Quote Originally Posted by Indywar View Post
Good point, although I am less concerned with the viruses as opposed to water borne bacteria. The cells of virus are more susceptible to disinfectants, even low levels and are incapable of reproducing without a host. Bacteria commonly grow in water environments (e.g biofilms that are at water fountains, in water coolers, etc.).
As far as we know, the high risk events in pools are all related to person-to-person transmission, usually fecal-pool-oral or snot/spit-pool-oral. And, the culprits are usually either viruses OR amoebic oocysts. The data I've seen suggests that pathogenic viruses are MORE, not less, resistant to chlorine. Also, though these cases are not biofilm related, they ARE fomite related, and killing fomite associated pathogens is a LOT harder than killing planktonic pathogens!

There some common low risk events, associated with P. aeruginois and biofilms (hot tub itch; otitis externa) but those don't kill anyone or even make them very sick.

One rare exception: Naegleri fowleri is VERY dangerous and can actually live in pools, apparently.

Right now, the pool is the problem -- but this fall, if you are interested, it would be very helpful to have a working microbiologist looking over my shoulder as I'm putting SwimmingPoolResearch.com together. I've got about 8 Gigabytes of peer-reviewed articles to index!

Oh, and you're preaching to the choir, at least with me, about trusting "scientists" and especially government "scientists". Here something my older son (a recent biochem grad) found for me:

"It has long been known"... I didn't look up the original reference.
"A definite trend is evident"... These data are practically meaningless.
"While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to the questions"... An unsuccessful experiment, but I still hope to get it published.
"Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study"... The other results didn't make any sense.
"Typical results are shown"... This is the prettiest graph.
"These results will be in a subsequent report"... I might get around to this sometime, if pushed/funded.
"In my experience"... once.
"In case after case"... twice.
"In a series of cases"... thrice.
"It is believed that"... I think.
"It is generally believed that"... A couple of others think so, too.
"Correct within an order of magnitude"... Wrong.
"According to statistical analysis"... Rumor has it.
"A statistically oriented projection of the significance of these findings"... A wild guess.
"A careful analysis of obtainable data"... Three pages of notes were obliterated when I knocked over a glass of pop.
"It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding of this phenomenon occurs"... I don't understand it.
"After additional study by my colleagues"... They don't understand it either.
"Thanks are due to Joe Blotz for assistance with the experiment and to Cindy Adams for valuable discussions"... Mr. Blotz did the work and Ms. Adams explained to me what it meant.
"A highly significant area for exploratory study"... A totally useless topic selected by my committee.
"It is hoped that this study will stimulate further investigation in this field"... I quit.