The Dumbing Down of Seachem
- Thread starter RD.
- Start date
But the new bottles no longer have any data to use as a guide. That's my point, it has all been removed, and changed to 1 capful per 50 gallons.
But, cant I just use their directions, the "dumbed down version" and it will still give good results? What difference does it matter if it is not to exact specifications?
I mean, really, in the scheme of things, does this really point to an increasing ignorance among the younger generation or how busy our lives have become.
There is a lot I do not have time to study for its optimum efficiency and cost effectiveness because I am pulled in so many different directions in a day.
I also am, admittedly, mathematically challenged; yet, am a the upper level of competency in reading and writing.
I envy those, like RD, who have a good dose of both, but we are not all so fortunate. So forgive us our ignorance and educate us-- and also be patient.
I mean, really, in the scheme of things, does this really point to an increasing ignorance among the younger generation or how busy our lives have become.
There is a lot I do not have time to study for its optimum efficiency and cost effectiveness because I am pulled in so many different directions in a day.
I also am, admittedly, mathematically challenged; yet, am a the upper level of competency in reading and writing.
I envy those, like RD, who have a good dose of both, but we are not all so fortunate. So forgive us our ignorance and educate us-- and also be patient.
Ok, fair enough questions.
I personally would not consider that "good results", for the masses and was my argument to Seachem years ago when they started moving in this direction.
As far as increasing ignorance, the following was direct from the CEO, when we conversed about this 3 yrs ago.
Me -
> I understand why the labels have been changed, I simply don't agree with the new numbers being used on the new labels. It doesn't matter how anyone spins it, the numbers don't lie. The old instructions made perfect sense, for anyone that could add 1+1 and divide by 2. Nothing in the formula has changed, and nothing in the actual data being used in the past has changed. My point is that in Seachems attempt to dumb things down for the average consumer, IMO they have missed the mark in regards to the "average" consumers residual disinfectant level typically found in ones tap water.
CEO -
> for anyone that could add 1+1 and divide by 2
This is truly the crux of the matter. Yes, as a chemist I agree, the old labels are “better” in the sense they provide the maximum amount of detailed information so the consumer can figure out exactly what they need to use. The problem is whether I like it or not that encompasses maybe 5% of the consumers buying this product. The other 95%, sadly, cannot add 1+1 and divide by 2. This is not hyperbole (sadly)… what you or I take for granted as being dead simple easy math is simply not the case for most.
You can, but you (as in any consumer) could end up wasting a lot of product (ask esoxlucius about that) , or one could end up under-dosing, where in the case of chloramine, could result in ammonia spikes after each water change. Not so good for someone that has higher pH values, or warmer than normal water temp, etc.
I personally would not consider that "good results", for the masses and was my argument to Seachem years ago when they started moving in this direction.
As far as increasing ignorance, the following was direct from the CEO, when we conversed about this 3 yrs ago.
Me -
> I understand why the labels have been changed, I simply don't agree with the new numbers being used on the new labels. It doesn't matter how anyone spins it, the numbers don't lie. The old instructions made perfect sense, for anyone that could add 1+1 and divide by 2. Nothing in the formula has changed, and nothing in the actual data being used in the past has changed. My point is that in Seachems attempt to dumb things down for the average consumer, IMO they have missed the mark in regards to the "average" consumers residual disinfectant level typically found in ones tap water.
CEO -
> for anyone that could add 1+1 and divide by 2
This is truly the crux of the matter. Yes, as a chemist I agree, the old labels are “better” in the sense they provide the maximum amount of detailed information so the consumer can figure out exactly what they need to use. The problem is whether I like it or not that encompasses maybe 5% of the consumers buying this product. The other 95%, sadly, cannot add 1+1 and divide by 2. This is not hyperbole (sadly)… what you or I take for granted as being dead simple easy math is simply not the case for most.
I do not believe, no matter that the individual stating it is the chemist making the product /and its CEO, that the move to "dumb down" the label was a result of the decreasing intelligence of the population. This argument is a fallacy.
Our younger generation is, in all developed nations, far more educated than the young of the 19th and 20th centuries. Education, both in Analytical/Quantitative and reading/Writing Literacy has increased exponentially throughout-- especially with the opening up of equal opportunity to higher education for minorities through the 1960's and 70's.
The younger generations in developed countries are some of the most educated, across time, in the world.
This 95% cannot be explained away as dumb. That is too simplistic and generalized.
Our younger generation is, in all developed nations, far more educated than the young of the 19th and 20th centuries. Education, both in Analytical/Quantitative and reading/Writing Literacy has increased exponentially throughout-- especially with the opening up of equal opportunity to higher education for minorities through the 1960's and 70's.
The younger generations in developed countries are some of the most educated, across time, in the world.
This 95% cannot be explained away as dumb. That is too simplistic and generalized.
Sorry, I should have also added, 02 depletion - a very serious and sometimes fatal risk when/if one overdoses products such as Prime/Safe. There have been a few threads here in the past where someone got carried away with Safe, and their fish all died. I suspected 02 depletion, as did others. This was actually one of the main reasons that the CEO gave me regarding the change.
In his words:
"On the other hand, an excess of a reducing agent can only react with a reducible substance and there aren’t many of those in an aquarium in comparison to oxidizable substances. So if there is none it will react with the only one around: oxygen. That is the risk of overdosing, oxygen binding and thus suffocation. So the risk of underdosing is the fish equivalent of a sunburn at worst (assuming of course its not insanely massive like 6 ppm chloramine which would be exceedingly rare). But the risk of overdosing is death (doubly more so in warmer water)."
Personally I don't consider exposure to free ammonia, along the same lines as a sunburn. Either way, why on earth would I want to expose my fish to ammonia at each water change? Where I live, with a pH of 8.0, it could easily result in far worse than a little sunburn, especially after repeated exposure.
In his words:
"On the other hand, an excess of a reducing agent can only react with a reducible substance and there aren’t many of those in an aquarium in comparison to oxidizable substances. So if there is none it will react with the only one around: oxygen. That is the risk of overdosing, oxygen binding and thus suffocation. So the risk of underdosing is the fish equivalent of a sunburn at worst (assuming of course its not insanely massive like 6 ppm chloramine which would be exceedingly rare). But the risk of overdosing is death (doubly more so in warmer water)."
Personally I don't consider exposure to free ammonia, along the same lines as a sunburn. Either way, why on earth would I want to expose my fish to ammonia at each water change? Where I live, with a pH of 8.0, it could easily result in far worse than a little sunburn, especially after repeated exposure.
Last edited:
You could be right, Amy, perhaps it wasn't directed at the younger generation at all, but more along the lines of the overall consumer base. I don't field the stupid calls for Seachem, but from what I have read over the years, and seen first hand via the retail aquatic outlets and owners that I dealt with for close to a decade, IME they weren't making the dumb part up.
from the CEO
"So as a consumer oriented company we made the decision to simplify instructions as much as possible using an assumed target level of various components that would be most commonly found. Yes I understand you disagree that this is most common but at the time we implemented the change we did do a literature survey and found that most values fell in the 1 - 2 ppm range for chloramine. Even your first source states "75% of utilities have finished water with chloramine residual levels between 1.0 and 3.0 mg/litre entering the distribution system.” which could support any distribution of ranges within that 75%. Short of a detailed survey showing that x% fall between values of y-> z there’s no way to know with absolute certainty what “most” have or what is actually coming out of the customer’s tap as opposed to tests at the water plant itself. No matter what you pick it will be too much for some and not enough for others."
"So as a consumer oriented company we made the decision to simplify instructions as much as possible using an assumed target level of various components that would be most commonly found. Yes I understand you disagree that this is most common but at the time we implemented the change we did do a literature survey and found that most values fell in the 1 - 2 ppm range for chloramine. Even your first source states "75% of utilities have finished water with chloramine residual levels between 1.0 and 3.0 mg/litre entering the distribution system.” which could support any distribution of ranges within that 75%. Short of a detailed survey showing that x% fall between values of y-> z there’s no way to know with absolute certainty what “most” have or what is actually coming out of the customer’s tap as opposed to tests at the water plant itself. No matter what you pick it will be too much for some and not enough for others."
