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

[whs6704]

Ok. So what?

Y r u guys talking to this boy

 

[Daniel76]

Honestly - Get your head away from the UV vs ich thing you keep going back to.

Almost everyone commenting here is talking about how UV is a pretty special tool against algae, bacteria - Not ich, thus not making them what your title is insinuating. People will listen to your opinion if you take the time to read what they say and have healthy debates regarding this but you keep ignoring the fact almost everyone here is saying how effective they are against this then you take it back to that (ich)..... You cant have a healthy conversation if one party wont take in the conversation and you dont seem to be at all.

PS - Im a UV user and wouldnt have it any other way. I properly size and flow my UV to CONTROL bacteria and parasites, not eradicate but CONTROL and i believe its worked wonders.

Yep, you are right.
Almost everyone here is saying what you are saying.
Help me, PLEASE, understand if many people are saying similar things about how it supposedly does control or reduce the likelihood of ich, how is someone meant to determine which is correct?

 

[Daniel76]

This is how it is talking to a drunk man

I’m sorry if that’s how I’m coming across.
I am really coming across that insane?

 

[Daniel76]

There are so many holes in this it should be listed under comedy.

That’s fair enough. If you let me know what they were I’d happily read them. My point for posting that marine depot link was that many people started to reference BRS and I remembered that marine depot posted something that wasn’t fully supportive of UV and thought that provide an alternative view to BRS but from a similar organisation.
Sorry that it wasn’t appropriate.

 

[Silent]

Yep, you are right.
Almost everyone here is saying what you are saying.
Help me, PLEASE, understand if many people are saying similar things about how it supposedly does control or reduce the likelihood of ich, how is someone meant to determine which is correct?

You may benefit from reading this. Lots of good information for you to get started with.

UVC Sterilization | How Aquarium & Pond UV Sterilizers Work

Information how a TRUE Aquarium, Pond UV Sterilizer/clarifier work. Category A, B, & C Sterilizers. Affect on green water, disease prevention, & Redox

www.americanaquariumproducts.com

 

[Gw2kpro]

Maybe this thread should retitled to frame the argument narrowly to ich.

I'm seeing few responses to the ich argument and a whole pile of responses in support of algae/dino control.

If the intent here was to actually hold a discussion on UV/ ich control (and not to intentionally start a flame war with people who successfully utilize UV in their systems) then the title chosen for this thread is poor at best.

Maybe something like "Is UV treatment an effective method of ich control in reef systems?"

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

Maybe this thread should retitled to frame the argument narrowly to ich.

I'm seeing few responses to the ich argument and a whole pile of responses in support of algae/dino control.

If the intent here was to actually hold a discussion on UV/ ich control (and not to intentionally start a flame war with people who successfully utilize UV in their systems) then the title chosen for this thread is poor at best.

Maybe something like "Is UV treatment an effective method of ich control in reef systems?"

The OP's original post states nothing about using UV to control Ich, it isn't until he presents the article that we even get a hint that he is referring to parasite control.

@Daniel76 you are allowed to have your own opinion and you are allowed to state and argue to support your opinion. What happened in this case is that you made a very open statement then when your statement was rebutted you came back with comments like "Where's the peer reviewed research?" or an article from the 1970s that had a flawed methodology that isn't 100% related to what hobbyists use on our smaller scale which just led to more rebuttal here.

I don't spend a lot of time like @brandon429 diving through work threads and research articles, but I do remember reading an article somewhere about UV and its effectiveness on external parasites that showed a slower flow rate through the UV sterilizer will kill the parasites but that the life cycle of the Ich itself prevented UV from being a primary source of disease control. The article stated that UV was a good secondary measure to help catch the parasite while in the water column but that other treatments (ie copper, paraguard) were more effective at treating a system whole scale (the article was talking about smaller home systems, not larger aquaria).

If I get the time and can find that article again I will post it later.

This thread would have read a lot differently if at any point prior to page 12 you had made a statement like "I see that UV is being used and seems to be effective for bacteria/Dinos, but my concern is about parasite control." That would have changed the nature of this thread drastically.

 

[LiamPM]

Yep, you are right.
Almost everyone here is saying what you are saying.
Help me, PLEASE, understand if many people are saying similar things about how it supposedly does control or reduce the likelihood of ich, how is someone meant to determine which is correct?

You are literally ignoring what people and myself say and go waffling on about UV and ICH when the majority are talking UV and algae and bacteria.

Many people are NOT saying that UV supposedly controls ICH , the many are saying it controls bacteria and algae.

If you somehow put the word MANY to me stating i use it to CONTROL bacteria and parasites myself then my personal take is because i use an extremely oversized UV filter with extremely slow flow passing through giving them a pretty long contact time with the water. Of course not all water, bacteria or free swimming parasites will pass through the UV hence why i use the word CONTROL. In my experience i am controlling the level of bacteria / parasites in the water column by burning what does actually pass through. I've seen zero detrimental effects from running a UV in about 8 years, however if i take the UV offline for any length of time i can tell by eye that things start to seem a little off in my tank. Im no scientist....But my experience tells me what i believe is good for my tank conditions, i dont need any peer reviewed papers to tell me what my personal experience tells me.

 

[MabuyaQ]

There is no objective evidence that demonstrates that UV sterilizers do what you have stated.

Actually they do and the paper that is quoted actually proves this. It states that in some cases up to 98,9% of pathogens are removed/killed. The problem lies in the remaining percentage that can/will still cause problems and can/will kill with certain pathogens. All this proves is that UV does not sterilize as is often claimed, it actually proves that pathogenic pressure can be reduced low enough for certain pathogens that animals with a healthy immune system can fight this off (at least long enough to start treatment).
Nowhere is tested what the difference is between the mortality rate long term between an untreated infected tank for certain patogens versus a UV tank 'treated' long term. I am certain UV won't save weak fish but also that it will save strong and or stronger fish with something like ich.

 

[Belgian Anthias]

All the catching stations that I visited used fresh seawater pumped directly from the coast. They all used UV-C lamps to rid the water of harmful organisms after the water was mechanically filtered.

If one uses a UV-C unit, this unit should be able to remove all marine pathogens from the treated water. I see no benefits using a UV system able to remove 50% or 75%.

A UV-C unit can sterilize water, not an aquarium tank. The total microbial population will not change much. If sterile water enters the tank the present diversity will immediately colonize it. UV treatment does not remove a thing, the dead biomass will be used for heterotrophic growth and be remineralized. The effluent of a UV unit can be passed true a skimmer for removing some (as much as possible) of the organics present in the UV unit effluent.
Good UV-C treatment will lower the pathogen pressure and effect photo-autotrophic growth in the tank.

A good UV germicidal lamp is able to sterilize the water in the reactor. To make clear water germ-free, one needs 180,000 µW-s / cm², then a new unit will have to be able to deliver 225,000 µW-s / cm² with the intended flow. ( +- 16000hrs 80%) It can make reactor water 99,9% pathogen free at low temp < 40°C.
In a low-pressure UV-C amalgam unit the temp may increase above 80°C, even higher at very low flow, which must be prevented. Optimal use 10-40°C
The effluent can be useful in a heat exchanger before re-entering the tank.

A good UV-C unit is able to make pathogen-free water at the desired flow rate. It can be used for fast quarantining sick animals using contaminated tank water.

Most good standard UV-C lamps and units are made for horizontal use only! !! For vertical use, special lamps are made.
All pellet amalgam lamps are suitable for horizontal and vertical use.

Do not use UV-C for removing Chlorine from tap water to be used to make tank water !!!
ref: http://www.baharini.eu/baharini/doku.php?id=nl:makazi:techniek:uv_lampen&rev=1580310174

 

[Jellis]

Worked great for me as far as Dino’s go talk about stress relief

 

[BryanD]

We use UV at work in bio-safety cabinets for sterile and cell culture work, it's to be on for at least 30 minutes before use to be effective. I've always figured the small amount of time the water passes by a UV bulb in a tank set-up would really have a minimal effect so I've never used one. But I'm basing that on my own guesstimation, not anything solid.

 

[Crabs McJones]

Hi everyone!

Just a heads up were going to lock this one down. Its resorted to back and fourth and name calling. I hope you all understand and have a great day

Crabs