a forum and starting an argument with one of the more knowledgeable members here (RD) is really making me feel like you're full of it.

It might be better if you read the information i posted, i dont wish to correct you but i did say i use RO water or water from a non RO purification system.

Maybe people dont read things properly, i dont know?? But all i did was post details of their patent and say what was in them and why i wouldnt use it. I dont really see what agenda i could have? I have also posted a peer reviewed paper that discusses the same chemical being used in the same manner and affecting the same species as would apply to a fishkeeper. So with that in mind maybe all scientist have an agenda against Seachem?

As for my opinion on Seachem, this is purely from reading their patents and discussing things on tier forums.

As you have been reasonable so far, i will post a screen shot as way of example to explain what i mean about them. I would post the files but it seems i cant post pdf's, i did however provide all details so people can read them.

From Seachem patent


The guy is not a scientist, as he states he dosnt understand how it works, also note in the first patent as shown in the screen shot, he states that it eliminates Ammonia etc, around a year later they changed this as it was found to not be true, the simple fact is the product went to market without thorough testing. It was a job donr on the cheap borne out of a lucky find! Again read what THEY say in the screen shot.
Hopefully now i can post links? the link to seachem patent

https://www.google.co.uk/patents/EP0203741A2?dq=inassignee:"Aquascience+Research+Group,+Inc."&cl=en

The reason you know its Seachem is because their MSD is the only one that uses Bisulphate like this .


Now compare that with Tetras patent that cites Seachem (if you read the tetra one it gives the Seachem patent number ).

Rather than a screen shot read the whole thing, this is the link.

https://www.google.com/patents/US20080073291

if you read it properly it gives you alot of information on the different mechanisms of how dechlorinators work, it is a scientific approach and includes full chemical formulae, which the Seachem one dosnt do. Read it in full then decide if i am full of it .

I didnt know he was considered knowledgeable, i am new here. I can only go on what i read, what i saw was full of errors, so forgive me if i dont consider his knowledge that great.

Dont jump all over me for providing verifiable information! i posted what is publicly available and what i thought would interest people, i still dont get why some always react badly when you mention how bad Prime is??/

you can ask on any chemistry forum to explain the formulas if you wish, and yes we are talking dechlorinators but the chemical in question also binds Ammonia (long before a filter sees it).

 

[CarpCharacin]

Never argue with Professor Fish. He knows what he is talking about.

 

[RD.]

One thing that you are correct about, I have not read any of the patents etc that you have posted, but I will have a look at the Tetra link when I get home. But without reading anything, you still can't back up your earlier comments regarding Seachem products.

Same "class" of chemicals does not equate to same exact chemical make up, or their reaction with one another in an aquatic system. Nor does it prove any of what you originally stated, that being Seachem Safe and Prime will raise the pH values in ones tank, and release free ammonia.

What part is flying over my head, please elaborate.
This is what I have asked you to prove. Very simple and straightforward.

As far a the photography world using some of these same chemicals - so what? What is your point exactly, that all of these chemicals have only one application in life? How absurd is that.

The abstract to the paper that you posted deals with a large scale commercial application, specifically industrial wastewater treatment, where they warn about EXCESSIVE use of this chemical. Again, what does that have to do with a guy changing water in his home aquarium using Safe? Your comparison is absurd - no need for anyone to have a PhD to understand the difference in what I am saying, and what you are saying.

The bottom line is both Prime and Safe work, and work well. As stated early on, I have used both for many many years, including tanks full of what many folks would consider sensitive species, including in holding tanks with eggs/larvae/fry - with no issues.

Yes, many people world wide can get by without using a water conditioner, others such as myself have no choice, unless I use RO and reconstitute it with minerals etc in large holding vats. Swell idea if all one has is a 10 gallon tank and all the free time & money in the world. For the rest of us mere common folk that have to deal with chloramine treated water (which includes the OP), Seachem products have been working perfectly fine for a very long time.

You entered this discussion stating some pretty far fetched things (pH changes, ammonia spikes) regarding Safe. If you have never studied these products and their reaction in an aquarium setting, or their safety with aquatic life, then what exactly is your point? That the company that brought this to the aquatic world didn't fully understand exactly how it all worked? LOL Seachem admitted that early on, when they described how Prime helped reduce nitrates. They OPENLY admitted that. As a scientist even you should understand that not everything can be explained by the scientific world.

I recall reading a paper titled the Squid Factor many years back, and in that paper the researchers spoke about how in squid meal (as well as fish meal) there are unknown growth factors present - that even today are not fully understood.

I have no issue if you have a hard on for Seachem, but IMHO your comments did nothing to assist the OP. Again, if you have peer reviewed publications specifically regarding these products, and your so called facts, then please share.

You point out all my numerous errors, (ok, so you aren't of Scottish blood lol) but you fail to answer my simple and direct question for proof of your initial comments. I am not arguing with anything else here. If you can back up your pH and NH3 comment you will certainly have my attention - but in my many years of actually using these products, in an aquarium application, I have never once seen anything of the sort. I'm guessing that no one else here on MFK has either.

 

[skjl47]

I dont have a preference for any of the products mentioned, as stated i dont use a dechlorinator as i dont need one (nor do most people).

Hello; A few years ago (2010) I joined this forum. I eventually posted that since my local water company used only chlorine I stored water for WC in containers for a few days. I had not used the water conditioners for several decades prior. As you likely have guessed there were several who found fault in my not using the products.
I did some searches about chlorine and chloramines and the water conditioner products. My chemistry is dated and not a strong suit anyway so I declined to discuss what I cannot properly defend.
As the storage method has worked for several decades I decided to continue with it. I do have some Safe on hand to use after cleaning tanks, gravel and equipment with bleach.

At this point I cannot form a useful opinion as to which viewpoint in the more valid. I do appreciate the content you have posted and may try to "read for understanding" at some point.

I will also do some checking to see how to post an avatar. I do not recall exactly how it is done but did pull a photo from the pictures on my computer hard drive.

In the end we each get to run our tanks any way we wish ( at least so far)

Thanks for the effort even if I do not follow the information well as yet.