Defending EcoSmarte and sanitation via copper ionization
Thanks Ben.
I'm just a homeowner/pool owner, and am not promoting any products. In another current topic regarding ion sanitization (not specifically Ecosmarte), it was stated that if the manufacturer claimed that they actually sanitized the water, they would be subject to a legal claim. Now, I have no idea about that specific product, and maybe such a claim by the manufacturer would be unsubstantiated.
Ecosmarte, on the other hand, through a claimed process of ionization and oxidation, does specifically claim to disinfect and sanitize pool water. They provide links to studies which purport to validate the claim that this process does in fact kill various bacteria and viruses. They also provide their own "science" section detailing various pathogens which are killed at certain copper levels. In addition, after being concerned about some of the previous posts here, a quick Google search led me to various studies showing confirmation of the effectiveness of copper and oxidation as a sanitizer. Also in fairness, none of these were done in pools, nor specifically on the Ecosmarte system. So I'm not making a claim, either way, as to whether they work or don't. Just stating facts. And again, I'm not associated with any dealer, manufacturer, etc. And I'm not suggesting that anyone buy or not buy any certain product. I'm just a pool owner (I'd insert pictures, but it's asking for a URL).
But speaking of fairness, I also did a Google search of "pool chlorine health danger study" and was surprised to see that there have been numerous studies showing a direct correlation between chlorine in swimming pools and an increase in various diseases, including cancer. So factually, it appears that the only appropriate statement is that chlorinated pools have been proven to be a health risk, and ionized pools could be a health risk. Feel free to do your own research, here's just the first link I found with that search: http://news.discovery.com/human/chlo...ng-cancer.html There are many others.
The other thing I saw posted was that ion systems don't save you money on chemicals. That is blatantly false. We've had our ion system for 4 seasons (25,000 gallon IG pool). We paid somewhere around $1,500 (?) for the system, installed it ourselves, and replaced the copper bars after 3 years for $150. Last year we opened in mid-May. I added about half of a $16 bag of sodium bicarbonate to get our calcium hardness to 400. I vacuumed to waste when opening, then probably vacuumed each of the next 2 days to get everything perfectly clean. I put in 3 lbs of a non-chlorine shock, which cost about $3 per pound. It took a couple weeks for the water to get crystal clear (not sure why, but didn't take any additional chemicals). The water was crystal clear all summer. I added a bag of non-chlorine shock every couple weeks for giggles (someone recommended it, not sure if it really did anything), and vacuumed the minimal debris from the bottom about every 3-4 weeks. That's it, a perfectly clear pool all summer (till 1st week of September), for about $40-$50 of chemicals and 4-5 vacuumings (I think I made up a word) after opening. No chlorine smell (I know, it's not actually the chlorine that smells), no dry skin, no staining, and dramatically less time and cost than our old chlorine pool. I will say that in prior years I have had to add either a $4 gallon of muriatic acid or a $4 container of Borax to adjust the pH (you adjust it once, then leave it all year). I also put a gallon of muriatic acid in the filter when opening. So maybe $75-$100 in chemicals in a "bad" year. That's opening, closing, everything. Our system was recommended and installed by a local dealer with 30+ years of experience installing pools (I've known him almost that long), and many of these systems have been installed in the area. I have not heard of any problems regarding any of those installations. I will say that if you have very light, completely natural blonde hair, it can give just a hint of a light green tinge to it, that's a fact. Luckily my wife is fake blonde, and it doesn't affect that!
So I have seen ion systems "bashed" for stains; we have none, not the slightest. Maybe others do, but if so, I'd suggest it was because they didn't maintain their pool.
I've seen them bashed for not saving money; false. We used to spend $400 a year or more on a chlorine pool.
And then there's the sanitation issue. At a minimum, there are studies proving that chlorine pools are NOT safe. They may (probably) kill bacteria and viruses more quickly than ion/oxidation systems, but come with significant health risks which the ion systems do not have. These are just facts, which I have backed up.
Ben, none of this is meant with the slightest disrespect, you are clearly the pool king. I'm new to this forum and arrived here because it seemed to have the best knowledge available to pool owners anywhere in the world. That's why I have tried to simply present facts. But I clearly expect you to have a go at everything I said, which is fine; that's what a good forum is all about!
I know this would be better posted in a more relevant topic, so will re-post it there, without some of the extra comments. Thanks!
ernieb
Re: Solar blanket - 12 vs. 16 mil/color/cutting edges/steps
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ernie1959
I'm just a homeowner/pool owner, and am not promoting any products. In another current topic regarding ion sanitization (not specifically Ecosmarte), it was stated that if the manufacturer claimed that they actually sanitized the water, they would be subject to a legal claim. Now, I have no idea about that specific product, and maybe such a claim by the manufacturer would be unsubstantiated.
Ecosmarte, on the other hand, through a claimed process of ionization and oxidation, does specifically claim to disinfect and sanitize pool water. They provide links to studies which purport to validate the claim that this process does in fact kill various bacteria and viruses. They also provide their own "science" section detailing various pathogens which are killed at certain copper levels. In addition, after being concerned about some of the previous posts here, a quick Google search led me to various studies showing confirmation of the effectiveness of copper and oxidation as a sanitizer. Also in fairness, none of these were done in pools, nor specifically on the Ecosmarte system.
Links, please!
And if you have copies of material from EcoSmarte, claiming that their product can sanitize pools apart from chlorine, please help me get a copy. But, keep in mind the EcoSmarte 'salt system' is a chlorine generator . . . just like all other salt systems. Eco Smarte just has engaged in some very artful product descriptions that have caused at least some of their customers to think that they were getting a chlorine free system.
Quote:
But speaking of fairness, I also did a Google search of "pool chlorine health danger study" and was surprised to see that there have been numerous studies showing a direct correlation between chlorine in swimming pools and an increase in various diseases, including cancer.
Check again. ALL of the studies are for INDOOR pools. Not going to get into this in May or June, however, but we've investigated this exhaustively. If you want to pursue it sooner, take it up with Chem_Geek in the China Shop section, once he gets back in the country.
I have that particularly Discovery article archived, and it's a particularly bad one, chock full of non-science: "Some pools use ozone, copper and silver ions, or even moss to kill bacteria!". Again, take it up in the China Shop. (Yes, I know a commercial pool in the midwest installed a spagnum moss system several years ago -- why don't you find them, and ask them how that worked out for them.)
Quote:
The other thing I saw posted was that ion systems don't save you money on chemicals. That is blatantly false.
They save money, for people who can't do chlorine correctly. They can help prevent the start up disasters many people around the country are having (and discussing here now) due to the warm spring.
But, the $1,500 you spent on your unit is 4 - 6 years worth of chemicals for folks here with pools your size. Not sure how that's saving money!
Quote:
. I added about half of a $16 bag of sodium bicarbonate to get our calcium hardness to 400.
Sodium bicarbonate has no effect on calcium hardness
Quote:
At a minimum, there are studies proving that chlorine pools are NOT safe.
No, there are not.
I have over 1,000 peer-reviewed articles on water chemistry archived, and among them is not one such study. I hope to expose the index to those this fall. There are lots and lots of MSM and gutter-press articles that make such claims, but no scientific ones. There are risks associated with EVERY chemical -- including toxic heavy metals like copper and silver -- but the single most dangerous chemical in any pool remains dihydrogen oxide, which kills 1,000's annually in the US alone.
Quote:
That's why I have tried to simply present facts.
Please present them. The Discovery article you linked was by a journalist with little or no science training showing. Chuck Gerba's studies on copper silver ionizers are mostly available on the Internet. Why don't you read through those? That's, actual science. And you have to get past the abstracts; a lot of his early work was sponsored by ionizer companies, so he wrote artful abstracts to keep from PO'ing them. But, when you did into the actual articles you find that that the Cu/Ag systems w/o chlorine were ineffective, and the Cu/Ag systems WITH chlorine were statistically indistinguishable from systems with chlorine alone.
Cu/Ag systems kill algae . . . and not much else.
If you want to check out ACTUAL chemical free pools (including free of toxic heavy metals like copper and silver), check out the photo thread of them in the photo gallery.
Re: Defending EcoSmarte and sanitation via copper ionization
SO MUCH misinformation in the OP's post. If he really is a pool owner that bought an ecosmarte system I guess he needs to justify in his mind that it really is working and not pseudoscience and to justify their outrageous costs (including their recycled glass filter meida--turning junk into profit!)
However, I almost suspect that it is just another ecosmarte shill, the likes of which have plagued every pool forum I have been active on (or a Moderator on) for several years now and always tend to appear at the start of swim season!
Just my 2 cents!
Re: Defending EcoSmarte and sanitation via copper ionization
Quote:
Originally Posted by
waterbear
However, I almost suspect that it is just another ecosmarte shill, the likes of which have plagued every pool forum I have been active on (or a Moderator on) for several years now and always tend to appear at the start of swim season!
It's possible, Waterbear. I don't really suspect that, however. Give him a chance. Maybe he has new information. (Not holding my breath, though!)
Re: Defending EcoSmarte and sanitation via copper ionization
OK, you made me do my homework. Not sure how to multi-quote, so here goes: ecosmarte.com from their site:
"Ionic Purification requires no chemicals to sanitize. Ionization alone does not address the problems of body oils and suntan lotions, and does not control stains. Ionization can cause an erratic water balance and the process by itself requires chemical maintenance. Oxidation is required to handle your organics. ECOsmarte® offers the complete technology with Ionic Purification, a two stage process: first the catadyne process that is similar to ionization and, second, the ECOsmarte® anodyne process with chemical-free oxidation. Water balance is much easier to maintain, staining is also eliminated, and no chemicals are needed for disinfection."
So they specify that they purify, sanitize, and disinfect. Pretty clear. If they're wrong, prove it, and make them stop making these claims.
It is NOT a salt generation system, you are incorrect.
The Discovery article listed specific scientific studies. Are you saying those are invalid? What was wrong with them?
Here's one study link: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/f...%2Fehp.1001965
Here's the conclusion: "We identified > 100 DBPs in two indoor pools, including a prevalence of N-DBPs, likely formed from nitrogen-containing precursors from human inputs. This study provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of DBPs in swimming pool waters, as well as a clear demonstration of their mutagenicity. In addition, many DBPs we identified are new and have not been reported previously in pool waters. Bromoform levels were much greater in the brominated versus chlorinated pools. Compared with previous research on outdoor pools, we found a much greater number of DBPs in these indoor pools.
The mutagenicity of these pool waters was similar to that of drinking water, indicating that the levels of mutagenic DBPs are similar in both waters. Subjects who swam in the mutagenic, chlorinated pool water evaluated in this study had increases in genotoxicity biomarkers that were associated with the concentrations of brominated THMs, but not chloroform, in their exhaled breath (Kogevinas et al. 2010). These findings are especially relevant with regard to a case–control study by Cantor et al. (2010) in this issue that identifies an enhanced risk for bladder cancer associated with DBP exposure among people with genotypes that metabolize various DBPs."
This study was done in an indoor pool. That's irrelevant to the DBP's that were present IN THE WATER. If you want to talk about the toxic gases that are released from chlorinated water, then yes, there are fewer inhaled in each breath if you are in an outdoor pool. Not NONE, but fewer. So you'll be a little "less pregnant" inhaling them in an outdoor pool (LOL). And the DBP's that are in chlorinated pools, they are, in their words, "MUTAGENIC".
Alfred Bernard, toxicologist: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1867970/ "We have good evidence that you have to be careful with these chemicals," Bernard said. "Maybe chlorine is not the best choice for disinfecting swimming pools." Yes, these tests were done in indoor pools, but same gases that contaminated the air in the indoor pools is what you are breathing when your head is bobbing 6 inches above the water when you're in an outdoor pool. Is is slightly less concentrated, yes. So what, that's irrelevant. You're getting a little less of the contaminants in each breath, that's all. You're still getting it.
And what's most important is what you absorb through the skin. Oh you want proof? Here it is: http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/swim/chlorine/chlorine.htm Here's just one quote from the MANY studies (how many do you need?!!!) linked on this page: "improved ventilation alone will not have a major impact on exposure to these materials because it is being immersed in the liquid that is the greatest threat." Absorption is the greatest threat. Let me repeat... Absorption is the greatest threat. So any argument about outdoor vs. indoor pools is irrelevant. Please, do not mention it again.
Wow, I just came here with a simple question about solar blankets, but it seems like there is a "fact bias"; everything about ionization is bad and everything about chlorine is perfect.
Money: I presented all the facts so that they could be compared. If I have this pool 20 years (sure hope to!) I will spend probably about $3,500 for the initial investment, chemicals, copper bar replacement (going to start cutting my own - which will save even more), and testing. That's $175.00 per year. Is that cheaper or not? Remember to include your test kit cost.
Time: 5-6 water tests a year (2-3 initially just to get calcium and pH set, then a couple tests of copper during the season - it doesn't change much). 5-6 vacuumings per year including opening/closing. So maybe 1-2 hours of maintenance per year (excluding opening/closing) including testing and vacuuming. Is that more or less than you spend?
Calcium Chloride - Sorry, I said sodium bicarbonate - had Borax on my mind! I was wrong.
OK, I believe I factually refuted each of your points. Case closed, right? OK, I'll just turn the other cheek. Your turn...
Re: Defending EcoSmarte and sanitation via copper ionization
Quote:
Originally Posted by
waterbear
SO MUCH misinformation in the OP's post. If he really is a pool owner that bought an ecosmarte system I guess he needs to justify in his mind that it really is working and not pseudoscience and to justify their outrageous costs (including their recycled glass filter meida--turning junk into profit!)
However, I almost suspect that it is just another ecosmarte shill, the likes of which have plagued every pool forum I have been active on (or a Moderator on) for several years now and always tend to appear at the start of swim season!
Just my 2 cents!
Hi Waterbear,
Nope, just a homeowner (would be glad to speak with you personally). I'd post pool pics, but it's asking for a URL. I just have them on my HD. Feel like I'm getting ganged up on here.
I just posted a response to Ben's response to my post (which he renamed "Defending EcoSmarte and sanitation via copper ionization" after I posted in another topic - no problem, except it's inaccurate, as I was just pointing out some false statements that had been made, and bringing up the fact that studies have shown that chlorine is not safe). I have no need to defend my system, but it seems that many here have a blind eye to theirs.
By the way, I use a Hayward sand filter, not recycled glass. Are there any out there who have used the glass filtration, and if so, how has it performed? I see links to glass filtration out there, like this: http://www.professionalswimmingpools...filter-medium/
Are they scammers?
You indicated that my post contained misinformation. Please indicate any facts that I mis-stated. Thanks!
Re: Defending EcoSmarte and sanitation via copper ionization
Avoiding the main issue: Aren't glass particles virtually the same as filter sand? Aren't both mostly silicon?
Re: Defending EcoSmarte and sanitation via copper ionization
Ernie, I have no time for this now, and neither do my moderators or contributors.
You are wasting our time, misreading and misunderstanding the articles you read, which are familiar to us. Unfortunately it's a temptation to myself and others to respond, a temptation I cannot afford to give in to.
So, I'm closing this thread, and banning your for 2 months.
Your own question has been answered. And, if you still wish to argue the point . . . AFTER our traffic has slacked off in July, we can pursue this.
We will answer your posts in any case, lest you leave such a false and distorted impression. But, we cannot do so now.
