list of scaleless fish?

[LM]

Hi all,

I have been wondering which loach species are considered scaleless.. I
assume not all are scaleless?

Is there a list somewhere listing all the species that are in the
scaleless family, and thus have to worry about medication strength?

I currently have dwarf chain loach (b. sidthemunki) and zebra loach (b.
striata).. not sure if they are considered scaless.. I don't think they
are, but I'm not very knowledgeable about this.

linda

[justice]

LM wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have been wondering which loach species are considered scaleless.. I
> assume not all are scaleless?
>
> Is there a list somewhere listing all the species that are in the
> scaleless family, and thus have to worry about medication strength?
>
> I currently have dwarf chain loach (b. sidthemunki) and zebra loach (b.
> striata).. not sure if they are considered scaless.. I don't think they
> are, but I'm not very knowledgeable about this.
>
> linda
>
clown loache and yoyo loach are scaleless, I think they all are but no
expert also my upside down catfish are.

[NetMax]

"justice" > wrote in message
news:YDPQf.22759$vC4.7492@clgrps12...
> LM wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have been wondering which loach species are considered scaleless.. I
>> assume not all are scaleless?
>>
>> Is there a list somewhere listing all the species that are in the
>> scaleless family, and thus have to worry about medication strength?
>>
>> I currently have dwarf chain loach (b. sidthemunki) and zebra loach
>> (b.
>> striata).. not sure if they are considered scaless.. I don't think
>> they
>> are, but I'm not very knowledgeable about this.
>>
>> linda
>>
> clown loache and yoyo loach are scaleless, I think they all are but no
> expert also my upside down catfish are.

A proper list would be a very good thing to have. Kudos for such a good
question. Since the motivation is to know what fish are sensitive to
certain medicinal concentrations, the list should have 3 parts to it,
scaleless fish (ie: botia and some other loaches like Kuhlis),
incompletely scaled fish (ie: plecos, corydoras have the same sensitivity
due to their underbelly scaleless skin), and scaled fish (this is an
easier category : any fish smaller than 1 inch would be vulnerable). It
would also be good to know what medications, as it's only treatments for
external parasites which I'm aware of, so is it the formalin or the
malachite green and/or other things?
--
www.NetMax.tk

[mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk]

NetMax wrote:

> A proper list would be a very good thing to have. Kudos for such a good
> question. Since the motivation is to know what fish are sensitive to
> certain medicinal concentrations, the list should have 3 parts to it,
> scaleless fish (ie: botia and some other loaches like Kuhlis),
> incompletely scaled fish (ie: plecos, corydoras have the same sensitivity
> due to their underbelly scaleless skin), and scaled fish (this is an
> easier category : any fish smaller than 1 inch would be vulnerable).

Uhm, I don't want to correct you here Netmax, but perhaps I should...

Loaches aren't scaleless. They do however have near-microscopic scales.
Catfish on the other hand are scaleless. AFAIK all of them. They may
have armor plating, but the plates are not scales.

They are however all considered sensitive to medications, although the
exact reason for this is unknown to me. Especially malachite green is
nasty in that it seems hard to predict which species will be sensitive
to it, and which wont. However, is malachite green still available in
the US? I believe it's been outlawed here in the EU (or at least is in
the process of being outlawed).

[NetMax]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> NetMax wrote:
>
>> A proper list would be a very good thing to have. Kudos for such a
>> good
>> question. Since the motivation is to know what fish are sensitive to
>> certain medicinal concentrations, the list should have 3 parts to it,
>> scaleless fish (ie: botia and some other loaches like Kuhlis),
>> incompletely scaled fish (ie: plecos, corydoras have the same
>> sensitivity
>> due to their underbelly scaleless skin), and scaled fish (this is an
>> easier category : any fish smaller than 1 inch would be vulnerable).
>
> Uhm, I don't want to correct you here Netmax, but perhaps I should...

The only danger is that I might learn something ;~)

> Loaches aren't scaleless. They do however have near-microscopic scales.
> Catfish on the other hand are scaleless. AFAIK all of them. They may
> have armor plating, but the plates are not scales.

Interesting about the loaches - that one might leave itself open to some
interpretation. Your description on the armored cats is much better than
mine. 'Incompletely scaled' was my bad English for partially armored.

> They are however all considered sensitive to medications, although the
> exact reason for this is unknown to me. Especially malachite green is
> nasty in that it seems hard to predict which species will be sensitive
> to it, and which wont. However, is malachite green still available in
> the US? I believe it's been outlawed here in the EU (or at least is in
> the process of being outlawed).

AFAIK, only California had a real issue with it. Everywhere else in
North America, it was still available, albeit with its warnings about
causing cancer.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Altum]

NetMax wrote:
> > wrote in message

>> They are however all considered sensitive to medications, although the
>> exact reason for this is unknown to me. Especially malachite green is
>> nasty in that it seems hard to predict which species will be sensitive
>> to it, and which wont. However, is malachite green still available in
>> the US? I believe it's been outlawed here in the EU (or at least is in
>> the process of being outlawed).
>
> AFAIK, only California had a real issue with it. Everywhere else in
> North America, it was still available, albeit with its warnings about
> causing cancer.

I can buy malachite green in California, no problem. It's aquatic
plants than can be tricky. I miss tropical sunset hygro.

--
Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

[Nikki]

Is it true that all ick meds can cause cancer (to humans) and how, getting
it on you often, once or whats the deal?
Nikki




"Altum" > wrote in message
et...
> NetMax wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>
>>> They are however all considered sensitive to medications, although the
>>> exact reason for this is unknown to me. Especially malachite green is
>>> nasty in that it seems hard to predict which species will be sensitive
>>> to it, and which wont. However, is malachite green still available in
>>> the US? I believe it's been outlawed here in the EU (or at least is in
>>> the process of being outlawed).
>>
>> AFAIK, only California had a real issue with it. Everywhere else in
>> North America, it was still available, albeit with its warnings about
>> causing cancer.
>
> I can buy malachite green in California, no problem. It's aquatic plants
> than can be tricky. I miss tropical sunset hygro.
>
> --
> Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
> Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

[Altum]

Nikki wrote:
> Is it true that all ick meds can cause cancer (to humans) and how, getting
> it on you often, once or whats the deal?
> Nikki

Let's put it into perspective. The radiation from your CRT and cell
phone should concern you much more than your fish meds.

--
Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

[Nikki]

how come everyone is always making such a big deal of it? I had looked on my
bottles of ick med and the ones at the store and never seen a warning, but i
have read it several times on the interent, that its better to use natural
cures because of the risk of cancer, i was thinking if it was that big of a
risk it should be on the bottle or something like that, i was a little
worried about touching the water with ick med in it.
Nikki

"Altum" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> Let's put it into perspective. The radiation from your CRT and cell phone
> should concern you much more than your fish meds.
>
> --
> Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
> Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

[Mr. Gardener]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 13:53:43 -0500, "Nikki"
> wrote:

>how come everyone is always making such a big deal of it? I had looked on my
>bottles of ick med and the ones at the store and never seen a warning, but i
>have read it several times on the interent, that its better to use natural
>cures because of the risk of cancer, i was thinking if it was that big of a
>risk it should be on the bottle or something like that, i was a little
>worried about touching the water with ick med in it.
>Nikki

When you go to the supermarket, do you see all the foods labeled with
warnings about the unhealthy ingredients on the package? The
carcinogenic coatings they put on your fruit and vegetables to keep
them fresh and shiny? Why in the world should an industry as
unregulated as the fish products industry warn you that their medicine
might not cure everything under the sun and might actually cause harm?
-- Mister Gardener

[Altum]

Beats me. People make a big deal of flying too. The drive to the
airport is statistically more dangerous. So was the shower you took
before you left - lots of people slip and hurt themselves in showers.

Most people are in denial about cancer. They worry about tiny risks,
like the malachite you might get on your hands. You want to know what
the biggies are? Start with alcohol, tobacco, and UV from sunlight.
Move on to the formalin, solvents, and plasticizers slowly leaching from
your walls, carpet, particle board furniture, styrofoam cups, Saran
Wrap, and anything new you purchase from soft plastic. If you live in a
city, there's ozone and soot in every breath you take. Then there are
the pesticides you get with your vegetables and the carcinogenic soot
you eat whenever you consume grilled meats. The list goes on, but you
get the idea.

If you EAT a lot of malachite green, day in and day out, you might be a
bit more likely to get cancer. So, fish farms that grow food fish can't
use malachite green. But we're talking eating the stuff in your salmon
dinners over years and years to have any effect. There is no evidence
whatsoever that dipping your hands in a fishtank with very dilute
malachite green in it once or twice will have any effect.

Just use common sense and wash your hands if you have to put them in a
tank with any fish medicine in it.

Nikki wrote:
> how come everyone is always making such a big deal of it? I had looked on my
> bottles of ick med and the ones at the store and never seen a warning, but i
> have read it several times on the interent, that its better to use natural
> cures because of the risk of cancer, i was thinking if it was that big of a
> risk it should be on the bottle or something like that, i was a little
> worried about touching the water with ick med in it.
> Nikki
>
> "Altum" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> Let's put it into perspective. The radiation from your CRT and cell phone
>> should concern you much more than your fish meds.

--
Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

[Nikki]

I guess what I have seen on the WebPages make it out to be a lot worse then
what it is, yeah I try to keep my hands out of any chemicals anyway, but
seems like when your trying hard not to touch something you end up doing it
every time.....
Nikki


There is no evidence
> whatsoever that dipping your hands in a fishtank with very dilute
> malachite green in it once or twice will have any effect.
>
> Just use common sense and wash your hands if you have to put them in a
> tank with any fish medicine in it.
>

[Gill Passman]

Nikki wrote:
> I guess what I have seen on the WebPages make it out to be a lot worse then
> what it is, yeah I try to keep my hands out of any chemicals anyway, but
> seems like when your trying hard not to touch something you end up doing it
> every time.....
> Nikki
>
>
> There is no evidence
>
>>whatsoever that dipping your hands in a fishtank with very dilute
>>malachite green in it once or twice will have any effect.
>>
>>Just use common sense and wash your hands if you have to put them in a
>>tank with any fish medicine in it.
>>
>
>
>
I don't keep my hands out necessarily but do make sure I don't get a
mouthful of the stuff when syphoning water out for the changes....

Altum is right, there are so many more risks to our lives far greater
than dipping our hands in a medicated tank - just if you suck to get the
syphon working don't swallow - in fact whether there are meds in the
tank or not this is a nasty thing to do...

And yeah, I often cite the drive to the airport/fly in to the airport
risk factor to anyone that has a fear of flying - but maybe I'm just
mean and increase their paranoi of either activity.....

[Altum]

Gill Passman wrote:

> I don't keep my hands out necessarily but do make sure I don't get a
> mouthful of the stuff when syphoning water out for the changes....
>
> Altum is right, there are so many more risks to our lives far greater
> than dipping our hands in a medicated tank - just if you suck to get the
> syphon working don't swallow - in fact whether there are meds in the
> tank or not this is a nasty thing to do...

Eh...An occasional mouthful of fish tank water hasn't killed me yet. It
often tastes better than my local tap water. ;-)

--
Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

[Gill Passman]

Altum wrote:
> Gill Passman wrote:
>
>> I don't keep my hands out necessarily but do make sure I don't get a
>> mouthful of the stuff when syphoning water out for the changes....
>>
>> Altum is right, there are so many more risks to our lives far greater
>> than dipping our hands in a medicated tank - just if you suck to get
>> the syphon working don't swallow - in fact whether there are meds in
>> the tank or not this is a nasty thing to do...
>
>
> Eh...An occasional mouthful of fish tank water hasn't killed me yet. It
> often tastes better than my local tap water. ;-)
>

Hey, if you had had to get the syphon working after the pump got blocked
up and restarted on my Malawi tank this morning you would have second
thoughts....algae kill off is too effective - inlet valve got blocked
overnight (in fact is mangled again tonight) - all sorts of crud in the
tank but the fish happy again....had a can of Coke handy to take away
the taste - hopeless at the elbow work to get it going - sucking works
for me....

But yep, no issues with a mouthful of non problem tank water - a bit
musty maybe but nought compared to a mouthful of the River Thames when I
used to swim in it as a kid....

[Mr. Gardener]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:47:45 +0000, Gill Passman
> wrote:
>
>And yeah, I often cite the drive to the airport/fly in to the airport
>risk factor to anyone that has a fear of flying - but maybe I'm just
>mean and increase their paranoi of either activity.....

I've flown about 3 times in my life. Paranoid, for sure. The last time
I flew I found a priest traveling alone sitting right next to me. I
figured he might have some special influence to keep me calm and safe.
He did. As soon as the plane left the ground, he reached into his
pocket and offered me a swig from his flask of whiskey.

-- Mister Gardener

[Koi-Lo]

Moments before spontaneously combusting <Altum> at
> was heard opining:

> Eh...An occasional mouthful of fish tank water hasn't killed me yet. It
> often tastes better than my local tap water. ;-)
================
We have good tap water where I live with little chlorine smell or none at
all. A mouthful of tank water tastes like the water from the nearby Lake.
It smells just like Lake water as well.
--
Koi-Lo.... frugal ponding since 1995...
Aquariums since 1952
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~ }<((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((o>

[LM]

I thought catfish are type of loaches? or may be I'm only thinking
dojo (japanese catfish), which I remember reading it's a cousin to
loaches... dojo is covered in slime... I guess that is the key to
identifying scaleless fish?

didn't know corys and plecos are sensitive.. plecos look so robust..
corys.. well, didn't think they were the sensitive kind of the sort :-P

so.. does that mean my botias (zebra loach, sidthemunkis) are ok with
the meds (antibiotics and anti-parasitics) as "normal" fish? (unless
the package says "do not medicate bottom feeders, loaches" on it)

I hear lots about malachite green being toxic to scaleless/sensitive
fish and plants?, but what about methylene blue?

CA has issues with many things. as far as I know, it's the only state
that puts a warning label on crystal dinnerware (wine glasses, etc)
since crystal glass has lead in it... (I have a real hard time
believing lead that is in a matrix of glass is going to leech all that
much to be that toxic! chemically speaking glass is one of most stable
substance...)

anyhow...

linda

[NetMax]

"LM" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I thought catfish are type of loaches? or may be I'm only thinking
> dojo (japanese catfish), which I remember reading it's a cousin to
> loaches... dojo is covered in slime... I guess that is the key to
> identifying scaleless fish?

I think Dojos would definitely be susceptible to the meds. The slime coat
is characteristic of scaled fish too though.

> didn't know corys and plecos are sensitive.. plecos look so robust..
> corys.. well, didn't think they were the sensitive kind of the sort :-P

Have you ever seen the belly of a cory after too big a meal? Swells like a
little balloon, no armor under there, just skin, so they are vulnerable too.

> so.. does that mean my botias (zebra loach, sidthemunkis) are ok with
> the meds (antibiotics and anti-parasitics) as "normal" fish? (unless
> the package says "do not medicate bottom feeders, loaches" on it)

I wouldn't count on any conformity in warning labels. It's unregulated. If
it says use half dosage for anything, it would be half dosage for the entire
group we identified as vulnerable imo.

> I hear lots about malachite green being toxic to scaleless/sensitive
> fish and plants?, but what about methylene blue?

Good question. From the view of 'staining' (tissue penetration and
accumulation) I would lean towards 'yes', but from the view of toxicity, I
would lean towards 'no', so I'll leave that one for the experts, or Richard
;~).
--
www.NetMax.tk

> CA has issues with many things. as far as I know, it's the only state
> that puts a warning label on crystal dinnerware (wine glasses, etc)
> since crystal glass has lead in it... (I have a real hard time
> believing lead that is in a matrix of glass is going to leech all that
> much to be that toxic! chemically speaking glass is one of most stable
> substance...)
>
> anyhow...
>
> linda
>

[Richard Sexton]

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>> > Is it true that all ick meds can cause cancer (to humans) and how, getting
>> > it on you often, once or whats the deal?
>> > Nikki
>>
>> Let's put it into perspective. The radiation from your CRT and cell
>> phone should concern you much more than your fish meds.
>
>No, I don't agree. Compounds such as formalin and malachite green

You can't compare the carcinogenicness (that's a word?) of formalin (bad)
to malachite green (eh).


--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net

[Nikki]

"Gill Passman" > wrote in message
...
Altum is right, there are so many more risks to our lives far greater
> than dipping our hands in a medicated tank - just if you suck to get the
> syphon working don't swallow - in fact whether there are meds in the tank
> or not this is a nasty thing to do...


Try using the hose part on the vacuum cleaner to start it, I used to always
have my husband to do the suck on the hose thing and he once got a mouth
full of water, and there went that, so he handed me the vacuum, which works
much better, you just got to be fast....so you dont get water in your vacuum
cleaner.
the fish tank vacuum instructions say to pump it up an down to start it.....
but i make a mess out of the tank when i try and i knocked a fish in the
head that way before, so i dont do it now
Nikki

[Altum]

Richard Sexton wrote:
> In article . com>,
> > wrote:
>>>> Is it true that all ick meds can cause cancer (to humans) and how, getting
>>>> it on you often, once or whats the deal?
>>>> Nikki
>>> Let's put it into perspective. The radiation from your CRT and cell
>>> phone should concern you much more than your fish meds.
>> No, I don't agree. Compounds such as formalin and malachite green
>
> You can't compare the carcinogenicness (that's a word?) of formalin (bad)
> to malachite green (eh).
>

And malachite green is only vaguely carcinogenic if you EAT it. As a
general rule, polar, water soluble compounds don't make it through the
epidermis very well. Dilute formalin doesn't penetrate normal skin
either - it reacts with the layers of keratin in the epidermis. You
have to eat or breathe it to get the carcinogenic effects.

--
Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

[NetMax]

"Altum" > wrote in message
. com...
> Richard Sexton wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> > wrote:
>>>>> Is it true that all ick meds can cause cancer (to humans) and how,
>>>>> getting
>>>>> it on you often, once or whats the deal?
>>>>> Nikki
>>>> Let's put it into perspective. The radiation from your CRT and cell
>>>> phone should concern you much more than your fish meds.
>>> No, I don't agree. Compounds such as formalin and malachite green
>>
>> You can't compare the carcinogenicness (that's a word?) of formalin (bad)
>> to malachite green (eh).
>>
>
> And malachite green is only vaguely carcinogenic if you EAT it. As a
> general rule, polar, water soluble compounds don't make it through the
> epidermis very well. Dilute formalin doesn't penetrate normal skin
> either - it reacts with the layers of keratin in the epidermis. You have
> to eat or breathe it to get the carcinogenic effects.
>
> --
> Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
> Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com


We had an employee who was a bit clumsy and epileptic (bad combination). He
was not allowed to treat the tanks with Rid-Ich, because he invariably spilt
some on himself (so he walked around with stains on himself and his
clothes), and then it started to visibly affected him (nausea etc). He may
have been 1 in a trillion though (he was quite unique, in mostly good ways).
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Altum]

NetMax wrote:

> We had an employee who was a bit clumsy and epileptic (bad combination). He
> was not allowed to treat the tanks with Rid-Ich, because he invariably spilt
> some on himself (so he walked around with stains on himself and his
> clothes), and then it started to visibly affected him (nausea etc). He may
> have been 1 in a trillion though (he was quite unique, in mostly good ways).

Strong formalin does that. Your skin is "designed" to be a barrier to
all sorts of dilute chemicals. Concentrated chemicals are a whole
different ballgame. Formalin also has pretty toxic fumes if you breathe
enough (ugh...been there, done that).

--
Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

[NetMax]

"Altum" > wrote in message
t...
> NetMax wrote:
>
>> We had an employee who was a bit clumsy and epileptic (bad combination).
>> He was not allowed to treat the tanks with Rid-Ich, because he invariably
>> spilt some on himself (so he walked around with stains on himself and his
>> clothes), and then it started to visibly affected him (nausea etc). He
>> may have been 1 in a trillion though (he was quite unique, in mostly good
>> ways).
>
> Strong formalin does that. Your skin is "designed" to be a barrier to all
> sorts of dilute chemicals. Concentrated chemicals are a whole different
> ballgame. Formalin also has pretty toxic fumes if you breathe enough
> (ugh...been there, done that).
>
> --
> Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
> Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

You don't think it could have been the malachite green? I also used
formaldehyde when treating the Discus, but I don't think he was ever exposed
to that (I get a little possessive about treating the over thousand $ tanks
;~). In hindsight, perhaps this was a good thing for more than one reason.
--
www.NetMax.tk

[mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk]

Richard Sexton wrote:
>
> >> > Is it true that all ick meds can cause cancer (to humans) and how, getting
> >> > it on you often, once or whats the deal?
> >>
> >> Let's put it into perspective. The radiation from your CRT and cell
> >> phone should concern you much more than your fish meds.
> >
> >No, I don't agree. Compounds such as formalin and malachite green
>
> You can't compare the carcinogenicness (that's a word?) of formalin (bad)
> to malachite green (eh).

I didn't mean to imply that malachite green is as bad as formalin, it
isn't, and yes AFAIK you do have to ingest it for it to be
carcinogenic. However, they're both known carcinogens, which CRT and
cellphone radiation is NOT. Hence, cellphone and CRT radiation are NOT
worthy of "much more concern" than your fish meds. Smoking, yes,
driving your car, probably, CRT/cellphone radiation - no.

Also, in response to another poster: formalin is a water solution of
formaldehyde gas. If you use it, you will be breathing formaldehyde
vapors. You do not have to drink it.

Formaldehyde in itself is moderately allergenic and weakly
carcinogenic, BUT may over time, especially if stored cold, convert to
paraformaldehyde, which is strongly carcinogenic. Formalin contains
methanol, which in itself is acutely toxic, to prevent the formation of
paraformaldehyde.

And everyone please spare me the "I've been using greenex for 20 years
and not developed cancer". I work with formaldehyde on a daily basis,
and have not developed cancer, but sensitivity to carcinogens and
allergens is individual. If you're pre-disposed to developing allergy
or cancer, a single exposure may be enough. If you're not, daily
exposure will do nothing. So the question is: do you feel lucky?

I am not trying to play up the risks of fish meds - the risks are
indeed small - but suggesting that there are NO risks is worse, as it
may cause people to not treat the meds with the care they actually
warrant.

[NetMax]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
<snip>
> Also, in response to another poster: formalin is a water solution of
> formaldehyde gas. If you use it, you will be breathing formaldehyde
> vapors. You do not have to drink it.
>
> Formaldehyde in itself is moderately allergenic and weakly
> carcinogenic, BUT may over time, especially if stored cold, convert to
> paraformaldehyde, which is strongly carcinogenic. Formalin contains
> methanol, which in itself is acutely toxic, to prevent the formation of
> paraformaldehyde.
>
> And everyone please spare me the "I've been using greenex for 20 years
> and not developed cancer". I work with formaldehyde on a daily basis,
> and have not developed cancer, but sensitivity to carcinogens and
> allergens is individual. If you're pre-disposed to developing allergy
> or cancer, a single exposure may be enough. If you're not, daily
> exposure will do nothing. So the question is: do you feel lucky?
>
> I am not trying to play up the risks of fish meds - the risks are
> indeed small - but suggesting that there are NO risks is worse, as it
> may cause people to not treat the meds with the care they actually
> warrant.


nice post, storing to archives
--
www.NetMax.tk

[Altum]

wrote:

> I didn't mean to imply that malachite green is as bad as formalin, it
> isn't, and yes AFAIK you do have to ingest it for it to be
> carcinogenic. However, they're both known carcinogens, which CRT and
> cellphone radiation is NOT. Hence, cellphone and CRT radiation are NOT
> worthy of "much more concern" than your fish meds. Smoking, yes,
> driving your car, probably, CRT/cellphone radiation - no.

I mentioned cell phones and CRTs because I looked up as I was typing. I
was sitting in front of my computer with my cell phone next to me.

CRT's are probably OK, although I'm still going to sit as far from mine
as possible. They give off considerable VLF and ELF radiation, but the
only cancer possibly associated with ELF radiation is childhood
leukemia. However, CRT epidemiological studies are very difficult to do
because of problems with controls. There is a recent in vitro study
where tamifoxen sensitive breast cancer cells became tamifoxen resistant
after exposure to ELF.

Analog cell phones are clearly associated with an increased risk of
cancer. Digital phones cause changes on the subcellular level that are
sometimes associated with carcinogenesis. Furthermore, a very large
recent epidemiological study failed to rule out a cancer risk after
exposure periods of ten years or more.

Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone
case-control study in five North European countries. Schoemaker MJ et
al. British J Cancer. 2005 Oct 3;93(7):842-8.

Mobile telephones and cancer: Is there really no evidence of an
association? (Review) Kjell Hansson Mild, Lennart Hardell, Michael Kundi
and Mats-Olof Mattson. International Journal Of Molecular Medicine 12:
67-72, 2003.

> Also, in response to another poster: formalin is a water solution of
> formaldehyde gas. If you use it, you will be breathing formaldehyde
> vapors. You do not have to drink it.

That would be the same poster. :-p Is there really enough vapor
pressure from a few drops of ich medicine added to many gallons of water
to produce formaldehyde vapors? Granted, you get a transient whiff when
you open the bottle.

> Formaldehyde in itself is moderately allergenic and weakly
> carcinogenic, BUT may over time, especially if stored cold, convert to
> paraformaldehyde, which is strongly carcinogenic. Formalin contains
> methanol, which in itself is acutely toxic, to prevent the formation of
> paraformaldehyde.
>
> And everyone please spare me the "I've been using greenex for 20 years
> and not developed cancer". I work with formaldehyde on a daily basis,
> and have not developed cancer, but sensitivity to carcinogens and
> allergens is individual. If you're pre-disposed to developing allergy
> or cancer, a single exposure may be enough. If you're not, daily
> exposure will do nothing. So the question is: do you feel lucky?

If you're that predisposed, you have a lot more to worry about than a
single exposure to ich medicine in a fishtank. I agree that "I use
(fill in the blank) and I haven't developed cancer" is not useful. Only
0.5% of us will get cancer anyway.

> I am not trying to play up the risks of fish meds - the risks are
> indeed small - but suggesting that there are NO risks is worse, as it
> may cause people to not treat the meds with the care they actually
> warrant.

Fair, but I maintain that the risks from fish meds are mostly acute
effects from the concentrated form. Don't drink them, don't get them on
your skin as you're adding them to the tank, and keep them away from
your children.

--
Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

[Mr. Gardener]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:19:51 GMT, Altum >
wrote:

>Fair, but I maintain that the risks from fish meds are mostly acute
>effects from the concentrated form. Don't drink them, don't get them on
>your skin as you're adding them to the tank, and keep them away from
>your children.

Hey, you're pretty good. Do you think you could give me a convincing
story to show that my smoking a pipe is harmless?

Didn't think so.

-- Mister Gardener

[Gill Passman]

Mr. Gardener wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:19:51 GMT, Altum >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Fair, but I maintain that the risks from fish meds are mostly acute
>>effects from the concentrated form. Don't drink them, don't get them on
>>your skin as you're adding them to the tank, and keep them away from
>>your children.
>
>
> Hey, you're pretty good. Do you think you could give me a convincing
> story to show that my smoking a pipe is harmless?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
> -- Mister Gardener

Smoking tobacco or "other substances" is a well documented cause of
cancer - not everyone is effected but I think that the stats speak for
themselves....

Formaldehyde is most commonly used for embalming...you want to be
embalmed while alive??? A little extreme, I know, but with any chemicals
the advice to be cautious, whether they are carcengic or not is good
advice....

Personally, I believe Altum's posting gives serious good advice...we can
argue to the cows come home whether phones, VDUs etc cause cancer but we
do know that both cigarette smoking and the chemicals contained in fish
meds are potentially harmful to health....therefore the bottom line is
caution....

Gill

[Altum]

Mr. Gardener wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:19:51 GMT, Altum >
> wrote:
>
>> Fair, but I maintain that the risks from fish meds are mostly acute
>> effects from the concentrated form. Don't drink them, don't get them on
>> your skin as you're adding them to the tank, and keep them away from
>> your children.
>
> Hey, you're pretty good. Do you think you could give me a convincing
> story to show that my smoking a pipe is harmless?

That's why they call the degree I'm going for "Piled Higher and Deeper."
:-p

Just don't start smoking your fish medicine.

--
Put the word aquaria in the subject to reply.
Did you read the FAQ? http://faq.thekrib.com

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

wrote:


> No, I don't agree. Compounds such as formalin and malachite green
> really are known to be toxic and in some cases cancerogenous; the same
> is not true of the radiation you speak of above.

Carcinogenic effects of formalin is largely a myth published in the 80's
after rats were exposed to methanal (formaldehyde, formalin is an
aqueous solution of this gas) concentrations that were well in excess of
what people would simply run away from (the stuff stinks REAL BAD, in
case you never worked with it). However, the rats, being in a cage,
could not run away.

Methanal works by cross-linking proteins, making them immunogenic. So
the rats were in effect suffering from chronic inflammation, a condition
known to lead to cancer. This was a very badly performed experiment,
which caused a lot of suffering in the animals without telling us
anything we did not know before.

To asses the carcinogenicity of methanal in people it is worthwhile to
look at morbidity data from people professionally exposed to the
compound: pathologists and manufacturers of chipwood. In none of these
groups was it possible to demonstrate carcinogenesis. That does not mean
that methanal is harmless, in fact it is quite toxic and highly
allergenic. But it is no carcinogen.

Cynics claim that the witch-hunt for formalin was started by the
chemical industry because it had little industrial uses and could be
easily replaced. Thus it was a cheap way to detract the public from more
serious threads. That statement however is unproven.

While we are at it: There is also no evidence that the electromagnetic
radiation from cell phones, power lines and the like, if inside the
statutory levels, can cause any harm in people, including cancer. There
was a report published by the WHO recently that summarised the published
work up to 2004. Although there are people claiming to suffer from
radiation effects there is no evidence supporting a link between
radiation and the claimed health effects. In particular the severity of
symptoms does not correlate with field strength in double blind
experiments, as it should if radiation were the cause of the symptoms.
Whether the symptoms are of psychological origin or caused by something
else is not known however, and recommended treatment is palliative.

[Nikki]

interesting
Nik

"Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>
>> No, I don't agree. Compounds such as formalin and malachite green
>> really are known to be toxic and in some cases cancerogenous; the same
>> is not true of the radiation you speak of above.
>
> Carcinogenic effects of formalin is largely a myth published in the 80's
> after rats were exposed to methanal (formaldehyde, formalin is an
> aqueous solution of this gas) concentrations that were well in excess of
> what people would simply run away from (the stuff stinks REAL BAD, in
> case you never worked with it). However, the rats, being in a cage,
> could not run away.
>
> Methanal works by cross-linking proteins, making them immunogenic. So
> the rats were in effect suffering from chronic inflammation, a condition
> known to lead to cancer. This was a very badly performed experiment,
> which caused a lot of suffering in the animals without telling us
> anything we did not know before.
>
> To asses the carcinogenicity of methanal in people it is worthwhile to
> look at morbidity data from people professionally exposed to the
> compound: pathologists and manufacturers of chipwood. In none of these
> groups was it possible to demonstrate carcinogenesis. That does not mean
> that methanal is harmless, in fact it is quite toxic and highly
> allergenic. But it is no carcinogen.
>
> Cynics claim that the witch-hunt for formalin was started by the
> chemical industry because it had little industrial uses and could be
> easily replaced. Thus it was a cheap way to detract the public from more
> serious threads. That statement however is unproven.
>
> While we are at it: There is also no evidence that the electromagnetic
> radiation from cell phones, power lines and the like, if inside the
> statutory levels, can cause any harm in people, including cancer. There
> was a report published by the WHO recently that summarised the published
> work up to 2004. Although there are people claiming to suffer from
> radiation effects there is no evidence supporting a link between
> radiation and the claimed health effects. In particular the severity of
> symptoms does not correlate with field strength in double blind
> experiments, as it should if radiation were the cause of the symptoms.
> Whether the symptoms are of psychological origin or caused by something
> else is not known however, and recommended treatment is palliative.

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
Altum > wrote:
wrote:
>
>> I didn't mean to imply that malachite green is as bad as formalin, it
>> isn't, and yes AFAIK you do have to ingest it for it to be
>> carcinogenic. However, they're both known carcinogens, which CRT and
>> cellphone radiation is NOT. Hence, cellphone and CRT radiation are NOT
>> worthy of "much more concern" than your fish meds. Smoking, yes,
>> driving your car, probably, CRT/cellphone radiation - no.
>
>I mentioned cell phones and CRTs because I looked up as I was typing. I
>was sitting in front of my computer with my cell phone next to me.
>
>CRT's are probably OK, although I'm still going to sit as far from mine
>as possible. They give off considerable VLF and ELF radiation, but the
>only cancer possibly associated with ELF radiation is childhood
>leukemia. However, CRT epidemiological studies are very difficult to do
>because of problems with controls. There is a recent in vitro study
>where tamifoxen sensitive breast cancer cells became tamifoxen resistant
>after exposure to ELF.

There's a mad scientist that lives up the road. He came by and tested
every CRT I have here with an DMF meter. The good (expensive, ie Sony)
ones has no measurable readin from a foot back. The cheap (Costco) ones
still registered from 20 (twenty) feet back. Yow.

Another msd scientist friend tells the tale 30 years ago where
typesetting operators, using newfangles crts were giving birth
to an alarming number of babied with severe problems and he
was called in to investigate. What he found was the crts had
such a strong magnetic field that they attracted clouds of
microparticulate ink. If you'ver ever worked at a newspaper you
know that smell. The crts concentrated it and the girls were brerthing
in lots and lots of this crap. To no good end.


--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
Mr. Gardener > wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:19:51 GMT, Altum >
>wrote:
>
>>Fair, but I maintain that the risks from fish meds are mostly acute
>>effects from the concentrated form. Don't drink them, don't get them on
>>your skin as you're adding them to the tank, and keep them away from
>>your children.
>
>Hey, you're pretty good. Do you think you could give me a convincing
>story to show that my smoking a pipe is harmless?

Depending on what you're smoking you can probably convince yourself.

Eat lots of ginger, garlic and chilis.


--
Need Mercedes parts? http://parts.mbz.org
Richard Sexton | Mercedes stuff: http://mbz.org
1970 280SE, 72 280SE | Home pages: http://rs79.vrx.net
633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | http://aquaria.net http://killi.net

[mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk]

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:

> > No, I don't agree. Compounds such as formalin and malachite green
> > really are known to be toxic and in some cases cancerogenous; the same
> > is not true of the radiation you speak of above.
>
> Carcinogenic effects of formalin is largely a myth published in the 80's
> after rats were exposed to methanal (formaldehyde, formalin is an
> aqueous solution of this gas) concentrations that were well in excess of
> what people would simply run away from (the stuff stinks REAL BAD, in
> case you never worked with it). However, the rats, being in a cage,
> could not run away.

Yes, I do work with it, and I have been subject to levels sufficiently
high that my throat was sore for several days, and the skin of my hands
sloughed off (formalin got inside my gloves). It hasn't got nearly as
pungent smell as chlorine gas or ammonia, nor does it really irritate
the eyes, and it is quite easy to remain in the area. Lets just say
that I hope I'm not predisposed for cancer.

Of course, you'd basically have to put your nose to the bottle (or,
say, spill the contents on the floor) to get that kind of exposure with
fish meds.

> While we are at it: There is also no evidence that the electromagnetic
> radiation from cell phones, power lines and the like, if inside the
> statutory levels, can cause any harm in people, including cancer.

Absolutely right.