Defending EcoSmarte and sanitation via copper ionization

[PoolDoc]

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!)

[ernie1959]

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...