UV Sterilizer

[Jeff & Kathy Brown]

Does anyone have suggestions on which sterilizers are good or which ones to
stay away from? Thanks

[2pods]

"Jeff & Kathy Brown" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone have suggestions on which sterilizers are good or which ones
> to stay away from? Thanks

I now use Hozelock Bioforce filters with inbuilt UVs (2200UV and 4500UV),
but they they also do seperate UVs which I thought were good when I had
them.

Peter

[[email protected]]

I have a custom UV that is extremely effective in small ponds and
aquariums. I have been using this sterilizer for 12 years now on my
maintenance route.
http://americanaquariumproducts.com/UVSterilizers.html

[[email protected]]

I have a custom UV that is extremely effective in small ponds and
aquariums. I have been using this sterilizer for 12 years now on my
maintenance route.
http://americanaquariumproducts.com/UVSterilizers.html

[Jeff & Kathy Brown]

Thanks for the replies but I need a sterilizer not a clarifier. Anymore
suggestions would be really appreciated. Thanks again.


"Jeff & Kathy Brown" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone have suggestions on which sterilizers are good or which ones
> to stay away from? Thanks
>

[Phyllis and Jim Hurley]

We use a tetra pond UV for our 3900 gal pond. Works fine

--
See our pond at: home.bellsouth.net/personalpages/pwp-jameshurley
Ask me about Jog A Thon fundraiser (clears $120+ per child) at: jogathon.net
"Jeff & Kathy Brown" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone have suggestions on which sterilizers are good or which ones
to
> stay away from? Thanks
>
>

[Gareee©]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I have a custom UV that is extremely effective in small ponds and
> aquariums. I have been using this sterilizer for 12 years now on my
> maintenance route.
> http://americanaquariumproducts.com/UVSterilizers.html

Wish I'd seen that last week.. I already ordered a uv sterilizer last week.
Mine was also 15 watt, and was $79, but at least I got free shipping, so the
price was probably the same as your in the end.

--
Gareee©
(Gary Tabar Jr.)

[Rodney Pont]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:15:56 -0500, Jeff & Kathy Brown wrote:

>Thanks for the replies but I need a sterilizer not a clarifier. Anymore
>suggestions would be really appreciated. Thanks again.

To sterilize with UV you need about 1 watt for every 10 gallons and
need to cycle the water through it about once an hour. This is why they
are usually used as clarifiers in ponds. They cause the green algae to
clump together and then they can be filtered out.

There are a lot sold as sterilizers for ponds but they are so
underpowered that they won't make an impact on bacteria.

--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

[[email protected]]

you dont need a sterilizer unless you are putting this on a drinking water system
with very clear water. there is no way in an open system that you can sterilize the
water anyway.


>On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:15:56 -0500, Jeff & Kathy Brown wrote:
>>Thanks for the replies but I need a sterilizer not a clarifier.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
> wrote:
>you dont need a sterilizer unless you are putting this on a drinking water system
>with very clear water. there is no way in an open system that you can sterilize the
>water anyway.

The goal is not sterile water, obviouslu that's a non-starter. The goal is
to kill as many algae cells suspended in the water as possible. Even if you're
an optimal aquarist in the Dupla sense of the work a UV sterilizer helps and
makes the most crystal clear water you've ever seen. It probably won't do this
in a pond, but it'll get you closer.


--
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

[[email protected]]

he SAID to sterilize the water. I cant say whether he meant that or not, but there
ARE pond people believe their UV is killing the cooties, not just the algae. and
killing algae can be done with cheap low watt units that simply rough up the exterior
of the algae cause it to clump and get removed by a filter. I get rid of the algae
in my pond in 24 hours with a cheap and OLD UV, I dont bother changing "the bulb"
until the whole unit falls apart. and it has always cleared the algae just fine.
Ingrid

(Richard Sexton) wrote:

>In article >,
> > wrote:
>>you dont need a sterilizer unless you are putting this on a drinking water system
>>with very clear water. there is no way in an open system that you can sterilize the
>>water anyway.
>
>The goal is not sterile water, obviouslu that's a non-starter. The goal is
>to kill as many algae cells suspended in the water as possible. Even if you're
>an optimal aquarist in the Dupla sense of the work a UV sterilizer helps and
>makes the most crystal clear water you've ever seen. It probably won't do this
>in a pond, but it'll get you closer.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.

[Jeff & Kathy Brown]

It's the algae but mostly the "cooties" that I want to manage. Thanks
> wrote in message
...
> he SAID to sterilize the water. I cant say whether he meant that or not,
> but there
> ARE pond people believe their UV is killing the cooties, not just the
> algae. and
> killing algae can be done with cheap low watt units that simply rough up
> the exterior
> of the algae cause it to clump and get removed by a filter. I get rid of
> the algae
> in my pond in 24 hours with a cheap and OLD UV, I dont bother changing
> "the bulb"
> until the whole unit falls apart. and it has always cleared the algae
> just fine.
> Ingrid
>
> (Richard Sexton) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> > wrote:
>>>you dont need a sterilizer unless you are putting this on a drinking
>>>water system
>>>with very clear water. there is no way in an open system that you can
>>>sterilize the
>>>water anyway.
>>
>>The goal is not sterile water, obviouslu that's a non-starter. The goal is
>>to kill as many algae cells suspended in the water as possible. Even if
>>you're
>>an optimal aquarist in the Dupla sense of the work a UV sterilizer helps
>>and
>>makes the most crystal clear water you've ever seen. It probably won't do
>>this
>>in a pond, but it'll get you closer.
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
> http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
> sign up:
> http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
> www.drsolo.com
> Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold
> website.
> I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.

[[email protected]]

difficult to impossible to kill the cooties. they are larger and have good DNA
repair mechanisms cause they are eucaryotes. algae is not killed by regular UV
either.
If fish are healthy, if you can keep bird **** out of the pond, if you dont introduce
new fish into the pond without extensive quarantine, if the water is kept in great
shape then the few cooties around are good cause they continue to challenge the
immune system of the fish. Ingrid

"Jeff & Kathy Brown" > wrote:

>It's the algae but mostly the "cooties" that I want to manage. Thanks


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
> wrote:
>algae is not killed by regular UV either.

I'm not certain what you mean by this. It's a very accepted practice with
fishtanks to keep ssupended algae out of the water column by UV sterilization;
it makes for the most crystal clear water ever seen.

Most cloudy water in a fishtank is supended felamentous algae. In a dark
room shine a flashlight sideways through it and you can see the tiny filaments
with the naked eye. The water appears slighly yellowish, bt not green until
it gets really bad.


--
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

[[email protected]]

the mechanism isnt "death"... it roughs up the surface of the algae which then clump
together and are removed by filtration. filtration must occur or the nutrients go
right back into the water after being broken down. Ingrid

(Richard Sexton) wrote:

>In article >,
> > wrote:
>>algae is not killed by regular UV either.
>
>I'm not certain what you mean by this. It's a very accepted practice with
>fishtanks to keep ssupended algae out of the water column by UV sterilization;
>it makes for the most crystal clear water ever seen.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
> wrote:
>the mechanism isnt "death"... it roughs up the surface of the algae which then clump
>together and are removed by filtration. filtration must occur or the nutrients go
>right back into the water after being broken down. Ingrid

Uh no. Google is your friend.

http://www.google.com/search?pg=q&fmt=.&q=exposure+to+uv+algae+kill+dna&x=0&y=0


--
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

[[email protected]]

uh no.... people who sell UV to ponders, and those who simply repeat what others say
dont understand UV and how it kills.
what is needed is a .edu site that gives information about the kill rate given the
following factors
1. intensity of the UV, higher the intensity, higher the kill
2. distance from UV source to microbe, the longer the distance, the lower the kill
3. turbidity of the water the microbes are in, the higher the turbidity, the lower
the kill
4. time. that is, the slower the flow of microbe past the UV source the higher the
kill.
5. and each microbe has its own "dosage" requirements, IN GENERAL, the larger more
complex the organism the lower the kill

this site http://www.hygienitech.com/Hygienitech%20UV-C%20Light%20Primer.pdf talks
about dosage effects.

Think about it logically. The earth used to be bathed in MUCH MORE UV millions and
billions of years ago when algae first evolved. Almost all known living things have
elaborate UV repair mechanisms, and all green plants which must be bathed in sunlight
to live.

In fact, http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_htm_files/v57/p54_60nf.html is a
scientific paper "USE OF ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION TO ACHIEVE BACTERIA-FREE ALGAL
CULTURE"

So yes, I am sure UV can be used to kill algae, but not by the typical UV box we use
on our ponds. Actually, ozonators are much, much better. Ozone is created by UV
action on oxygen. It is what we use to keep our very small pond (our spa) algae and
bacteria free. unfortunately it cannot be used with fish cause it rips their gills
up. some do use ozone but have elaborate de-ozonators on salt water tanks (I think).
expensive. Ingrid


(Richard Sexton) wrote:

>In article >,
> > wrote:
>>the mechanism isnt "death"... it roughs up the surface of the algae which then clump
>>together and are removed by filtration. filtration must occur or the nutrients go
>>right back into the water after being broken down. Ingrid
>
>Uh no. Google is your friend.
>
>http://www.google.com/search?pg=q&fmt=.&q=exposure+to+uv+algae+kill+dna&x=0&y=0



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.

[[email protected]]

I have a blog about UV sterilization that explains in general how UV
sterilization works http://aquariumuvsterilizer.blogspot.com/ . One
point that many miss is calcium, salt build up on the bulb or quartz
sleeve. I have used UVs with and without sleeves, the biggest problem
with quartz sleeves is that most aquarists do not clean or change them
(acitone works well for cleaning), thinking changing the bulb is all
that is necessary. The one I designed is simple has excellent contact
time, and resists calcium build up.

< wrote:
>1. intensity of the UV, higher the intensity, higher the kill
>2. distance from UV source to microbe, the longer the distance, the lower the kill
>3. turbidity of the water the microbes are in, the higher the turbidity, the lower
the kill
>4. time. that is, the slower the flow of microbe past the UV source the higher the
kill.
>5. and each microbe has its own "dosage" requirements, IN GENERAL, the larger more
complex the organism the lower the kill
ALL EXCELLENT POINTS!

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
> wrote:
>uh no.... people who sell UV to ponders, and those who simply repeat what others say
>dont understand UV and how it kills.
>what is needed is a .edu site that gives information about the kill rate given the
>following factors

A domain ending .edu does not imply a hgher truth value. That's not
the way DNS works.

>1. intensity of the UV, higher the intensity, higher the kill
>2. distance from UV source to microbe, the longer the distance, the lower the kill
>3. turbidity of the water the microbes are in, the higher the turbidity, the lower
>the kill
>4. time. that is, the slower the flow of microbe past the UV source the higher the
>kill.
>5. and each microbe has its own "dosage" requirements, IN GENERAL, the larger more
>complex the organism the lower the kill
>
>this site http://www.hygienitech.com/Hygienitech%20UV-C%20Light%20Primer.pdf talks
>about dosage effects.
>
>Think about it logically. The earth used to be bathed in MUCH MORE UV millions and
>billions of years ago when algae first evolved. Almost all known living things have
>elaborate UV repair mechanisms, and all green plants which must be bathed in sunlight
>to live.

There's no such thing as "UV repair mechanism". DNA can to an extent repair itself, RNA
can not. UV damages DNS.

>In fact, http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_htm_files/v57/p54_60nf.html is a
>scientific paper "USE OF ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION TO ACHIEVE BACTERIA-FREE ALGAL
>CULTURE"

THis proves you can manipulate distance and exposure time to kill bacteria ad keep
alage alive. Ok. so?

>So yes, I am sure UV can be used to kill algae, but not by the typical UV box we use
>on our ponds.

The same box kills alage in aquaria.

The difference is, there's such a larger body of water alage cells don't get the
same exposure to UV as they do in a (much) smaller fishtank.

> Actually, ozonators are much, much better. Ozone is created by UV
>action on oxygen.

That's one way to make ozone. The ozonizers i've seen didn't do it this way though.

>bacteria free. unfortunately it cannot be used with fish cause it rips their gills
>up. some do use ozone but have elaborate de-ozonators on salt water tanks (I think).
>expensive. Ingrid

This last paragarapgraph is utter nonsense at worst, a bad guess at best.

--
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

[Derek Broughton]

Richard Sexton wrote:

>
> There's no such thing as "UV repair mechanism". DNA can to an extent
> repair itself, RNA can not. UV damages DNS.

Yow! Then the hole in the ozone layer could eventually cause the death of
the Internet! :-)
--
derek

[[email protected]]

A .edu domain (as does .gov) nearly ensures valid information. it does not guarantee
it, neither does "publication" as exemplified by the "Scientist Hwang Fired for Stem
Cell Fraud"

LOL... http://www-plb.ucdavis.edu/labs/britt/labprojects.html
UV damage is very specific. It is unlike other kinds of mutations. It causes
thiamine dimers and there is a specific repair mechanism call UV repair. DNA doesnt
"repair" itself.

http://www.aquariumpros.com/articles/sterilprocon2.shtml
"Ozone is a highly reactive gas that occurs in nature due to a reaction of oxygen
with UV radiation from the sun and also from lightning discharges in the atmosphere.
It is a hybrid, three atom form of oxygen. Ozone will react with nearly everything,
including the plastic components of filters, making them hard and brittle over time.
The most proper method of using ozone is in a separate (and expensive) reaction
chamber specifically designed for the purpose. Both the air and water leaving the
ozone reaction chamber should be treated with carbon to remove excess ozone so it
will not harm the fish OR THE FISH KEEPER! Regardless of whether a reaction chamber
is used, the amount of ozone released should be carefully controlled using an (also
expensive) ORP meter/controller."
" If ozone can destroy cell membranes, keep in mind that it can do the same thing to
the sensitive gill membranes of fish and outer membranes of invertebrates. Ozone also
can be harmful to humans. Ozone has a pungent "odor." Once you've smelled it, you
won't forget it. If you smell it, you're using too much! The bottom line is that if
you intend to use ozone in your aquarium equipment scheme, you should consider using
an ozone reaction chamber. Regardless of the method used, dosage should be carefully
controlled with an ORP meter/controller."
Ingrid

(Richard Sexton) wrote:

>In article >,
> > wrote:
>>uh no.... people who sell UV to ponders, and those who simply repeat what others say
>>dont understand UV and how it kills.
>>what is needed is a .edu site that gives information about the kill rate given the
>>following factors
>
>A domain ending .edu does not imply a hgher truth value. That's not
>the way DNS works.
>
>>1. intensity of the UV, higher the intensity, higher the kill
>>2. distance from UV source to microbe, the longer the distance, the lower the kill
>>3. turbidity of the water the microbes are in, the higher the turbidity, the lower
>>the kill
>>4. time. that is, the slower the flow of microbe past the UV source the higher the
>>kill.
>>5. and each microbe has its own "dosage" requirements, IN GENERAL, the larger more
>>complex the organism the lower the kill
>>
>>this site http://www.hygienitech.com/Hygienitech%20UV-C%20Light%20Primer.pdf talks
>>about dosage effects.
>>
>>Think about it logically. The earth used to be bathed in MUCH MORE UV millions and
>>billions of years ago when algae first evolved. Almost all known living things have
>>elaborate UV repair mechanisms, and all green plants which must be bathed in sunlight
>>to live.
>
>There's no such thing as "UV repair mechanism". DNA can to an extent repair itself, RNA
>can not. UV damages DNS.
>
>>In fact, http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_htm_files/v57/p54_60nf.html is a
>>scientific paper "USE OF ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION TO ACHIEVE BACTERIA-FREE ALGAL
>>CULTURE"
>
>THis proves you can manipulate distance and exposure time to kill bacteria ad keep
>alage alive. Ok. so?
>
>>So yes, I am sure UV can be used to kill algae, but not by the typical UV box we use
>>on our ponds.
>
>The same box kills alage in aquaria.
>
>The difference is, there's such a larger body of water alage cells don't get the
>same exposure to UV as they do in a (much) smaller fishtank.
>
>> Actually, ozonators are much, much better. Ozone is created by UV
>>action on oxygen.
>
>That's one way to make ozone. The ozonizers i've seen didn't do it this way though.
>
>>bacteria free. unfortunately it cannot be used with fish cause it rips their gills
>>up. some do use ozone but have elaborate de-ozonators on salt water tanks (I think).
>>expensive. Ingrid
>
>This last paragarapgraph is utter nonsense at worst, a bad guess at best.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.

[Derek Broughton]

wrote:

> A .edu domain (as does .gov) nearly ensures valid information.

Not really. Some educational institutions permit students to have their own
pages - even if they _require_ authenticity, they can hardly enforce it.

--
derek

[Richard Sexton]

it is beyod the scope of my time and motivaiton to counter the laughable sillines
below. Right thinking poeple can find answers for themselves.

In article >,
> wrote:
>A .edu domain (as does .gov) nearly ensures valid information. it does not guarantee
>it, neither does "publication" as exemplified by the "Scientist Hwang Fired for Stem
>Cell Fraud"
>
>LOL... http://www-plb.ucdavis.edu/labs/britt/labprojects.html
>UV damage is very specific. It is unlike other kinds of mutations. It causes
>thiamine dimers and there is a specific repair mechanism call UV repair. DNA doesnt
>"repair" itself.
>
>http://www.aquariumpros.com/articles/sterilprocon2.shtml
>"Ozone is a highly reactive gas that occurs in nature due to a reaction of oxygen
>with UV radiation from the sun and also from lightning discharges in the atmosphere.
>It is a hybrid, three atom form of oxygen. Ozone will react with nearly everything,
>including the plastic components of filters, making them hard and brittle over time.
>The most proper method of using ozone is in a separate (and expensive) reaction
>chamber specifically designed for the purpose. Both the air and water leaving the
>ozone reaction chamber should be treated with carbon to remove excess ozone so it
>will not harm the fish OR THE FISH KEEPER! Regardless of whether a reaction chamber
>is used, the amount of ozone released should be carefully controlled using an (also
>expensive) ORP meter/controller."
>" If ozone can destroy cell membranes, keep in mind that it can do the same thing to
>the sensitive gill membranes of fish and outer membranes of invertebrates. Ozone also
>can be harmful to humans. Ozone has a pungent "odor." Once you've smelled it, you
>won't forget it. If you smell it, you're using too much! The bottom line is that if
>you intend to use ozone in your aquarium equipment scheme, you should consider using
>an ozone reaction chamber. Regardless of the method used, dosage should be carefully
>controlled with an ORP meter/controller."
>Ingrid
>
(Richard Sexton) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> > wrote:
>>>uh no.... people who sell UV to ponders, and those who simply repeat what others say
>>>dont understand UV and how it kills.
>>>what is needed is a .edu site that gives information about the kill rate given the
>>>following factors
>>
>>A domain ending .edu does not imply a hgher truth value. That's not
>>the way DNS works.
>>
>>>1. intensity of the UV, higher the intensity, higher the kill
>>>2. distance from UV source to microbe, the longer the distance, the lower the kill
>>>3. turbidity of the water the microbes are in, the higher the turbidity, the lower
>>>the kill
>>>4. time. that is, the slower the flow of microbe past the UV source the higher the
>>>kill.
>>>5. and each microbe has its own "dosage" requirements, IN GENERAL, the larger more
>>>complex the organism the lower the kill
>>>
>>>this site http://www.hygienitech.com/Hygienitech%20UV-C%20Light%20Primer.pdf talks
>>>about dosage effects.
>>>
>>>Think about it logically. The earth used to be bathed in MUCH MORE UV millions and
>>>billions of years ago when algae first evolved. Almost all known living things have
>>>elaborate UV repair mechanisms, and all green plants which must be bathed in sunlight
>>>to live.
>>
>>There's no such thing as "UV repair mechanism". DNA can to an extent repair itself, RNA
>>can not. UV damages DNS.
>>
>>>In fact, http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_htm_files/v57/p54_60nf.html is a
>>>scientific paper "USE OF ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION TO ACHIEVE BACTERIA-FREE ALGAL
>>>CULTURE"
>>
>>THis proves you can manipulate distance and exposure time to kill bacteria ad keep
>>alage alive. Ok. so?
>>
>>>So yes, I am sure UV can be used to kill algae, but not by the typical UV box we use
>>>on our ponds.
>>
>>The same box kills alage in aquaria.
>>
>>The difference is, there's such a larger body of water alage cells don't get the
>>same exposure to UV as they do in a (much) smaller fishtank.
>>
>>> Actually, ozonators are much, much better. Ozone is created by UV
>>>action on oxygen.
>>
>>That's one way to make ozone. The ozonizers i've seen didn't do it this way though.
>>
>>>bacteria free. unfortunately it cannot be used with fish cause it rips their gills
>>>up. some do use ozone but have elaborate de-ozonators on salt water tanks (I think).
>>>expensive. Ingrid
>>
>>This last paragarapgraph is utter nonsense at worst, a bad guess at best.
>
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
>http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
>sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
>www.drsolo.com
>Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
>I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.


--
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

[[email protected]]

really... I didnt know that. Marquette U doesnt provide them far as I know. Ingrid

Derek Broughton > wrote:

wrote:
>
>> A .edu domain (as does .gov) nearly ensures valid information.
>
>Not really. Some educational institutions permit students to have their own
>pages - even if they _require_ authenticity, they can hardly enforce it.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.

[Derek Broughton]

wrote:

> really... I didnt know that. Marquette U doesnt provide them far as I
> know. Ingrid
>
> Derek Broughton > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>> A .edu domain (as does .gov) nearly ensures valid information.
>>
>>Not really. Some educational institutions permit students to have their
>>own pages - even if they _require_ authenticity, they can hardly enforce
>>it.

To be fair, I would think the majority of .edu sites _don't_ let you have
personal pages, I just know that it happens. otoh, my own university gives
me access to a web server, with all the toys, for "projects". Unless it
got a huge amount of traffic, I'd be really surprised if anyone ever
noticed what I put on it :-)
--
derek

[Richard Sexton]

In article >,
Derek Broughton > wrote:
wrote:
>
>> really... I didnt know that. Marquette U doesnt provide them far as I
>> know. Ingrid
>>
>> Derek Broughton > wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> A .edu domain (as does .gov) nearly ensures valid information.
>>>
>>>Not really. Some educational institutions permit students to have their
>>>own pages - even if they _require_ authenticity, they can hardly enforce
>>>it.
>
>To be fair, I would think the majority of .edu sites _don't_ let you have
>personal pages, I just know that it happens. otoh, my own university gives
>me access to a web server, with all the toys, for "projects". Unless it
>got a huge amount of traffic, I'd be really surprised if anyone ever
>noticed what I put on it :-)

To get back to the original point: "something is authoriative if it's on
an .edu site":

There was an article recently about some guy who set up a mac and invited the
world to crash it. something.something.edu. Two days later it was taken down
as it was done withoutthe university's permission. Point is what's behind
a .edu site could be abslutely anything. It is true that there are a lot
of credible prre reviewed papers hosted on .edu site, but the converse, that
if it's on an edu site it's legitimate is absolutely false.

I've been invoilved in the domain name mess for a decade; there have always
been prooprals to tie the content to the semantics of the name. It hasn't
happened, it doesn't happen and there are good reasons why it will never happen.

If you think domain names mean someting have a look at http://whitehouse.com/


--
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

[Altum]

Richard Sexton wrote:

<snip>

> If you think domain names mean someting have a look at http://whitehouse.com/
>
I've always liked http://www.whitehouse.org.

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

[[email protected]]

Well as a professor at Marquette I was able to get the space. Used to have my class
website on it, but they kept crashing all the time so I just left a copy of the
Puregold website there http://www.mu.edu/~buxtoni/puregold/home.html
but my students can go to my dreamweaver site which DOESNT crash
http://weloveteaching.com/spring2006/syllabus.html
dont know why but the Marquette site always crashed right around test time when
students would be looking at the notes the most ... and calling me screaming.
Ingrid

Derek Broughton > wrote:
>To be fair, I would think the majority of .edu sites _don't_ let you have
>personal pages, I just know that it happens. otoh, my own university gives
>me access to a web server, with all the toys, for "projects". Unless it
>got a huge amount of traffic, I'd be really surprised if anyone ever
>noticed what I put on it :-)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List at
http://weloveteaching.com/puregold/
sign up: http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?hl=en&q=puregold&qt_s=Group+lookup
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I receive no compensation for running the Puregold list or Puregold website.
I do not run nor receive any money from the ads at the old Puregold site.