UV Sterilizer

[Jolly Fisherman]

Beside cost, is there any reason to not use a UV sterilizer for a pond
or aquarium? Why is UV sterilization insufficient for disease control
when introducing new GF to an established tank- necessitating "closed
tank system"?

[Koi-Lo]

"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
> Beside cost, is there any reason to not use a UV sterilizer for a pond
> or aquarium? Why is UV sterilization insufficient for disease control
> when introducing new GF to an established tank- necessitating "closed
> tank system"?
===========
Most are not powerful enough to kill disease causing parasites and large
bacteria I read on the net. I use them in one pond that almost always has
an algae problem. I have the water going through it slowly for the best
algae kill possible. But no matter how slow the water goes through them not
all parasites or disease causing bacteria or viruses are going to be picked
up by the pump and pumped through them. Stick with quarantining all new
fish. It's the safest way to go.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
Aquariums since 1952.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

[Jolly Fisherman]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:41:34 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:

>
>"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
>> Beside cost, is there any reason to not use a UV sterilizer for a pond
>> or aquarium? Why is UV sterilization insufficient for disease control
>> when introducing new GF to an established tank- necessitating "closed
>> tank system"?
>===========
>Most are not powerful enough to kill disease causing parasites and large
>bacteria I read on the net. I use them in one pond that almost always has
>an algae problem. I have the water going through it slowly for the best
>algae kill possible. But no matter how slow the water goes through them not
>all parasites or disease causing bacteria or viruses are going to be picked
>up by the pump and pumped through them. Stick with quarantining all new
>fish. It's the safest way to go.

So I guess I'm wondering is UV Sterilization a gimmick?

I'm guessing, esp from what you're reporting, it can limit somewhat
but not totally eliminate pathogens or algae in a body of water. Does
that mean it works better in smaller, closed systems, with no full,
strong sunlight shining down on long summer days (i.e. not ponds) with
less virulent pathogens and fish that aren't always poking around the
substrate that's filled with feces (i.e. not GF)? Or even more
limited as an additional step for cleaning out a holding tank AFTER
sick fish have been removed and before new ones arrive?

What about cross contamination? I'm assuming most ppl use the same
tools to maintain more than one tank or pond?

[[email protected]]

UV sterilizes water only when the water is very clear and the UV is very strong. not
typical setup for pond. on tank I think they are a waste of money.
best not to have bottom substrate in tanks or esp. ponds.
best for cleaning out holding or quarantine tanks is potassium permanganate at about
4X the dose normally used to treat fish.
a tub of PP in water is easy to dip and disinfect tools, etc.
Ingrid

Jolly Fisherman > wrote:
>I'm guessing, esp from what you're reporting, it can limit somewhat
>but not totally eliminate pathogens or algae in a body of water. Does
>that mean it works better in smaller, closed systems, with no full,
>strong sunlight shining down on long summer days (i.e. not ponds) with
>less virulent pathogens and fish that aren't always poking around the
>substrate that's filled with feces (i.e. not GF)? Or even more
>limited as an additional step for cleaning out a holding tank AFTER
>sick fish have been removed and before new ones arrive?
>
>What about cross contamination? I'm assuming most ppl use the same
>tools to maintain more than one tank or pond?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zone 5 next to Lake Michigan

[Koi-Lo]

"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:41:34 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
>>> Beside cost, is there any reason to not use a UV sterilizer for a pond
>>> or aquarium? Why is UV sterilization insufficient for disease control
>>> when introducing new GF to an established tank- necessitating "closed
>>> tank system"?
>>===========
>>Most are not powerful enough to kill disease causing parasites and large
>>bacteria I read on the net. I use them in one pond that almost always has
>>an algae problem. I have the water going through it slowly for the best
>>algae kill possible. But no matter how slow the water goes through them
>>not
>>all parasites or disease causing bacteria or viruses are going to be
>>picked
>>up by the pump and pumped through them. Stick with quarantining all new
>>fish. It's the safest way to go.
>
> So I guess I'm wondering is UV Sterilization a gimmick?

It depends on what you were told it can do and what you expect of it. I
only use it to control pea soup like algae in my 800g+ pond. I don't depend
on it for disease or parasite control.

> I'm guessing, esp from what you're reporting, it can limit somewhat
> but not totally eliminate pathogens or algae in a body of water.

Yes. It may kill some parasites and disease causing organisms but works
great for free floating algae.

Does
> that mean it works better in smaller, closed systems, with no full,
> strong sunlight shining down on long summer days (i.e. not ponds) with
> less virulent pathogens and fish that aren't always poking around the
> substrate that's filled with feces (i.e. not GF)?

Why would you need it on closed indoor systems? The substrata shouldn't be
"full of feces." Most people with a little experience who have read at
least one or two books or did some research on the net will vacuum the
gravel in their tanks. They don't have a gross bed of muck on the bottom of
their tanks.

Or even more
> limited as an additional step for cleaning out a holding tank AFTER
> sick fish have been removed and before new ones arrive?

How can it do that? No water pump will or can pick up 100% of the pathogens
in the tank. Better to empty it and use chlorine as a disinfectant.

> What about cross contamination? I'm assuming most ppl use the same
> tools to maintain more than one tank or pond?

Only a foolish or ignorant person would carry a *known disease* to their
other tanks or ponds. A UV light unit isn't going to stop that from
happening.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
Aquariums since 1952.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

[Jolly Fisherman]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:46:05 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:

>
>"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:41:34 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Beside cost, is there any reason to not use a UV sterilizer for a pond
>>>> or aquarium? Why is UV sterilization insufficient for disease control
>>>> when introducing new GF to an established tank- necessitating "closed
>>>> tank system"?
>>>===========
>>>Most are not powerful enough to kill disease causing parasites and large
>>>bacteria I read on the net. I use them in one pond that almost always has
>>>an algae problem. I have the water going through it slowly for the best
>>>algae kill possible. But no matter how slow the water goes through them
>>>not
>>>all parasites or disease causing bacteria or viruses are going to be
>>>picked
>>>up by the pump and pumped through them. Stick with quarantining all new
>>>fish. It's the safest way to go.
>>
>> So I guess I'm wondering is UV Sterilization a gimmick?
>
>It depends on what you were told it can do and what you expect of it. I
>only use it to control pea soup like algae in my 800g+ pond. I don't depend
>on it for disease or parasite control.

What I've heard is that it can control algae, keep a balanced redox
potential, and prevent the spread of disease. I see it sometimes
recommended for new reef aquaria or others where there is a large
financial investment and vulnerable critters - for disease or parasite
control.

>> I'm guessing, esp from what you're reporting, it can limit somewhat
>> but not totally eliminate pathogens or algae in a body of water.
>
>Yes. It may kill some parasites and disease causing organisms but works
>great for free floating algae.
>
>Does
>> that mean it works better in smaller, closed systems, with no full,
>> strong sunlight shining down on long summer days (i.e. not ponds) with
>> less virulent pathogens and fish that aren't always poking around the
>> substrate that's filled with feces (i.e. not GF)?
>
>Why would you need it on closed indoor systems? The substrata shouldn't be
>"full of feces." Most people with a little experience who have read at
>least one or two books or did some research on the net will vacuum the
>gravel in their tanks. They don't have a gross bed of muck on the bottom of
>their tanks.

I would think that for at least certain virulent pathogens, one
doesn't need a large exposure to get sick. With GF there is often so
much poking around that even in a well maintained, clean gravel bed,
accidents are going to happen like occasionally taking in and spitting
out feces or contaminated pebbles. I'm wondering if this is the type
of transmission that invalidates the benefits of UV sterilization of
the water column. "filled with feces" is perhaps a poor choice of
words.

>Or even more
>> limited as an additional step for cleaning out a holding tank AFTER
>> sick fish have been removed and before new ones arrive?
>
>How can it do that? No water pump will or can pick up 100% of the pathogens
>in the tank. Better to empty it and use chlorine as a disinfectant.

I don't know. But AFAIK there are some stores or distributor that use
UV on quarantine tanks, sometimes in a similar way.

>> What about cross contamination? I'm assuming most ppl use the same
>> tools to maintain more than one tank or pond?
>
>Only a foolish or ignorant person would carry a *known disease* to their
>other tanks or ponds. A UV light unit isn't going to stop that from
>happening.

No. I'm not talking about "known diseases." The closed tank system is
about not mixing healthy new fish for fear of unknown disease
transmission. I'm wondering why UV sterilization isn't sufficient or
able to replace the closed tank system. Especially when ppl do seem
to use it in larger more expensive situations than the typical small
pond or GF tank.

Do you have different tools or sterilize tools after servicing each
individual (healthy) tank? Should one? That's more along the lines
of what I'm asking. When fish have an active infections, well then
asepsis/antisepsis goes without saying.

[Jolly Fisherman]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:21:03 GMT, wrote:

>UV sterilizes water only when the water is very clear and the UV is very strong. not
>typical setup for pond. on tank I think they are a waste of money.
>best not to have bottom substrate in tanks or esp. ponds.
>best for cleaning out holding or quarantine tanks is potassium permanganate at about
>4X the dose normally used to treat fish.
>a tub of PP in water is easy to dip and disinfect tools, etc.
>Ingrid

Does PP Stain Aquarium Silicone or plastic tools?

[Koi-Lo]

"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:46:05 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:
>>It depends on what you were told it can do and what you expect of it. I
>>only use it to control pea soup like algae in my 800g+ pond. I don't
>>depend
>>on it for disease or parasite control.

> What I've heard is that it can control algae, keep a balanced redox
> potential, and prevent the spread of disease. I see it sometimes
> recommended for new reef aquaria or others where there is a large
> financial investment and vulnerable critters - for disease or parasite
> control.

I can't see how it would work that way. You would have to have a very
powerful UV unit and two tanks. You would have to pump 100% of the water
from tank 1. into tank 2. and hope it killed everything passing through.
You couldn't have gravel or plants either since you can run them through the
UV unit.

>>Why would you need it on closed indoor systems? The substrata shouldn't
>>be
>>"full of feces." Most people with a little experience who have read at
>>least one or two books or did some research on the net will vacuum the
>>gravel in their tanks. They don't have a gross bed of muck on the bottom
>>of
>>their tanks.

> I would think that for at least certain virulent pathogens, one
> doesn't need a large exposure to get sick. With GF there is often so
> much poking around that even in a well maintained, clean gravel bed,
> accidents are going to happen like occasionally taking in and spitting
> out feces or contaminated pebbles.

Contaminated with what? If there is disease or parasites in the tank they
will have no problems finding a host. When they poke around the bottom of
lakes and ponds they also pick up feces and who knows what else - and spit
out what is inedible.

I'm wondering if this is the type
> of transmission that invalidates the benefits of UV sterilization of
> the water column. "filled with feces" is perhaps a poor choice of
> words.

The only thing a UV light may kill off is small "stuff" in the water column.
It does nothing for the "stuff" on the gravel, fish or plants. It's great
for killing off free floating algae and perhaps tiny parasites the pump
picks up from the water. But you can be sure there are the same parasites
on the surfaces of the tank the pump wont get.

>>How can it do that? No water pump will or can pick up 100% of the
>>pathogens
>>in the tank. Better to empty it and use chlorine as a disinfectant.

> I don't know. But AFAIK there are some stores or distributor that use
> UV on quarantine tanks, sometimes in a similar way.

If the quarantine tank is BARE and the unit very powerful it may help. But
what of the large parasites?

>>> What about cross contamination? I'm assuming most ppl use the same
>>> tools to maintain more than one tank or pond?

>>Only a foolish or ignorant person would carry a *known disease* to their
>>other tanks or ponds. A UV light unit isn't going to stop that from
>>happening.

> No. I'm not talking about "known diseases." The closed tank system is
> about not mixing healthy new fish for fear of unknown disease
> transmission. I'm wondering why UV sterilization isn't sufficient or
> able to replace the closed tank system. Especially when ppl do seem
> to use it in larger more expensive situations than the typical small
> pond or GF tank.

Because even if it killed all pathogens you would need two tanks and two
cycled filters to get 100% of the water through the unit. The fish would
not be happy being switched from one tank to the other.

> Do you have different tools or sterilize tools after servicing each
> individual (healthy) tank? Should one?

If I know the tank is healthy I don't sterilize the nets etc. My quarantine
tank has it's own tools as you call them since I have no way to know if new
fish brought something in for at least several days.

That's more along the lines
> of what I'm asking. When fish have an active infections, well then
> asepsis/antisepsis goes without saying.
--
KL....
Aquariums since 1952.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

[Jolly Fisherman]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:22:39 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:

>
>"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:46:05 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:
>>>It depends on what you were told it can do and what you expect of it. I
>>>only use it to control pea soup like algae in my 800g+ pond. I don't
>>>depend
>>>on it for disease or parasite control.
>
>> What I've heard is that it can control algae, keep a balanced redox
>> potential, and prevent the spread of disease. I see it sometimes
>> recommended for new reef aquaria or others where there is a large
>> financial investment and vulnerable critters - for disease or parasite
>> control.
>
>I can't see how it would work that way. You would have to have a very
>powerful UV unit and two tanks. You would have to pump 100% of the water
>from tank 1. into tank 2. and hope it killed everything passing through.
>You couldn't have gravel or plants either since you can run them through the
>UV unit.

No it wouldn't work that way either. As soon as the fish are moved to
the new clean tank with sterilized water they will immediately start
shedding disease into the water. What you're suggesting would be an
exercise in futility. All you could do in that scenario is constantly
repeat the process to limit the free floating pathogens - which is, in
fact, functionally identical (yet chunkier) to having one large
double-sized tank with a UV system.

Hospitals use UV sterilization. They do not need to transfer the air
and patients to another building to perform air sterilization. Instead
they accept the reality that the air will never be 100% sterile, but
they nevertheless find it effective as a measure to limit the spread &
concentration of airborne pathogens throughout the building. Indeed
except for the most compromised patients, or most virulent airborne
pathogens, the air doesn't need to be 100% sterile. In parts of the
hospital where containing contagion is more important they simply have
higher efficiency air sterilization systems in more closed areas.

>>>Why would you need it on closed indoor systems? The substrata shouldn't
>>>be
>>>"full of feces." Most people with a little experience who have read at
>>>least one or two books or did some research on the net will vacuum the
>>>gravel in their tanks. They don't have a gross bed of muck on the bottom
>>>of
>>>their tanks.
>
>> I would think that for at least certain virulent pathogens, one
>> doesn't need a large exposure to get sick. With GF there is often so
>> much poking around that even in a well maintained, clean gravel bed,
>> accidents are going to happen like occasionally taking in and spitting
>> out feces or contaminated pebbles.
>
>Contaminated with what?

What kind of question is that?

> If there is disease or parasites in the tank they
>will have no problems finding a host. When they poke around the bottom of
>lakes and ponds they also pick up feces and who knows what else - and spit
>out what is inedible.

Well that's my point. My other point is that not all species poke
around the tank and substrate so are less likely to pick up disease
that way (I'd assume).

> I'm wondering if this is the type
>> of transmission that invalidates the benefits of UV sterilization of
>> the water column. "filled with feces" is perhaps a poor choice of
>> words.
>
>The only thing a UV light may kill off is small "stuff" in the water column.
>It does nothing for the "stuff" on the gravel, fish or plants. It's great
>for killing off free floating algae and perhaps tiny parasites the pump
>picks up from the water. But you can be sure there are the same parasites
>on the surfaces of the tank the pump wont get.

Yes we're basically agreeing about its limitations. But one of the
main advertising points is disease control. That it can't perfectly
sterilize a tank may or may not be necessary. You make it sound like
it is never effective for any kind of disease control. I'm not so
sure it is wholly ineffective on any kind of disease control. Perhaps
its efficacy is species or disease specific?

>>>How can it do that? No water pump will or can pick up 100% of the
>>>pathogens
>>>in the tank. Better to empty it and use chlorine as a disinfectant.
>
>> I don't know. But AFAIK there are some stores or distributor that use
>> UV on quarantine tanks, sometimes in a similar way.
>
>If the quarantine tank is BARE and the unit very powerful it may help.

Certainly that makes sense.

> But
>what of the large parasites?

You can basically kill anything if the lamp is powerful enough and
there is good exposure. That kind of objection seems product specific
to me.

>>>> What about cross contamination? I'm assuming most ppl use the same
>>>> tools to maintain more than one tank or pond?
>
>>>Only a foolish or ignorant person would carry a *known disease* to their
>>>other tanks or ponds. A UV light unit isn't going to stop that from
>>>happening.
>
>> No. I'm not talking about "known diseases." The closed tank system is
>> about not mixing healthy new fish for fear of unknown disease
>> transmission. I'm wondering why UV sterilization isn't sufficient or
>> able to replace the closed tank system. Especially when ppl do seem
>> to use it in larger more expensive situations than the typical small
>> pond or GF tank.
>
>Because even if it killed all pathogens you would need two tanks and two
>cycled filters to get 100% of the water through the unit. The fish would
>not be happy being switched from one tank to the other.

Constantly sterile tank is an impossibility. It also shouldn't be
necessary to be considered for disease control except for the most
contagious & virulent pathogens.

>> Do you have different tools or sterilize tools after servicing each
>> individual (healthy) tank? Should one?
>
>If I know the tank is healthy I don't sterilize the nets etc.

Then what's the difference between flouting closed tank system and
what you're doing with your tools? Esp when you seem to be suggesting
that only perfect asepsis or antisepsis can control disease. That the
fish appear healthy doesn't matter (think of "Typhoid Mary").

>My quarantine
>tank has it's own tools as you call them since I have no way to know if new
>fish brought something in for at least several days.

Of course that makes sense.

>That's more along the lines
>> of what I'm asking. When fish have an active infections, well then
>> asepsis/antisepsis goes without saying.

[Koi-Lo]

"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:22:39 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:46:05 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:
>>>>It depends on what you were told it can do and what you expect of it. I
>>>>only use it to control pea soup like algae in my 800g+ pond. I don't
>>>>depend
>>>>on it for disease or parasite control.
>>
>>> What I've heard is that it can control algae, keep a balanced redox
>>> potential, and prevent the spread of disease. I see it sometimes
>>> recommended for new reef aquaria or others where there is a large
>>> financial investment and vulnerable critters - for disease or parasite
>>> control.
>>
>>I can't see how it would work that way. You would have to have a very
>>powerful UV unit and two tanks. You would have to pump 100% of the water
>>from tank 1. into tank 2. and hope it killed everything passing through.
>>You couldn't have gravel or plants either since you can run them through
>>the
>>UV unit.
>
> No it wouldn't work that way either. As soon as the fish are moved to
> the new clean tank with sterilized water they will immediately start
> shedding disease into the water.

ONLY if they have some disease already "in progress." I would never
consider UV where disease and parasites are concerned.

What you're suggesting would be an
> exercise in futility. All you could do in that scenario is constantly
> repeat the process to limit the free floating pathogens - which is, in
> fact, functionally identical (yet chunkier) to having one large
> double-sized tank with a UV system.

Then why use the UV at all unless free floating algae is the problem? A
diatom filter would also remove it and is cheaper to run a few times a week
until the cause of the algae is worked out. Also the diatom removes it
rather than kill it and dump it back into the tank to fuel another algae
outbreak.

> Hospitals use UV sterilization. They do not need to transfer the air
> and patients to another building to perform air sterilization. Instead
> they accept the reality that the air will never be 100% sterile, but
> they nevertheless find it effective as a measure to limit the spread &
> concentration of airborne pathogens throughout the building. Indeed
> except for the most compromised patients, or most virulent airborne
> pathogens, the air doesn't need to be 100% sterile. In parts of the
> hospital where containing contagion is more important they simply have
> higher efficiency air sterilization systems in more closed areas.

But you're talking about air and airborne viruses! If you think UV will
help with fish disease and parasites - go for it! :-)

>>>>Why would you need it on closed indoor systems? The substrata shouldn't
>>>>be
>>>>"full of feces." Most people with a little experience who have read at
>>>>least one or two books or did some research on the net will vacuum the
>>>>gravel in their tanks. They don't have a gross bed of muck on the
>>>>bottom
>>>>of
>>>>their tanks.
>>
>>> I would think that for at least certain virulent pathogens, one
>>> doesn't need a large exposure to get sick. With GF there is often so
>>> much poking around that even in a well maintained, clean gravel bed,
>>> accidents are going to happen like occasionally taking in and spitting
>>> out feces or contaminated pebbles.
>>
>>Contaminated with what?
>
> What kind of question is that?

You said "contaminated pebbles" and I asked contaminated with WHAT?
Parasites? Viral diseases?

>> If there is disease or parasites in the tank they
>>will have no problems finding a host. When they poke around the bottom of
>>lakes and ponds they also pick up feces and who knows what else - and spit
>>out what is inedible.
>
> Well that's my point. My other point is that not all species poke
> around the tank and substrate so are less likely to pick up disease
> that way (I'd assume).

What disease would be in the gravel?

>> I'm wondering if this is the type
>>> of transmission that invalidates the benefits of UV sterilization of
>>> the water column. "filled with feces" is perhaps a poor choice of
>>> words.
>>
>>The only thing a UV light may kill off is small "stuff" in the water
>>column.
>>It does nothing for the "stuff" on the gravel, fish or plants. It's great
>>for killing off free floating algae and perhaps tiny parasites the pump
>>picks up from the water. But you can be sure there are the same parasites
>>on the surfaces of the tank the pump wont get.
>
> Yes we're basically agreeing about its limitations. But one of the
> main advertising points is disease control. That it can't perfectly
> sterilize a tank may or may not be necessary. You make it sound like
> it is never effective for any kind of disease control. I'm not so
> sure it is wholly ineffective on any kind of disease control. Perhaps
> its efficacy is species or disease specific?

Then try it! All you have to lose is a few hundred bucks.

>>>>How can it do that? No water pump will or can pick up 100% of the
>>>>pathogens
>>>>in the tank. Better to empty it and use chlorine as a disinfectant.
>>
>>> I don't know. But AFAIK there are some stores or distributor that use
>>> UV on quarantine tanks, sometimes in a similar way.
>>
>>If the quarantine tank is BARE and the unit very powerful it may help.
>
> Certainly that makes sense.
>
>> But
>>what of the large parasites?
>
> You can basically kill anything if the lamp is powerful enough and
> there is good exposure. That kind of objection seems product specific
> to me.

Get a large commercial unit and make sure you run the correct amount of
water through it to kill all the known fish parasites and disease.

>>If I know the tank is healthy I don't sterilize the nets etc.

> Then what's the difference between flouting closed tank system and
> what you're doing with your tools? Esp when you seem to be suggesting
> that only perfect asepsis or antisepsis can control disease. That the
> fish appear healthy doesn't matter (think of "Typhoid Mary").

UV lights will do nothing about a Typhoid Marys since can't sterilize 100%
of the water the other fish are exposed to. Sorry but I don't know what the
word "flouting" means.

--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
Aquariums since 1952.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

[Jolly Fisherman]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:55:16 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:

>
>"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:22:39 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 09:46:05 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:
>>>>>It depends on what you were told it can do and what you expect of it. I
>>>>>only use it to control pea soup like algae in my 800g+ pond. I don't
>>>>>depend
>>>>>on it for disease or parasite control.
>>>
>>>> What I've heard is that it can control algae, keep a balanced redox
>>>> potential, and prevent the spread of disease. I see it sometimes
>>>> recommended for new reef aquaria or others where there is a large
>>>> financial investment and vulnerable critters - for disease or parasite
>>>> control.
>>>
>>>I can't see how it would work that way. You would have to have a very
>>>powerful UV unit and two tanks. You would have to pump 100% of the water
>>>from tank 1. into tank 2. and hope it killed everything passing through.
>>>You couldn't have gravel or plants either since you can run them through
>>>the
>>>UV unit.
>>
>> No it wouldn't work that way either. As soon as the fish are moved to
>> the new clean tank with sterilized water they will immediately start
>> shedding disease into the water.
>
>ONLY if they have some disease already "in progress." I would never
>consider UV where disease and parasites are concerned.

Yes you said that before.

Let's take this from another angle. Would you add a newer healthy
fish to a long established healthy tank, expecting to not get the
older fish sick. That is, do you disagree with the advice to maintain
only "closed tanks"?

>What you're suggesting would be an
>> exercise in futility. All you could do in that scenario is constantly
>> repeat the process to limit the free floating pathogens - which is, in
>> fact, functionally identical (yet chunkier) to having one large
>> double-sized tank with a UV system.
>
>Then why use the UV at all unless free floating algae is the problem? A
>diatom filter would also remove it and is cheaper to run a few times a week
>until the cause of the algae is worked out. Also the diatom removes it
>rather than kill it and dump it back into the tank to fuel another algae
>outbreak.

I'm really just trying to ascertain why UV sterilization is not
recommended as an alternative to the "closed tank system." Perhaps I
should have made a better subject entry.

>> Hospitals use UV sterilization. They do not need to transfer the air
>> and patients to another building to perform air sterilization. Instead
>> they accept the reality that the air will never be 100% sterile, but
>> they nevertheless find it effective as a measure to limit the spread &
>> concentration of airborne pathogens throughout the building. Indeed
>> except for the most compromised patients, or most virulent airborne
>> pathogens, the air doesn't need to be 100% sterile. In parts of the
>> hospital where containing contagion is more important they simply have
>> higher efficiency air sterilization systems in more closed areas.
>
>But you're talking about air and airborne viruses! If you think UV will
>help with fish disease and parasites - go for it! :-)

Air and water UV systems in either closed buildings or closed aquaria
seem very similar to me. Although obviously they are on very
different scales.

>>>>>Why would you need it on closed indoor systems? The substrata shouldn't
>>>>>be
>>>>>"full of feces." Most people with a little experience who have read at
>>>>>least one or two books or did some research on the net will vacuum the
>>>>>gravel in their tanks. They don't have a gross bed of muck on the
>>>>>bottom
>>>>>of
>>>>>their tanks.
>>>
>>>> I would think that for at least certain virulent pathogens, one
>>>> doesn't need a large exposure to get sick. With GF there is often so
>>>> much poking around that even in a well maintained, clean gravel bed,
>>>> accidents are going to happen like occasionally taking in and spitting
>>>> out feces or contaminated pebbles.
>>>
>>>Contaminated with what?
>>
>> What kind of question is that?
>
>You said "contaminated pebbles" and I asked contaminated with WHAT?
>Parasites? Viral diseases?

Do you mean you want to know specifically which organisms? I'm not an
aquatic infectious disease specialist. (that's why I'm posing the
question/thread)

Certainly the apparent risk is any kind of pathogen than can survive
for any length of time outside a host settled in to the smarmy nooks
and crannies. You have already agreed that this happens.

>>> If there is disease or parasites in the tank they
>>>will have no problems finding a host. When they poke around the bottom of
>>>lakes and ponds they also pick up feces and who knows what else - and spit
>>>out what is inedible.
>>
>> Well that's my point. My other point is that not all species poke
>> around the tank and substrate so are less likely to pick up disease
>> that way (I'd assume).
>
>What disease would be in the gravel?

Just answered.

>>> I'm wondering if this is the type
>>>> of transmission that invalidates the benefits of UV sterilization of
>>>> the water column. "filled with feces" is perhaps a poor choice of
>>>> words.
>>>
>>>The only thing a UV light may kill off is small "stuff" in the water
>>>column.
>>>It does nothing for the "stuff" on the gravel, fish or plants. It's great
>>>for killing off free floating algae and perhaps tiny parasites the pump
>>>picks up from the water. But you can be sure there are the same parasites
>>>on the surfaces of the tank the pump wont get.
>>
>> Yes we're basically agreeing about its limitations. But one of the
>> main advertising points is disease control. That it can't perfectly
>> sterilize a tank may or may not be necessary. You make it sound like
>> it is never effective for any kind of disease control. I'm not so
>> sure it is wholly ineffective on any kind of disease control. Perhaps
>> its efficacy is species or disease specific?
>
>Then try it! All you have to lose is a few hundred bucks.

And old fish. But really this issue is theoretical for me.

>>>>>How can it do that? No water pump will or can pick up 100% of the
>>>>>pathogens
>>>>>in the tank. Better to empty it and use chlorine as a disinfectant.
>>>
>>>> I don't know. But AFAIK there are some stores or distributor that use
>>>> UV on quarantine tanks, sometimes in a similar way.
>>>
>>>If the quarantine tank is BARE and the unit very powerful it may help.
>>
>> Certainly that makes sense.
>>
>>> But
>>>what of the large parasites?
>>
>> You can basically kill anything if the lamp is powerful enough and
>> there is good exposure. That kind of objection seems product specific
>> to me.
>
>Get a large commercial unit and make sure you run the correct amount of
>water through it to kill all the known fish parasites and disease.
>
>>>If I know the tank is healthy I don't sterilize the nets etc.
>
>> Then what's the difference between flouting closed tank system and
>> what you're doing with your tools? Esp when you seem to be suggesting
>> that only perfect asepsis or antisepsis can control disease. That the
>> fish appear healthy doesn't matter (think of "Typhoid Mary").
>
>UV lights will do nothing about a Typhoid Marys since can't sterilize 100%
>of the water the other fish are exposed to.

This is what I don't follow about you 100% efficiency argument- you've
already claimed it is effective on tenacious algae eventhough UV is
not 100% efficient. If the lamp is powerfull and clean enough it
should really limit pathogens similarly, even without 100% efficiency.

Furthermore the water may not need to be sterilized 100% if, for
example, the non Typhoid Mary tank inhabitants have healthy immune
systems and Typhoid Mary doesn't have a super germ. In that case the
UV would limit the load of pathogens, giving all tank inhabitants
opportunity to build immunity to what contagions remain without
getting an active infection through smaller, less frequent exposure
and consequently less stress on the immune system. Or perhaps, in
other cases, the UV migh actually be able to kill out entirely certain
pathogens by limiting their numbers enough that the fish never get a
good expose or active infection and then the germs die out altogether
for lack of host.

> Sorry but I don't know what the
>word "flouting" means.

I mean that you are ignoring or disregarding the "closed tank"
"system" or "rule".

I started this thread because I find it puzzling that either "closed
tank" or extremely long quarantine periods are regularly recommended
for GF while at the same time UV sterilization is not recommended and
most other types of aquarists seem to give opposite advice. Most
commonly I see other aquarists claiming that as long as fish are
properly acclimated with healthy immune systems they will not get sick
solely via exposure- they need stress to actually get sick. This may
or may not be valid differences between coldwater and tropical species
and diseases- I don't know for sure.

The advice given here by you and Ingrid may indeed be correct, but I'm
not sure I follow the 100% sterilization explanation. If it is the
accurate reason I'd assume it requires certain additional points like:

- Ponds & aquariums are such small systems that UV can't get the water
clean enough relative to what fish have contact with. (possible- which
is why it works better in massive buildings like hospitals but not in
tiny aquariums with very active fish)

- Transmission of the most deadly GF diseases isn't through the water

- The most deadly GF diseases are so exceptionally contagious that
only quarantine, even without active infection, can stop transmission.
(may be true. But if fish don't get sick after cross contamination
with maintenance tools I wonder about that.)

- GF immune systems become much weaker than other types of fish when
not challenged for long periods in stable, closed, clean, aquariums.

- Consumer UV systems don't have lamps that are strong enough, or able
to stay clean long enough, to knock out GF pathogens.

But I'm not sure either of us really know with any high degree of
certainty or precision the truth of this matter. Although I welcome
the data.

[Jolly Fisherman]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:55:16 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:

>> No it wouldn't work that way either. As soon as the fish are moved to
>> the new clean tank with sterilized water they will immediately start
>> shedding disease into the water.
>
>ONLY if they have some disease already "in progress."

No that's wrong. As I said think of Typhoid Mary. She NEVER have
full blown Typhus yet continued to make ppl sick through her cooking
throughout her adult working life. Also think of viruses like Herpes
simplex and HPV. Almost everyone has or passes them along without
active illness. Many ppl, even though infected and contagious, never
get the sores or cancer these can cause.

Also if what you're saying were true no one would ever give advice to
run closed GF tanks.

[Koi-Lo]

"Jolly Fisherman" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:55:16 -0500, "Koi-Lo" <¤?¤@ö½.Õ..Õ¢> wrote:
>>
>>ONLY if they have some disease already "in progress." I would never
>>consider UV where disease and parasites are concerned.
>
> Yes you said that before.
>
> Let's take this from another angle. Would you add a newer healthy
> fish to a long established healthy tank, expecting to not get the
> older fish sick. That is, do you disagree with the advice to maintain
> only "closed tanks"?

Since all my fish are quarantined for as long as 21 days I feel they're safe
to add to a tank of known healthy fish. I've done it with no problems at
all. For the older fish to get sick the new one would have to be carrying
"something." A UV unit would not prevent that "something" from spreading to
other fish.

>>Then why use the UV at all unless free floating algae is the problem? A
>>diatom filter would also remove it and is cheaper to run a few times a
>>week
>>until the cause of the algae is worked out. Also the diatom removes it
>>rather than kill it and dump it back into the tank to fuel another algae
>>outbreak.
>
> I'm really just trying to ascertain why UV sterilization is not
> recommended as an alternative to the "closed tank system." Perhaps I
> should have made a better subject entry.

Probably because it would be useless. My tanks for example are "closed" to
all new fish until they get through quarantine. If I even suspect they have
a problem of some kind they stay in the Q-tank.

>>But you're talking about air and airborne viruses! If you think UV will
>>help with fish disease and parasites - go for it! :-)
>
> Air and water UV systems in either closed buildings or closed aquaria
> seem very similar to me. Although obviously they are on very
> different scales.

And thousands of hospital patients still die of infections they pick up in
hospitals. If you think a UV unit is for you by all means purchase one and
see..... :-)

>>You said "contaminated pebbles" and I asked contaminated with WHAT?
>>Parasites? Viral diseases?
>
> Do you mean you want to know specifically which organisms? I'm not an
> aquatic infectious disease specialist. (that's why I'm posing the
> question/thread)

I assure you UV light will not help if there are disease organisms in the
gravel. Are you talking about a UV light unshielded or those "tube type"
the water runs through?

> Certainly the apparent risk is any kind of pathogen than can survive
> for any length of time outside a host settled in to the smarmy nooks
> and crannies. You have already agreed that this happens.

I imagine it can happen. But how will you get the UV radiation to the
gravel? In an unshielded light? If you decide to try it let us know what
happens and what kind of unit you used.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
Aquariums since 1952.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }<((((*> ~~~ }<{{{{(ö> ~~~~ }<((((({*>

[[email protected]]

not silicone, but tools, yes. Ingrid

Jolly Fisherman > wrote:

>On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 04:21:03 GMT, wrote:
>
>>UV sterilizes water only when the water is very clear and the UV is very strong. not
>>typical setup for pond. on tank I think they are a waste of money.
>>best not to have bottom substrate in tanks or esp. ponds.
>>best for cleaning out holding or quarantine tanks is potassium permanganate at about
>>4X the dose normally used to treat fish.
>>a tub of PP in water is easy to dip and disinfect tools, etc.
>>Ingrid
>
>Does PP Stain Aquarium Silicone or plastic tools?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Zone 5 next to Lake Michigan