UV sterilizers are not effective and we should all stop using them, Right?

[pdxmonkeyboy]

Scenario 1. you bring in a frag with velvet on it, or any harmful bacteria, be it a fish parasite, or known destructive bacteria. Now the bacteria is in the water column. You have a UV unit to help reduce the amount of that bacteria in the water column.

Scenario 2. Same introduction and now you have what to help reduce numbers? Tons of water changes? "beneficial bacteria to fight it".

I know people like to think that the end all be all is to have this beautiful functioning ecosystem where everything is in check and everything is just like in the ocean. Yeah, that is a romantic way to think about it, but it is far from the truth. Oceans and reefs are extremely nutrient limited and subject to constant circulation and new water from temperature and tidal driven current. Your aquarium is a small container with fish pooping in it and the places that you get your livestock are literately dirtier that a handrail at an amusement park.

 

[spidercrab]

The obvious troll is obvious. And if you really aren't trolling well then... jeez dude figure yourself out. This makes me want to post the whole thread on the subreddit /r/iamverysmart.

Here's an article I found after less than a minute of searching explaining EXACTLY that UV light kills and deforms dinoflagellate cells, and reduces their survival and growth rates. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-HYFZ199702000.htm

And another https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01252452
and another where they used it to kill dinos from a reservoir https://www.osti.gov/biblio/220056

Those three articles took me lass than a minute to find. And that's just stuff about dinoflagellates. I'm sick and tired of seeing people making claims with no evidence behind them or denying information because they don't believe in it. "There's no evidence that they do anything. ShOw mE a pEeR rEviEwED ArTiCLe." There's three buddy. People like you who straight up deny facts and information in favor of saying there's no evidence of something (when there is) are the reason vaccine rates have dropped and children are dying of preventable diseases, or flat earthers exist. It's harmful to us as a society and I instantly lose respect for anyone who does that crap.

Seriously. Get a grip.

In the absolute most basic of terms:
UV sterilization has been proven to kill bacteria, viruses, and microorganisms. It's not a stretch in any way shape or form to apply it to the microorganisms in a tank. By flooding an area with UV light you are going to kill microorganisms. Thus, by flooding your tank water with UV light you are going to kill the things in the water. It's not rocket science.

And if you're doing this to be funny, read the room. No one's laughing.

This is embarrassing logic at best. Those articles have nothing to with aquariums where there are many more variables. Same thing as saying well this research shows that garlic kills viruses in a test tube so it should be obvious that we should all be eating tons of garlic to cure HIV...

 

[pdxmonkeyboy]

Troll alert.

I will say that this thread has helped me refine my ignore list.

 

[jasonrusso]

I just changed my UV bulbs (TMC Vectron models) and the next day the water was noticeably clearer. I try to change them every 6 months, but I waited 7 months.

 

[ceejay2018]

I use UV for insurance against bacterial blooms, Dino’s, algae’s. My water stays crystal clear without using carbon. Glass stays clean. I don’t use it for fish health. Other than hlle and carbon.

 

[FishDoc]

There is no question UV is extremely effective at sterilizing water. Works remarkably well for many applications (swimming pools, wastewater treatment, etc.) And works great for flow through systems to sterilize ocean water before it enters your tank. I'm just not sure how much sense it makes in a closed aquarium system once the troublesome organisms are already present. With most commercially available set-ups you are at best killing a portion of the free floating pest organisms while providing the remaining pest organisms a steady stream of dead organism nutrients with which to survive and reproduce. Seems a bit counter-productive. You would have to have a lot of flow, contact time and wattage to kill the organisms faster than they reproduce in such a situation.

Agreed. You want to get rid of green water, sure, use UV. I have to agree though that in most systems it makes no sense to have one running consistently for disease prevention/management. Just feed your fish good foods!

 

[Lp1977]

My system ULN for ever and I never had a problem, then out of the blue DINOS. I battled Dinos for almost a year raised nutrients in the past 3 months and elevated PH 8.40 and while they did seem to not grow as rapidly and subsided a little they were still very much present. Put a 80w smart uv on my 180 and they were nearly diminished in 2 days. Now after a week there virtually gone. Of course there still in my system as they are in everyone's I'm sure but not an issue anymore. Well KNOCK ON WOOD

 

[BeltedCoyote]

Honestly, I’d been watching this thread a few days ago when it started. Why? Hey, I come from a family of medical and science professionals. I don’t have any high degree in anything other than philosophy. But I know the value of scholarly articles and those that are peer reviewed. Furthermore I also know that this realm of information is just as driven as any other facet of our society to bias and other motivations (be them political, economic, etc). While it is indeed true that purely anecdotal accounts in and of themselves are not true “proof” (which in and of itself is a very foolish way to look at evidence in the real world. Let’s be real. Let’s examine how most of the the mainstream “truths” ended up getting to that tier of recognition. What drove the studies that truly got to heart of those issues? A wealth of trends to the positive or negative of what notion was being out for the issue in question. So yes. Anecdotal evidence in and of itself is shaky ground.

however, the majority of what has motivated many scientific innovations has been a high concentration of anecdotal information to the positive or the negative. All within the confines of “will studying this have any kind of funding because it presents something relevant to an entity that will further this pursuit”.

as for this entire thread? From what I’ve read op has taken the high horse because there has not been a true peer reviewed investigation as to whether or not UV sterilization is a viable means for success, in and of itself, for success in keeping a viable saltwater reef ecosystem in a glass box.

fact is: OP, let it be known no disrespect. But there will not be the kind of documents you want. What we have is a large positive trend in anecdotal accounts that indicate that UV helps in some way. And even in this trend it is clear it’s not a method that will cover all bases, yet it still is effect for specific uses. Which in and of itself indicates that there is something here worth examining. However, there hasn’t been a grant funded study on the issue simply because this is a hobby. Grants are given for issues that deal with more pressing topics than a hobby. And the companies that make the uv equipment haven’t done a study because our use is a niche area of the market into which they’ve invested. So sorry, we’ve got anecdotes.

but at the end of the day, with such a strong trend of anecdotal information present on an informational resource such as R2R, the statistical trend of positive results should be enough to at least acknowledge UV has viable applications in specific applications

 

[EmdeReef]

Most natural reefs are in fairly “shallow” waters, where sun is blasting UV rays ~12hrs a day. Different UVs penetrate quite far down. If it were truly effective at eliminating all pests or in particular ich and velvet both parasites (and many other microbes) would’ve been extinct...in a reef tank the coverage is not even close.

If you want to manage ich or velvet etc, try a DE filter. It’s a pain to maintain but it will work - won’t eradicate either unless it’s a small and pretty bare tank IME.

 

[salty150]

UV sterilizers are effective if used right.

The right wattage (for what you are using them for) - connected to the right pump/water flow...etc.

 

[ceejay2018]

I’ll stick with these two for all the filtration I need. No Carbon or GFO. No need for a skimmer other than gas exchange. Optional. No headaches with Dino’s etc etc

 

[Reef Obsession]

I feel this is a poor way to word the question at hand. There’s too many factors in regards to UVs... what are we using them for, what wattage are you using for your reef tank size, what flow rates are you running through them, and many more. I personally believe they do play a role in a better reef tank but how affective are they comes down to the end user. I recall a recent BRS video about using UVs that helps answer some questions but as anything in this hobby it’s all up to the user’s equipment and skills of using them correctly. To say we should all stop using them isn’t the right question. Instead are they providing enough benefits for the cost and are we using them correctly is.

 

[Ross Petersen]

I suggest we follow nature on this one - UV exists, in daily bursts.

Does UV kill all parasites? No way. BUT... it's another variable that helps to maintain balance. Biodiversity is good... changing wave patterns is good... UV is likely an important tool as well in replicating nature's stressors.

 

[Bangai64]

What about the good bacteria? Does it reduce or affect that as well? Is there a trade off? I would like a good explanation of that. I have a UV I haven’t installed as of yet, hoping to answer that question first.

 

[Brian Coble]

I fought dino's for months, threw everything but the kitchen sink at them, nothing worked. They just got worse and worse to the point of strangling out corals.

Read the Dino thread here, ID them, bought a UV. Overnight the decrease in dinos was very noticable. By the end of the week, they were gone.

Call it anecdotal all you want, but just have a read through the dino thread and all the victories from using UV. Then tell me that UV is useless in defeating dinos.

Hi
By chance Is your reef tank bare bottom?

 

[Treenk]

Wow.. golf clap for having so many viewing an article.

 

[Barnabie Mejia]

What about the good bacteria? Does it reduce or affect that as well? Is there a trade off? I would like a good explanation of that. I have a UV I haven’t installed as of yet, hoping to answer that question first.

I have always wondered this as well, but I think the consensus will be “no”. And I’m thinking that because there would be more reports of ammonia spikes and from all that I have gathered beneficial bacteria lives on the rocks sand and media (marine pure spheres/ blocks). Now I would think that if you add something like searches stability or microbacter7 the UV would have to be turned off for at least 4 hours to allow the bacteria to find a home.....

 

[OldOne14]

I've had Dinos for several months on my 65gal. I'm going to setup the UV and see what happens.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I have always wondered this as well, but I think the consensus will be “no”. And I’m thinking that because there would be more reports of ammonia spikes and from all that I have gathered beneficial bacteria lives on the rocks sand and media (marine pure spheres/ blocks). Now I would think that if you add something like searches stability or microbacter7 the UV would have to be turned off for at least 4 hours to allow the bacteria to find a home.....

The good bacteria lives on/in rocks. not in the water column, so UV has no effect.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I have always wondered this as well, but I think the consensus will be “no”. And I’m thinking that because there would be more reports of ammonia spikes and from all that I have gathered beneficial bacteria lives on the rocks sand and media (marine pure spheres/ blocks). Now I would think that if you add something like searches stability or microbacter7 the UV would have to be turned off for at least 4 hours to allow the bacteria to find a home.....

Sorry, meant to reply to Banga