UV or not

[nntp.nildram.co.uk]

i do have a problem with green algae but i have hermit crabs and turbo
snails along with a yellow tang. I've been thinking of adding a UV
sterilizer to my system but would this starve the snails and crabs.
The tang is ok for other foods but the little hemits and snails seem to have
no other source of food.

Robin

[Wayne Sallee]

Most reffers don't want uv sterilizers on their
tanks. But some do use them. I'm not a big fan of
them myself.

How about some more details on your system.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


nntp.nildram.co.uk wrote on 3/3/2007 7:31 PM:
> i do have a problem with green algae but i have hermit crabs and turbo
> snails along with a yellow tang. I've been thinking of adding a UV
> sterilizer to my system but would this starve the snails and crabs.
> The tang is ok for other foods but the little hemits and snails seem to
> have no other source of food.
>
> Robin

[George Patterson]

nntp.nildram.co.uk wrote:
> i do have a problem with green algae but i have hermit crabs and turbo
> snails along with a yellow tang. I've been thinking of adding a UV
> sterilizer to my system but would this starve the snails and crabs.

It won't starve the snails and crabs, but I think it will do little to fix your
algae problem. I had UV sterilizers on my system for years. The main effect was
that infestations like ich slowed down a lot; the sterilizers gave time for
treatment.

George Patterson
If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess
to anything.

[Yukon]

"nntp.nildram.co.uk" > wrote in message ...
>i do have a problem with green algae but i have hermit crabs and turbo snails along with a yellow tang. I've been thinking of
>adding a UV sterilizer to my system but would this starve the snails and crabs.
> The tang is ok for other foods but the little hemits and snails seem to have no other source of food.
>
> Robin

I'll second what George just said. Years ago, I bought a UV to get rid of algae. It had zero effect.
Save your money, and figure out where the algae is coming from. Usually either from feeding too
much, new tank syndrom, sunlight entering the tank, water issues - to name a few. All tanks have algae.
Maybe it's normal algae. You have to clean algae off your glass. That's normal

[Pszemol]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:okrGh.180$iD4.83@trnddc06...
> I had UV sterilizers on my system for years. The main effect was
> that infestations like ich slowed down a lot; the sterilizers gave
> time for treatment.

Could you present scientific method leading you to this conclusion? :-)

[Tristin]

Screw you and your proof you little lazy assed son of a bitch, Go do
some freaking legwork on your own for a freaking change........why the
**** does everyone always have to prove what they say to you ya
asshole! Your about an untrusting individual there mr engineer. or
just plain ****ing lazy!

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 10:16:10 -0600, "Pszemol" >
wrote:

<<>>"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:okrGh.180$iD4.83@trnddc06...
<<>>> I had UV sterilizers on my system for years. The main effect was
<<>>> that infestations like ich slowed down a lot; the sterilizers gave
<<>>> time for treatment.
<<>>
<<>>Could you present scientific method leading you to this conclusion? :-)



-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

[George Patterson]

Pszemol wrote:

> Could you present scientific method leading you to this conclusion? :-)

Yes. Over 25 years of personal observation.

George Patterson
If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess
to anything.

[Pszemol]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:ZdDGh.1988$nf5.651@trnddc05...
> Pszemol wrote:
>
>> Could you present scientific method leading you to this conclusion? :-)
>
> Yes. Over 25 years of personal observation.

Could you give me more details?

[George Patterson]

Pszemol wrote:

> Could you give me more details?

I started keeping marine fish in 1975. Those were the days of the undergravel
filter, and the use of powerheads was hailed as a great advance by my friends
the next year. I started out with a 10 gallon tank and could keep one or two
fish alive with a great deal of effort. In 1977, I scored a great deal on a used
100 gallon tank. In the early 90s, I swapped for the 125 I have today. Until
last year, everything was fish-only with a variety of filtration methods. I did
not set up a hospital tank until last year when I started adding live rock.

I first added a UV sterilizer to my tank about 1977 or '78. It was an 8 watt
unit. In the early '90s, I added another. In 2005, I went back to an 8 watt unit.

Without a hospital tank, adding a new fish was always hazardous. Back when I had
no UV on the tank, once one of the fish started showing signs, the life
expectancy of that fish was usually less than 3 days; they could not take the
combined stress of the parasites and the copper treatment. Other fish in the
tank would invariably show signs of infestation later, but would usually make it
through. Once the first sterilizer was added, the rate at which the disease
spread decreased; my theory is that some of the parasites were being killed in
their free-swimming stage. After that, the first fish to show signs usually
survived, and some of the other fish would never show any signs at all.

Once I added the second sterilizer, I never lost a fish to ich, though I did get
the occasional infestation. In short, there was a direct relationship to the
number of watts of UV and the intensity and rate of spread of the disease.

Since I was not religious in changing the bulbs (and the bulbs get less
effective with time), I was also in a position to notice that an outbreak was
worse when the sterilizer bulb was pretty old. Again, this didn't happen once I
had two units running.

Since I've moved in the direction of a reef tank, I no longer have one hooked up
to the main tank. At the moment, my hospital tank is housing my cichlids while I
renovate their bedroom, but my remaining UV will go on the hospital tank once I
set that back up.

George Patterson
If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess
to anything.

[Wayne Sallee]

With a reef tank, I would not be trying to keep
sunlight from going in the tank.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


Yukon wrote on 3/4/2007 8:21 AM:
> sunlight entering the tank, water issues - to name a few. All tanks have algae.
> Maybe it's normal algae. You have to clean algae off your glass. That's normal
>
>
>

[Pszemol]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:_cFGh.558$3i.295@trnddc01...
> Pszemol wrote:
>
>> Could you give me more details?
>
> I started keeping marine fish in 1975. Those were the days of the undergravel
> filter, and the use of powerheads was hailed as a great advance by my friends

I am afraid we misunderstood each other.
I was hoping to hear about details of your scientific experiment and
you are giving me details on how you kept your fishtanks...
This is not what I was asking about.

To really tell how UV influences fish/ich you need to have controlled
group of fish without UV in the tank and expose both groups of fish
with the same amounts of parasite...

During the experiment you would need to actually measure water
flow through the UV lamp estimating UV exposure time for the
disease organisms have some detailed data on fish infections
with real dates and real numbers...

If you do not have all this than your statements are based on anegdotal
evidence or no evidence at all rather wishfull thinking instead.

And it really does not matter if you have tanks for 25 years or 2 months.
Scientific method is much more important in judging how UV affects ich.

[Tristin]

Your about a dumbass there Pszemol....don;t trust a ****ing individual
with out a lot of red tape and paper trails huh, why are you so
****ing paranoid there dude...what a moron.........just like hei hero
Wayne of Waynes Dead Pets Hope ya do not mind me recomending your
email addy....I have a few friends in need of a few addys for an
experiiment. Did I tell yuou that your a moron there Pszemol? Well
if not , you certainly are!



..On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:19:37 -0600, "Pszemol" >
wrote:

<<>>"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:_cFGh.558$3i.295@trnddc01...
<<>>> Pszemol wrote:
<<>>>
<<>>>> Could you give me more details?
<<>>>
<<>>> I started keeping marine fish in 1975. Those were the days of the undergravel
<<>>> filter, and the use of powerheads was hailed as a great advance by my friends
<<>>
<<>>I am afraid we misunderstood each other.
<<>>I was hoping to hear about details of your scientific experiment and
<<>>you are giving me details on how you kept your fishtanks...
<<>>This is not what I was asking about.
<<>>
<<>>To really tell how UV influences fish/ich you need to have controlled
<<>>group of fish without UV in the tank and expose both groups of fish
<<>>with the same amounts of parasite...
<<>>
<<>>During the experiment you would need to actually measure water
<<>>flow through the UV lamp estimating UV exposure time for the
<<>>disease organisms have some detailed data on fish infections
<<>>with real dates and real numbers...
<<>>
<<>>If you do not have all this than your statements are based on anegdotal
<<>>evidence or no evidence at all rather wishfull thinking instead.
<<>>
<<>>And it really does not matter if you have tanks for 25 years or 2 months.
<<>>Scientific method is much more important in judging how UV affects ich.



-------
I forgot more about ponds and koi than I'll ever know!

[Add Homonym]

nntp.nildram.co.uk wrote:
> i do have a problem with green algae but i have hermit crabs and turbo
> snails along with a yellow tang. I've been thinking of adding a UV
> sterilizer to my system but would this starve the snails and crabs.
> The tang is ok for other foods but the little hemits and snails seem to
> have no other source of food.
>
> Robin


Turbo's and hermits are of limited use for green algae.

Better bet is get some cerith, or even better, nassarius snails, and
perhaps a conch or two.

[Add Homonym]

Wayne Sallee wrote:
> With a reef tank, I would not be trying to keep sunlight from going in
> the tank.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
> Yukon wrote on 3/4/2007 8:21 AM:
>
>> sunlight entering the tank, water issues - to name a few. All tanks
>> have algae.
>> Maybe it's normal algae. You have to clean algae off your glass.
>> That's normal
>>
>>
>>
Indeed. Why would one turn up their nose at free light? Free light with
darn good PAR, at that?

[Wayne Sallee]

Actually Pszemol, you left out a lot of important
detail about how to properly do a scientific study.

You also need to do the following.

Make sure the fish are of the exact same age.
Make sure the fish are of the exact same size.
Make sure the fish are of the exact same mas.
Water of the same exact temp +- .00001 degree.
Tank size of the exact gallons
Tank size of the exact dimensions.
Rock, sand, gravel of the exact same mas.
Rock, sand, gravel of the exact same size
Position in the room of the exact same location.
Sound in the tanks to be the exact same.
Food measured out to the .00001 kilograms.
Lighting measured daily to make sure each tank is
getting exactly the same amount.
At least 10 tanks of the control.
At least 10 tanks of the test.
Run the test each year for 10 years.
Run the test at different barometric pressures.

But the reality is that what George presented is
sufficient to show what he has stated, and it agrees
with the results that many other people have seen.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


Pszemol wrote on 3/5/2007 10:19 AM:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:_cFGh.558$3i.295@trnddc01...
>> Pszemol wrote:
>>
>>> Could you give me more details?
>>
>> I started keeping marine fish in 1975. Those were the days of the
>> undergravel filter, and the use of powerheads was hailed as a great
>> advance by my friends
>
> I am afraid we misunderstood each other.
> I was hoping to hear about details of your scientific experiment and
> you are giving me details on how you kept your fishtanks...
> This is not what I was asking about.
>
> To really tell how UV influences fish/ich you need to have controlled
> group of fish without UV in the tank and expose both groups of fish
> with the same amounts of parasite...
>
> During the experiment you would need to actually measure water
> flow through the UV lamp estimating UV exposure time for the
> disease organisms have some detailed data on fish infections
> with real dates and real numbers...
>
> If you do not have all this than your statements are based on anegdotal
> evidence or no evidence at all rather wishfull thinking instead.
>
> And it really does not matter if you have tanks for 25 years or 2 months.
> Scientific method is much more important in judging how UV affects ich.

[Wayne Sallee]

Hermits are useful.
Also if the nutrient levels are dropped, then the
algae is weaker, and then things will eat it more.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


Add Homonym wrote on 3/5/2007 10:46 AM:
> nntp.nildram.co.uk wrote:
>> i do have a problem with green algae but i have hermit crabs and turbo
>> snails along with a yellow tang. I've been thinking of adding a UV
>> sterilizer to my system but would this starve the snails and crabs.
>> The tang is ok for other foods but the little hemits and snails seem
>> to have no other source of food.
>>
>> Robin
>
>
> Turbo's and hermits are of limited use for green algae.
>
> Better bet is get some cerith, or even better, nassarius snails, and
> perhaps a conch or two.
>

[Wayne Sallee]

It also amazes me how many so called scientific
studies are so poorly done. They use big words, they
strut their stuff, but make too may assumptions, and
build their tests on unproven material.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


Wayne Sallee wrote on 3/5/2007 11:19 AM:
> Actually Pszemol, you left out a lot of important detail about how to
> properly do a scientific study.
>
> You also need to do the following.
>
> Make sure the fish are of the exact same age.
> Make sure the fish are of the exact same size.
> Make sure the fish are of the exact same mas.
> Water of the same exact temp +- .00001 degree.
> Tank size of the exact gallons
> Tank size of the exact dimensions.
> Rock, sand, gravel of the exact same mas.
> Rock, sand, gravel of the exact same size
> Position in the room of the exact same location.
> Sound in the tanks to be the exact same.
> Food measured out to the .00001 kilograms.
> Lighting measured daily to make sure each tank is getting exactly the
> same amount.
> At least 10 tanks of the control.
> At least 10 tanks of the test.
> Run the test each year for 10 years.
> Run the test at different barometric pressures.
>
> But the reality is that what George presented is sufficient to show what
> he has stated, and it agrees with the results that many other people
> have seen.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
> Pszemol wrote on 3/5/2007 10:19 AM:
>> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
>> news:_cFGh.558$3i.295@trnddc01...
>>> Pszemol wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could you give me more details?
>>>
>>> I started keeping marine fish in 1975. Those were the days of the
>>> undergravel filter, and the use of powerheads was hailed as a great
>>> advance by my friends
>>
>> I am afraid we misunderstood each other.
>> I was hoping to hear about details of your scientific experiment and
>> you are giving me details on how you kept your fishtanks...
>> This is not what I was asking about.
>>
>> To really tell how UV influences fish/ich you need to have controlled
>> group of fish without UV in the tank and expose both groups of fish
>> with the same amounts of parasite...
>>
>> During the experiment you would need to actually measure water
>> flow through the UV lamp estimating UV exposure time for the
>> disease organisms have some detailed data on fish infections
>> with real dates and real numbers...
>>
>> If you do not have all this than your statements are based on anegdotal
>> evidence or no evidence at all rather wishfull thinking instead.
>>
>> And it really does not matter if you have tanks for 25 years or 2 months.
>> Scientific method is much more important in judging how UV affects ich.

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message k.net...
> Actually Pszemol, you left out a lot of important
> detail about how to properly do a scientific study.

This was not my intend to make a complete list :-)
Just wanted to mention the most important
factors of scientific method: control group which
was missing in his 25-years experiments.

> But the reality is that what George presented is
> sufficient to show what he has stated, and it agrees
> with the results that many other people have seen.

Maybe it is sufficient for you, but not for me :-)

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message nk.net...
> It also amazes me how many so called scientific
> studies are so poorly done. They use big words, they
> strut their stuff, but make too may assumptions, and
> build their tests on unproven material.

I am not saying all scientific tests are well done...

I am just saying that keeping tanks for 25 years
does not prevent you from believing in MYTHS
which you cultivate with not scientific background..

Let me give you an example:
My 30 years of experience tell me that using cotton
briefs protects my ass from being bitten by a tiger.
The proof I can offer you is that for the last 30 years
of wearing my cotton briefs I was not even a single time
bitten by a tiger => white cotton briefs protected me :-)))

I hope you will understand what I am talking about.

What do you know about life cycle of the parasite
causing ich in marine fish? What kind of organism
is it? Is it prothosoan? Is is crustacian?
How strong UV exposure is REQUIRED to kill it ?
How strong UV exposure is REQUIRED to destroy
its reproductive systems ?
Is your UV lamp used the way you can guarantee
this kind of exposure time giving proper UV dosage?

You can keep fish tanks for 25 years and do not know
enough about biology, chemistry or physics to make
statement about this subject.

:-) so.... I am still waiting for a description of
scientific method used to determine influence
of UV lamp (which kind?) on ich in marine fish :-)

[Add Homonym]

Wayne Sallee wrote:
> Actually Pszemol, you left out a lot of important detail about how to
> properly do a scientific study.
>
> You also need to do the following.
>
> Make sure the fish are of the exact same age.
> Make sure the fish are of the exact same size.
> Make sure the fish are of the exact same mas.
> Water of the same exact temp +- .00001 degree.
> Tank size of the exact gallons
> Tank size of the exact dimensions.
> Rock, sand, gravel of the exact same mas.
> Rock, sand, gravel of the exact same size
> Position in the room of the exact same location.
> Sound in the tanks to be the exact same.
> Food measured out to the .00001 kilograms.
> Lighting measured daily to make sure each tank is getting exactly the
> same amount.
> At least 10 tanks of the control.
> At least 10 tanks of the test.

<snip>

2 sets of 10 is way to small a sampling to be of any statistical
significance. A proper study would use several thousand tanks in each group.
A

[Add Homonym]

Wayne Sallee wrote:
> It also amazes me how many so called scientific studies are so poorly
> done. They use big words, they strut their stuff, but make too may
> assumptions, and build their tests on unproven material.

But current global warmimg predictions are not exactly on topic for this
NG...

[George Patterson]

Pszemol wrote:

> And it really does not matter if you have tanks for 25 years or 2 months.
> Scientific method is much more important in judging how UV affects ich.

Observation is the single most important tool in the scientific method, and, in
most sciences, it is the only tool. Nearly everything we know about this world
has been learned purely by observation.

I suppose you regard the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun as
"anegdotal evidence or wishfull thinking?"

George Patterson
If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess
to anything.

[Pszemol]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:bUZGh.483$as.116@trnddc04...
> Observation is the single most important tool in the scientific method, and, in
> most sciences, it is the only tool. Nearly everything we know about this world
> has been learned purely by observation.

The point is that to make a valid observation you HAVE TO prepare
the subject of yout test properly. Without this, you basically confirm
your wishfull thinking...

> I suppose you regard the fact that the Earth revolves around
> the Sun as "anegdotal evidence or wishfull thinking?"

I suppose you would agree with clerics chasing away Copernicus
for claiming their observation was wrong, and Sun does not
circle the Earth with the whole Universe... :-)))
Everybody who "observes" Sun and stars at night knows that
every celestial body runs around the Earth, the center of Universe :-)

Observation is not everything... you could conclude WRONGLY
from an observation, regardless how long you would observe.

[George Patterson]

Pszemol wrote:

> The point is that to make a valid observation you HAVE TO prepare
> the subject of yout test properly.

I am not conducting tests. I'm simply using something and commenting on the
observed effects of that usage. The observed FACT is that ich spreads less
rapidly and is more easily controlled in tanks that have UV sterilizers than in
those without them.

George Patterson
If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess
to anything.

[Pszemol]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message news:ik_Gh.567$as.192@trnddc04...
> Pszemol wrote:
>
>> The point is that to make a valid observation you HAVE TO prepare
>> the subject of yout test properly.
>
> I am not conducting tests. I'm simply using something and commenting on the
> observed effects of that usage. The observed FACT is that ich spreads less
> rapidly and is more easily controlled in tanks that have UV sterilizers than in
> those without them.

No, you have no idea about effects of UV :-)

You stated fact, that in your tanks, with unspecified fish
and unspecified UV you observed such and such amount
of infections. You cannot say if it was LESS or MORE than
in tanks without UV or judge effects of UV lamps on ich
because you did not run controlled group of fish/tanks
without UV to compare them with the same amount of
freshly arrived fish/rock from the ocean.

You cannot compare apples to oranges because you will
conclude WRONGly and your conclusion is just stating
your wishful thinking about UV lamps not scientific facts
about these lamps.

Each person falling for a UV lamp in the store wishes
his/her money were not wasted. So it is easy to come up
with rationalization on how UV lamp is making your life better.
It could be true that aquarium grade lamps have not enough
dosage of UV during the short time water passing the lamp
to impact life off the organisms suspended in the water...
So adding UV lamp to a tank could not do much in most
cases - it could be just money costing placebo for a fish tank
owner to make him feel better :-)

Until you understand scientific method and how it works
further discussion on this subject is futile.

[Wayne Sallee]

And even though experience has shown that UV does
kill some of the ich, it is mostly observed as an
item not normally desired for the reef tank.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

[Wayne Sallee]

Pszemol wrote on 3/5/2007 3:23 PM:
>It could be true that aquarium grade lamps have not enough
> dosage of UV during the short time water passing the lamp
> to impact life off the organisms suspended in the water...
> So adding UV lamp to a tank could not do much in most

It is true that most people that use UV sterilizers
run water through too fast. And most people that
purchase a UV, purchase one that is too small for
what they are wanting it to do.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message nk.net...
> Pszemol wrote on 3/5/2007 3:23 PM:
>> It could be true that aquarium grade lamps have not enough
>> dosage of UV during the short time water passing the lamp
>> to impact life off the organisms suspended in the water...
>> So adding UV lamp to a tank could not do much in most
>
> It is true that most people that use UV sterilizers
> run water through too fast. And most people that
> purchase a UV, purchase one that is too small for
> what they are wanting it to do.

In effect, the lamp installed in the tank does not kill anything.

It is working as placebo - that is what I was talking about :-))

Also, if you do not have ich in your tank you cannot tell
what is the reason behind it. You do not know even if the
parasite arrived in your tank and got eaten by cleaner shrimps
crabs or some other animal before got a chance to infect fish.
Stating as a fact that tanks to UV lamp you do not have ich in
your tank is just empty speculation without scientific base.

This is not science, this is how myths are born :-)

[RubenD]

> And even though experience has shown that UV does
> kill some of the ich, it is mostly observed as an
> item not normally desired for the reef tank.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>


Why not? I'm curious, I just got one, =)

[RubenD]

Good point.



"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:bUZGh.483$as.116@trnddc04...
> > Observation is the single most important tool in the scientific method,
and, in
> > most sciences, it is the only tool. Nearly everything we know about this
world
> > has been learned purely by observation.
>
> The point is that to make a valid observation you HAVE TO prepare
> the subject of yout test properly. Without this, you basically confirm
> your wishfull thinking...
>
> > I suppose you regard the fact that the Earth revolves around
> > the Sun as "anegdotal evidence or wishfull thinking?"
>
> I suppose you would agree with clerics chasing away Copernicus
> for claiming their observation was wrong, and Sun does not
> circle the Earth with the whole Universe... :-)))
> Everybody who "observes" Sun and stars at night knows that
> every celestial body runs around the Earth, the center of Universe :-)
>
> Observation is not everything... you could conclude WRONGLY
> from an observation, regardless how long you would observe.

[Wayne Sallee]

Because it usually only helps at best. Most people
under size them and run the water through them too
fast, and it hurts the good stuff as well as the
bad. In the reef tank, you want what plankton and
pods that there are. And fish will usually get over
the ich on their own if their immune system is good.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


RubenD wrote on 3/5/2007 7:10 PM:
>> And even though experience has shown that UV does
>> kill some of the ich, it is mostly observed as an
>> item not normally desired for the reef tank.
>>
>> Wayne Sallee
>> Wayne's Pets
>>
>
>
> Why not? I'm curious, I just got one, =)
>
>

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message nk.net...
> Because it usually only helps at best.

Do you know ANY scientific evidence for any UV lamp
helping with marine ich?

I am not talking about things George was talking about...
What I am looking for is REAL scientific method proving
UV lamps work to help avoid ich...

> Most people under size them and run the water through
> them too fast,

Not only that... due to the nature of the process, water
to be sterilized properly in a UV lamp has to be filtered!
Every solid particle in the water passing through the lamp is
casting a "shadow of survival" to the organism in the shadow.
So to use lamp properly you would have to filter the tank
water using 30-35 micron filter... Who's doing this?

If you read some scientific documents about UV sterilization
of water you will know they talk usually about a standard long,
40W mercury UV tube in a 3" diameter lamp and water
passing at the speed about 500 gph or less. This kind of setup
delivers dosage of about 18,000 mW-sec/cm2. In order to increase
this dosage you need to lower the water flow. For example, 250 gph
flow will in above mentioned lamp would be exposed to the almost
double dosage of 34,000 mW-sec/cm2.

This dosage is enough to kill bacteria, yeast, some mold
spores, viruses and microalgae. And some aquarium grade lamps
achive this effect with unicellular algea. To kill protozoa (like a well known
from school "Paramecium" or our ich-causing "Cryptocaryon irritans")
you would have to increase the dosage to the range of
200,000 mW-sec/cm2 !!!!! This would mean that if you had 3"
diameter lab-grade UV lamp with a 40W mercury tube you could
give it maximum water flow of 40 gph... How about that!

And this is discussion for a lab-grade UV sterilizer lamp...
Aquarium grade lamps have MUCH SMALLER diameter
of the reaction chamber and are drastically less efficient.

George mentioned before his lamp equipped with a 8W tube
and unknown chamber lenght/diameter. Did not provide us
with any info about water flow rate through his UV lamp...
We can only guess that such a lamp would not work good in
killing ciliates - they just pass through the lamp UNHARMED.
So what he saw was just placebo effect => wishful thinking!

> and it hurts the good stuff as well as the
> bad. In the reef tank, you want what plankton and
> pods that there are.

They usually do not kill anything, good or bad... :-)
In the best case they can help with unicellular algae
or bacteria, but these are important part of the corals diet
in any reef tank, so I am not sure why would like to kill them.

> And fish will usually get over
> the ich on their own if their immune system is good.

Or with a help of natural cleaners like gobies or shrimps.
Instead of buying a UV lamp for a reef tank to prevent ich
you would do much better buying some cleaner shrimps.
They look pretty, very interesting animals to observe
and they do clean parasites off the fish effectivelly.

[swarvegorilla]

"nntp.nildram.co.uk" > wrote in message
...
>i do have a problem with green algae but i have hermit crabs and turbo
>snails along with a yellow tang. I've been thinking of adding a UV
>sterilizer to my system but would this starve the snails and crabs.
> The tang is ok for other foods but the little hemits and snails seem to
> have no other source of food.
>
> Robin

not a fan of UV
but imagine your snails would still find algae or left over food to eat
population may just change a bit in response to food level

[Pszemol]

"RubenD" > wrote in message ...
>> And even though experience has shown that UV does
>> kill some of the ich, it is mostly observed as an
>> item not normally desired for the reef tank.
>>
>
> Why not? I'm curious, I just got one, =)

My advice would be return it to the store unopened for a refund :-)
UV lamps have no place in reef tanks.

[Wayne Sallee]

Yea, 8 watts is quite lame in UV strength.I had not
noticed the 8 watts part.

As far as scientific studies, there probably are
some out there. Whether they would meet your
criteria, or not I don't know :-)Even Scientist do
some pretty lame studies.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message nk.net...
> Yea, 8 watts is quite lame in UV strength.I had not
> noticed the 8 watts part.

I hoped you say something like that eventually... :-)

> As far as scientific studies, there probably are
> some out there. Whether they would meet your
> criteria, or not I don't know :-)Even Scientist do
> some pretty lame studies.

I am not that strict - basic stuff is good enough for me :-)
But it has to at least resemble scientific aproach...

[redbrick]

Hmm...I've been following this thread... Your argument is solid
but difficult to swallow. Experience is simply just that...people
will pay a lot of money for it unfortunately.

Redbrick

In article >, says...
>
>"RubenD" > wrote in message
...
>>> And even though experience has shown that UV does
>>> kill some of the ich, it is mostly observed as an
>>> item not normally desired for the reef tank.
>>>
>>
>> Why not? I'm curious, I just got one, =)
>
>My advice would be return it to the store unopened for a refund :-)
>UV lamps have no place in reef tanks.

[Pszemol]

"Redbrick" > wrote in message et...
> Hmm...I've been following this thread... Your argument is solid
> but difficult to swallow. Experience is simply just that...people
> will pay a lot of money for it unfortunately.

People are just people... :-)
Everybody makes mistakes... including me :-)))

[Bob]

>It is true that most people that use UV sterilizers
>run water through too fast. And most people that
>purchase a UV, purchase one that is too small for
>what they are wanting it to do.
>
>Wayne Sallee
>Wayne's Pets


I used to use one but haven't for a couple of years. I'm thinking about it
again. I have a 210 gallon reef . My primary interest is killing stray
pathogens. I'm thinking 40 watts and maybe 200 gallon/hour?

Bob

[Pszemol]

"Bob" > wrote in message ...
> I used to use one but haven't for a couple of years. I'm thinking about
> it again. I have a 210 gallon reef . My primary interest is killing stray
> pathogens. I'm thinking 40 watts and maybe 200 gallon/hour?

What "stray pathogens" you have on your mind?
This water flow is good enough to kill bacteria, algae
but to kill cilliates/prothozoans you need to slow down
to about 40 gph or even less for worms/crustaceans...

[swarvegorilla]

"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Redbrick" > wrote in message
> et...
>> Hmm...I've been following this thread... Your argument is solid but
>> difficult to swallow. Experience is simply just that...people
>> will pay a lot of money for it unfortunately.
>
> People are just people... :-)
> Everybody makes mistakes... including me :-)))

I have seen some amazing reef tanks that do use UV..... and some that don't.
I don't like the idea of them myself.
I mean gamma radiation is sweet and all.
But I solve my problems other ways.
Besides I like keeping microbes in me water.
It's like another tank of millions more wacky things,
even if you can only see them under a microscope.
Whole dam food chain going on in there......
I like the idea of letting them chill, rather than fry and rot.
But yea once again just me, and I don't have a brand new UV on hand to
fiddle with.

[Pszemol]

"swarvegorilla" > wrote in message u...
> I have seen some amazing reef tanks that do use UV..... and some that don't.
> I don't like the idea of them myself.
> I mean gamma radiation is sweet and all.
> But I solve my problems other ways.

???
gamma radiation is not the same as UVC.

[swarvegorilla]

"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "swarvegorilla" > wrote in message
> u...
>> I have seen some amazing reef tanks that do use UV..... and some that
>> don't.
>> I don't like the idea of them myself.
>> I mean gamma radiation is sweet and all.
>> But I solve my problems other ways.
>
> ???
> gamma radiation is not the same as UVC.

Yea well they ain't xrays or cosmic rays either
they are UV
W00000t
sorry was jus goofin off.
they are death dealing rays all the same,
altho not enuf for you and too much for me.
I'd be happy to try build a suped up version, But I'm worried I'd hurt
someone like me.
:)

[Pszemol]

"swarvegorilla" > wrote in message ...
>> ???
>> gamma radiation is not the same as UVC.
>
> Yea well they ain't xrays or cosmic rays either
> they are UV
> W00000t
> sorry was jus goofin off.
> they are death dealing rays all the same,
> altho not enuf for you and too much for me.
> I'd be happy to try build a suped up version, But I'm
> worried I'd hurt someone like me.
> :)

The main difference is that UVC is CONTAINED IN THE LAMP
and does not radiate to the outside of the lamp...
Also, does not create radiation residue.
So I would not compare it even to gamma rays, which
would not be containted in a simple lamp made of PVC.