Can I Use Salt As Sanitizer Instead of Chlorine?

[BigTallGuy]

Catfish, I understand your request for information, however, I want you to take a step back and consider the following.

I honestly believe Ben, the Administrator, is trying to help you with your research by sharing information regarding the safety and sanitation of your pool project. If you really want to look at the big picture, it is not only about “wiping my butt before I go for a swim” or making sure everyone visits the bathroom before diving in. It is about pool sanitation with regards to not only human wastes, but animal wastes (dogs, cats, birds flying overhead etc.) and insects too. I clean flies, bees, grasshoppers, etc. out of my skimmer constantly, and who knows what they bring to the pool. I believe Chem-Geeek has provided enough information to prove that Salt alone, in most cases, is not a sanitizer in swimming pools.

This Forum is comprised of a lot of good people that get nothing more than the satisfaction of helping people across the US and Canada with their swimming pool problems. We get a full array of people seeking help and information, everything from rich people with huge swimming pools to single Moms with small above ground pools. Our charter is to provide sound advice, to the best of our ability, for the safety and affordability to all. We would be remiss if we didn’t advise you (or anyone else) of what we have learned or what has been proven.

Unfortunately, a website like this also attracts a boat load of spammers as well as “Know-it-alls” that are mostly mouth and very little ear. If you choose to continue to visit this Forum, you will learn that there is no corporate sponsor or commercial enterprise subsidizing this Forum. In reality, we primarily promote the BBB method which fundamentally promotes pool care with grocery store items that basically undermines the profits of all of the Big Pool Chemical Companies as well as a slew of Pool Supply Stores. Pool cleanliness and sanitation is paramount with the BBB method, simply put, if it didn’t work, what good is it? The BBB method has withstood the test of time because it works.

We have seen the gamut of “Trouble Free” and “All Natural” claims, and virtually all fall short. There is no Known “Free Lunch” when it comes to swimming pools and their care, including performing simple tests. If there was a secret or magic pill with regards to swimming pool setups, I’m sure the people on this Forum would know about it, and in all probability you’d read about it first, right here.

In the end, it is your project and idea. Your safety and health, and that of your family, friends, and guests, that would potentially swim in your pool is in your hands.

[catfish]

I think the disconnect here is the interpretation of "there is no free lunch" as "you must pay $0.99 for a McDonald's double cheeseburger; everything else is crap." The inertia of the status quo should not be elevated to a dogmatic religion. Everything in life is a tradeoff.

So let me begin by saying I was not aware of virus resistance to high salinity, and I think UV light shows great promise, being ultimately (though maybe not in the currently available implementations) low maintenance, low cost, low side effect and highly effective. That said...

I believe Chem-Geeek has provided enough information to prove that Salt alone, in most cases, is not a sanitizer in swimming pools.

Nonsense. I was going to invent a hypothetical pathogen that was resistant to chlorine just to make my point about life being mostly about tradeoffs, not right ways vs. wrong ways. But chem geek has helpfully provided me with a real example: Cryptosporidium parvum.

He made some good proof-of-concept points. Extrapolating that out to concrete, unshakable conclusions that cause administrators of large forums to ban or obscure discussion of anything not toeing the status quo is annoying at best. Health statistics are rarely as cut and dry as you think. Example: Everyone (especially politicians) still won't shut up about how much money smokers are costing us in healthcare. *Wrong*. They actually save society quite a bit of money by dying an average 7 years earlier, even taking into account the cost of their lung/cancer treatments. And that's without even considering the extra sin taxes they pay.

A better example: condoms. Fantastic efficacy on paper, mediocre performance in real life because people make mistakes or just don't care to use them right. When deciding how best to fight AIDS in Africa, which statistic is more important? The one that reflects actual reality, of course. Similarly, any comparison of chlorine to salt water should in the context of infectious disease should use real world figures, taking into account everyone who has a screwed up pool chemistry and doesn't know/care.

"Look at the CDC Surveillance Summaries for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks..."

I skimmed the reports and, though it's entirely possible I am missing something important (sadly I do have a life), it appears they are relying on voluntary self-reporting of *mass* outbreaks from public health agencies. In other words, they are useless. Even if small-scale (personal, not public) chlorinated pools were ten times more infectious than the ocean on a per-person per-hour basis, you still wouldn't see any mention of it on those reports. There *might* be an implicit approval of public pool chlorination in there, but there is nothing I could see applicable to a smaller saltwater body mostly sheltered (see below) from animals and pollution/sewage discharges, and used by a small group of people.

"do you open your eyes underwater in the ocean?

Nope. Nor in pools. Both make my eyes sting.

"metal corrosion issues"

Then don't put metal stuff in the pool? Certainly, any fool that dumps huge quantities of salt in their existing, conventional pool and flips on the pump gets what he deserves.

"and killing of plant life and contamination of waste water treatment plants for inland locations"

Most pools aren't very far inland for the simple reason that most of the population lives pretty close to the ocean. (Go find nighttime pictures of the earth if you don't believe me.) Salt is already legal to buy, and in large quantities. I'm aware that, in the course of human events, the government may need to enact laws to keep stupid people from doing very stupid things, but this is neither here nor there. If you must harp on it, just keep in mind that the stupidity cuts both ways--most people cannot seem to keep their pool chemicals anywhere near where they should be.

"A critical point that is being missed, however, is the volume of water.

I already covered that. And it's not volume, it's contaminant/volume.

The problem with citing marine statistics is that a saltwater pool or pond would not be exposed to the same marine organisms. Comparing sewage contamination is even trickier.

As I said, I'm halfway-seriously thinking about something much bigger, but let's assume not. I don't know what you yankees do, but a regular sized inground pool is frequently/usually enclosed by screen down here... mosquitoes and pine needles are way too annoying. And a good screen will cut out almost all of the animal contamination issues, leaving behind perhaps a few small bugs. So does that leaves mainly person-to-person transmission, or are smallish insects and arachnids enough to introduce harmful pathogens? Person to person transmission can indeed be significant, but it entirely depends on what you, your family, and your guests' habits are.

My conjecture, assuming everyone wipes their bottoms: if you forget to wash your hands before eating (or before touching your eyes, mouth or nose) as little as 5% of the time, and your guests/family do the same, your fecal/oral transmission rates aren't going to be significantly affected by a little saltwater dip. And how quickly do all of those fecal-oral organisms die in chlorinated water anyway? Right away? I bet not... the real statistics aren't about killing vs. not killing, it's time-to-kill xx%, which probably isn't hugely relevant if you're swimming a few feet from the infected person.

Yes, I play fast and loose with conjecture for the simple reason that millions of people already take much worse risks, and it definitely unclear whether the current solution is ideal. I appreciate the factual responses, but the attitude and conclusions are sickening. You know, we are still stuck using gasoline engines that run on a very limited set of fuels, have crap mileage and crap fuel density, and simply wear out in under 200k miles because "duuuur, diesel is expensive!" Which, after a little bit of research and back of the envelope calculations, is clearly the opposite of true. Same attitude here, except the figures have yet to be shown, but that clearly doesn't stop the resident armchair biologists.

[PoolDoc]

Catfish, I have to thank you.

I've been wanting -- for purposes that have nothing at all to do with the PoolForum -- to have a great, real-world example of contemporary post-modern reasoning: ie, 'there is nothing that's completely true, and I'm absolutely sure of that!'.

My older son had collected several examples from some of his professors several years back, but that was second hand. Yours is first hand, 'in your own words' so to speak and not enveloped in an academic context. I especially liked the way that you criticized some of the data sources for incompleteness, or for failing to screen data-selection errors (with some validity) and then turned around and noted (with exceptional validity) that

Yes, I play fast and loose with conjecture . . .

Who could argue with you, on that last point?

You are articulate, bright, and irrational -- a truly potent mix, and one that has become increasingly common as non-scientific higher education has abandoned rationality, except as a garnish or as a ploy in debate.

As for specific rebuttal of some of your claims, that will be hard to do coherently, since your claims and ideas are so scattered and directionless, but again, for the sake of the lurkers and Google, we'll try to take it up later when things are less busy.

I assume there's no functional urgency: it appears that don't have a pool problem, or even a pool, at present.

Gratefully yours,

PoolDoc

[catfish]

Saying that the world is full of tradeoffs and saying that there is nothing completely true are two very different things. For instance, I never said and in fact disagree with the latter.

I will never forgive the postmodernists and naturalistic junkies, because they've basically sabotaged the ability to have a discussion about the relevance of empirical evidence, let alone discussing reasonable courses of action in the absence of it (hint: a diversity of approaches will actually provide you with the missing data.) It's funny, though, I bet if I mentioned the data linking chlorination to bladder cancer you would be quick to dispute it, perhaps even using analogies similar to the ones I resorted to. And of course, with the quote you use to mock my approach you conveniently discard the justification with ellipses.

So would I be irrational to swim in the local pond? Are all of the kids and parents irrational for doing so? How do you think we should best address such irrationality?

[catfish]

Also, ftw, I have a degree in actuarial science and am well on my way to passing my second exam.

[ random fluff deleted - PoolDoc ]

And maybe all of that probably falls outside the expected scope of a forum like this, but...

well, it shouldn't.

[PoolDoc]

And maybe all of that probably falls outside the expected scope of a forum like this, but...

well, it shouldn't.

My forum; my choice. Discussion of gastritis and the etiology of duodenal ulcers is not really germane here. If you want to start a swimming pool forum, where such things are considered OT, be my guest!

[catfish]

My forum; my choice. Discussion of gastritis and the etiology of duodenal ulcers is not really germane here. If you want to start a swimming pool forum, where such things are considered OT, be my guest!

I'm not the one who brought up postmodernism.

[BigTallGuy]

I said it once and I'll say it again. There is no "FREE LUNCH" when it comes to swimming pool sanitation. You're gonna pay the price somewhere, somehow, but burning my skin is not a price I want to pay.

[waterbear]

Also, ftw, I have a degree in actuarial science and am well on my way to passing my second exam.

In other words, a bean counter for the insurance industry! Explains a lot. A FAR cry from the actual hard science disciplines like chemistry, biology, and physics. More akin to an accountant that understands some statistics.

And maybe all of that probably falls outside the expected scope of a forum like this, but...

well, it shouldn't.

Probability is better left to describing an electron's position in its orbitals or perhaps at the roulette wheel and craps table in Vegas (or to the insurance industries, which is basically just another form of gambling, that are betting that they can get your money without having to pay you for a claim. If you are high risk they won't insure you!) then to the care of a swimming pools!

[AnnaK]

Putting down someone's educational achievements, the job he holds, and the industry in which he works really isn't germane to this discussion.