Unless you have proof of fish getting lung cancer, pretty fair comparison AFAIC. Smoke and water don't mix, most smoke particulates are not water soluble.drgnfrc13;4327527; said:
water and smoke
- Thread starter irishfan
- Start date
I don't think fish have a true "lung" do they?
I suspect that, as mentioned, some of the smoke would condense on the water's surface and enter the water column. I would be very shocked if none of the chemicals found in smoke were water soluble.
Although I doubt this would have enough of an impact to worry about. Especially if the tank's owner were doing what most here consider a respectable maintenance routine of water changes and filter cleanings.
I suspect that, as mentioned, some of the smoke would condense on the water's surface and enter the water column. I would be very shocked if none of the chemicals found in smoke were water soluble.
Although I doubt this would have enough of an impact to worry about. Especially if the tank's owner were doing what most here consider a respectable maintenance routine of water changes and filter cleanings.
If the smoke is traveling through the water, then yes, but since that isnt the case, I dont believe you have anything to worry about.
Now, if the tank is filthy and covered in tar and some of it washes into the tank, then i guess that would affect the water quality.
Now, if the tank is filthy and covered in tar and some of it washes into the tank, then i guess that would affect the water quality.
nc_nutcase;4327867; said:
nut-case:
If second hand cigarette smoke tars, nicotines and other harmful chemicals found in the second hand smoke was to settle on the water surface would this inhibit the release of CO2 from below the water surface?
Also, on the other hand, does this decrease the oxygen put back into the tank water by way of the tank water return ports from say, pressurised canister filters or even the water falling back into the tank from an HOB power filter, even though a respectable maintenance regime is implemented and strictly adhered to? Just curious.
No, actually common sense would indicate otherwise. If you are under water, then I'm pretty sure you are going to hold your breath (that is unless the reason you are in the pool to begin with is to commit suicide), so assuming you are holding your breath, jow would you get LUNG cancer?mustang93svt;4327805; said:
In case can't understand that, here's the simplified version:
People smoking around you + you breathing = possible risk of lung cancer
People smoking around you + you holding your breath underwater = no risk of lung cancer
So unless I'm missing something, the " 'smoking-person underwater' vs. 'smoking-fish in nearby aquarium' " comparison is nonsense.
Edit: And btw, I'm not saying that smoking would have an effect on aquariums, just that your comparison didn't make any sense.
Another Edit: Also, as previously stated, no fish have actual lungs, so I can tell you with 99.9% certainty that lung cancer in fish is impossible (missing .1% is due to the fact that not every fish species has been discovered, so technically we don't "know" that there are no fish with actual lungs), but that does not support the legitimacy of your comparison.
