Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[a.t.t.r]

That wasn't my point. He showed UV reduced the effectiveness of Vibrant, which implies UV is killing the active ingredient. Bacteria. If there is no bacteria in the bottle then the UV effect didn't exist or it was a result of an unidentified cause.

Uv can also break down chemicals.
could also have killed things in the water that the algicide then binds to. Could slow the uptake of any releases phosphate by killing things in the water unrelated to vibrant.

I don’t know why ya all keep grasping for something that isn’t there. It has been undeniably established and even said by UWC (during one of they goal post shifts) that there is no living bacteria in the bottle.

 

[a.t.t.r]

Uv can also break down chemicals.
could also have killed things in the water that the algicide then binds to. Could slow the uptake of any releases phosphate by killing things in the water unrelated to vibrant.

I don’t know why ya all keep grasping for something that isn’t there. It has been undeniably established and even said by UWC (during one of they goal post shifts) that there is no living bacteria in the bottle.

@Randy Holmes-Farley how UV stable are these polyquats?

 

[rmorris_14]

Tell me why are we so blind to see that the ones we hurt are you and me?

and now I have to listen to it

 

[rmorris_14]

could also have killed things in the water that the algicide then binds to. Could slow the uptake of any releases phosphate by killing things in the water unrelated to vibrant.

This was my immediate thought as well.

 

[N.Sreefer]

Bacteria can not make this algicide. And previous testing has shown no bacteria in the bottle. So that would be a no on both accounts.

No bacteria or no living bacteria? If the bacteria accumulated the algaecide and were then killed off the accumulated toxin would still remain. Just a theory, not a presumption.

 

[shwareefer]

Rather than quote myself, I'll just re-ask. Why use bacteria to develop an algaecide identicle to one that can just be bought off the shelf? It's ridiculous.

 

[jeffww]

No bacteria or no living bacteria? If the bacteria accumulated the algaecide and were then killed off the accumulated toxin would still remain. Just a theory, not a presumption.

Why would you do that? It also contradicts the maker’s claim there is no bacteria in vibrant (which in itself contradicts their past claims). I also don’t understand how UWC has time to message randy a picture of their epa cause report but doesn’t have time to come on here and come clean. I’ve resisted saying this for months now because it’s not a light claim to make but it seems like UWC is an absolute liar and cheat to the bone.

 

[N.Sreefer]

Why would you do that? It also contradicts the maker’s claim there is no bacteria in vibrant (which in itself contradicts their past claims). I also don’t understand how UWC has time to message randy a picture of their epa cause report but doesn’t have time to come on here and come clean. I’ve resisted saying this for months now because it’s not a light claim to make but it seems like UWC is an absolute liar and cheat to the bone.

It sure seems that way I was in no way trying to defend them just thinking of tricky ways to get around normal regulations pertaining to the use of algaecides. If you did what I was suggesting you could package it as if it is not a chemical concentrate and perhaps get around some environmental regulations.

 

[a.t.t.r]

It sure seems that way I was in no way trying to defend them just thinking of tricky ways to get around normal regulations pertaining to the use of algaecides. If you did what I was suggesting you could package it as if it is not a chemical concentrate and perhaps get around some environmental regulations.

No. Only thing that would matter to the epa is what chemical is actually in the bottle. Does not matter how it was made.
There is no living or dead bacteria in the bottle

 

[Karen00]

Vibrant
Busan 77 >>>> 1776 freedom
Bacterial blend but where’s the Petri
RHF > JDA > UWC > EPA
Lines are drawn
Sewage is not water but water is sewage
Ban hammer
Vibrantsquad still in force - love dishonesty
Where to turn
Randy left BRS another Randy a chemist mole
3/24/2022

This made me laugh so hard but I have to say I think it actually sums up all of the threads on this topic combined. We'll done! (Laughing with tears in eyes emoji)

 

[Joe31415]

He was testing the effectiveness of the product taking the vendors claim of ingredients as a true statement. He was not trying to verify the actual components of Vibrant. I see no wrong doing other than falling for the same ruse we all did.

On the one hand, that makes me curious why introducing UV made the Vibrant less effective. Granted that could, of course, be attributed to a million other things. On the other hand, it shows how a "peer review" can be wrong, right out of the gate, when working with a flawed premise.

But something else you have to keep in mind, as much as I love the BRS videos and I honestly do get quite a lot out of them, don't kid yourself, these aren't entirely unbiased. You have to remember, they're commercials for BRS and for the products they're demonstrating. You wouldn't expect Thomas do a box-opening/review on a skimmer and spend 7 minutes trashing everything from the design to the noise to what a nightmare it is to clean. Similarly, lets say while researching a video on Vibrant, they came to the conclusion that it was re-braded algaecide, that's not going to be the focus of the video, if they do the video at all. I'm willing to bet they've planed videos on a products only to find out they don't have much good to say about it and move on to the next thing.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing any of their videos where they came right out and said 'don't buy this, the manufactur made multiple false claims'. Sure, you'll usually get one of them giving a mediocre review of something, but it's usually couched in praise by the other so they can say 'give it a shot, it might work for you'.

 

[Karen00]

This lab must be in Antarctica. It's taking this long to comment on the results?

In Antarctica and they sent the results by canoe.

 

[rmorris_14]

On the one hand, that makes me curious why introducing UV made the Vibrant less effective. Granted that could, of course, be attributed to a million other things. On the other hand, it shows how a "peer review" can be wrong, right out of the gate, when working with a flawed premise.

But something else you have to keep in mind, as much as I love the BRS videos and I honestly do get quite a lot out of them, don't kid yourself, these aren't entirely unbiased. You have to remember, they're commercials for BRS and for the products they're demonstrating. You wouldn't expect Thomas do a box-opening/review on a skimmer and spend 7 minutes trashing everything from the design to the noise to what a nightmare it is to clean. Similarly, lets say while researching a video on Vibrant, they came to the conclusion that it was re-braded algaecide, that's not going to be the focus of the video, if they do the video at all. I'm willing to bet they've planed videos on a products only to find out they don't have much good to say about it and move on to the next thing.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing any of their videos where they came right out and said 'don't buy this, the manufactur made multiple false claims'. Sure, you'll usually get one of them giving a mediocre review of something, but it's usually couched in praise by the other so they can say 'give it a shot, it might work for you'.

BRS has also scrubbed their site and youtube channel of all things vibrant, including videos. So, to me, that says they know their info wasn't accurate and they are trying to remove any future liabilities in supporting said product.

 

[shwareefer]

In Antarctica and they sent the results by canoe.

It got intercepted by mutant seabass with frikin laser beams attached to their heads.

 

[jeffww]

On the one hand, that makes me curious why introducing UV made the Vibrant less effective. Granted that could, of course, be attributed to a million other things. On the other hand, it shows how a "peer review" can be wrong, right out of the gate, when working with a flawed premise.

But something else you have to keep in mind, as much as I love the BRS videos and I honestly do get quite a lot out of them, don't kid yourself, these aren't entirely unbiased. You have to remember, they're commercials for BRS and for the products they're demonstrating. You wouldn't expect Thomas do a box-opening/review on a skimmer and spend 7 minutes trashing everything from the design to the noise to what a nightmare it is to clean. Similarly, lets say while researching a video on Vibrant, they came to the conclusion that it was re-braded algaecide, that's not going to be the focus of the video, if they do the video at all. I'm willing to bet they've planed videos on a products only to find out they don't have much good to say about it and move on to the next thing.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing any of their videos where they came right out and said 'don't buy this, the manufactur made multiple false claims'. Sure, you'll usually get one of them giving a mediocre review of something, but it's usually couched in praise by the other so they can say 'give it a shot, it might work for you'.

UV could also be damaging the polymer itself and rendering it in effective. What I do wonder is how Vibrant seemingly got such special treatment by BRS, with multiple videos hawking this product and even the maker going on to their show to advertise.

 

[rmorris_14]

It got intercepted by mutant seabass with frikin laser beams attached to their heads.

It was sharks ;P

 

[GillMeister]

UV could also be damaging the polymer itself and rendering it in effective. What I do wonder is how Vibrant seemingly got such special treatment by BRS, with multiple videos hawking this product and even the maker going on to their show to advertise.

It's a ten minute drive from UWC to BRS.

 

[Karen00]

This thread was trending on Yahoo yesterday..

In other news... mega thread on R2R about shady bacterial algae eating product turned algaecide crashes the internet and Yahoo. ;-)

 

[N.Sreefer]

No. Only thing that would matter to the epa is what chemical is actually in the bottle. Does not matter how it was made.
There is no living or dead bacteria in the bottle

Does not matter how its made I agree but if the chemical is inside bacteria you could list the bacteria as your ingredient instead of that chemical. Alot of the seafood we eat have high levels of mercury if I want to compost seafood at home I am allowed, if I was to dump the equivalent amount of mercury that is in that seafood in my garden I am breaking the law. Dead broken down bacteria would just be ammonia by the time of testing but the guaranteed analysis on the packaging would say bacteria as that's what it contained when packaged. I can buy apricot kernels and kill myself from (amygdalin) cyanide poisoning. It would be alot harder to try and buy packaged cyanide.

 

[jeffww]

Does not matter how its made I agree but if the chemical is inside bacteria you could list the bacteria as your ingredient instead of that chemical. Alot of the seafood we eat have high levels of mercury if I want to compost seafood at home I am allowed, if I was to dump the equivalent amount of mercury that is in that seafood in my garden I am breaking the law. Dead broken down bacteria would just be ammonia by the time of testing but the guaranteed analysis on the packaging would say bacteria as that's what it contained when packaged. I can buy apricot kernels and kill myself from (amygdalin) cyanide poisoning. It would be alot harder to try and buy packaged cyanide.

Those naturally occurring contaminants are not the same as a purposely added ingredient to act as an algaecide. They are governed by different rules. In the case of pesticides the rules are quite explicit in that they have to be listed and registered. You would see something like 3.5% Busan 77, 96.5% inactive ingredients and then a list containing random crap like "killed bacteria".