Safe swimming with elevated chlorine

[PoolDoc]

Then don't bring politics into it. This is a discussion, in this thread, of measurable evidence and the interpretation thereof, not politically correct left or right check-list positions. Science is science, no matter how the political winds try to bend it to their position.

It was a joke. My apologies for trying to interject a little humor.

While I would like to avoid the politics -- these days they are just far too inflammable -- humor on this topic is not a bad thing.

Most of you guys here are among the more 'chemically' advance posters, so this is probably a good time and place to say what I want to say.

The fears that people bring to the PoolForum are not, for the most part, irrational fears. Rather they are a rational response to the persistent and hyped anti-chlorine hysteria shrieked out by modern environmentalists and uncritically parroted by the mass media. The environmentalists are being irrational, but the consumers here are not!

What I mean is, they are responding rationally to the information sources which they have! I don't know how things were in the past, but today's media generators range, as an overall group, from the scientifically illiterate to the functionally brain-dead. But, consumers don't know this.

I do; you may; but they don't!

More to the point, they don't have any contradicting information sources, at least till they arrive here. The pool industry isn't going to contradict them, at least not much, because chlorine fears power the sales of chlorine alternatives and blends and pool addititives. The mass media isn't going to contradict them -- even when they know better -- because hysteria and hyped fears draw an audience many times better than a calm and somewhat technical consideration.

So, consumers arrive here knowing that chlorine is dangerous and toxic; knowing that their lives are shortened by its presence in their water and pools, and knowing that the responsible thing to do is to minimize its use, if only they can find an affordable alternative.

For me, and for y'all here, understanding this is critical to understanding what sort of responses consumers, with all their rational chlorine fears, need to be given. A big part of what's needed is to respect their rationality -- I myself need to be reminded of this, because I find the chlorine hysteria so tiresome.

So, each of you, please remind yourselves that, as irrational as much of the anti-chlorine hysteria is in its origin, yet that those fears are an entirely rational response on the part of most of the newbies here.

• Please also remember that, even among college graduates, it is only a tiny minority who have the training, of mind and habit, think critically and skeptically about this issue.
• Most college educated adults have functional math skills at the level of 1st year algebra OR LESS.
• Most college educated adults have no training whatsoever that allows them rank relative risks.
• Most college educated adults will readily accept the statement, "No price is too high to pay to save a life". Nor will they be able to see any inconsistency between accepting that statement, and then declining to pay $1000 extra for side air bags on their new car.

I could ramble on about why this is so, what I think about our education system, and so forth. But it's simply not relevant.

When they arrive here, most newbies are -- given the skills they have, and the information available to them -- acting rationally when they express fears about chlorine.

I need to, and you all need to respect that rationality, and help to redirect it by providing better information, and perhaps, better analytical skills.

Thanks,

Ben

[CarlD]

Ben:
I have to contradict you:
A small extreme portion of the environmentalists are anti-chlorine--but those people are against ANY chemical usage, as irrational as that sounds.

I like to think of myself as somewhat environmentally aware and responsible (Hey! MY pool is heated with sunshine--as "green" as it gets!) but I would never advocate dropping chlorine usage until a PROVABLE replacement of similar quality is available--and bromine ain't it!

[medvampire]

I will have to whole heartily agree with the pool doc on the media hype surrounding chlorine. When I came top this forum I had bought in to the Nature 2 hype hook and sinker. I was overjoyed at the prospect of just running a 0.5 ppm chlorine level and thinking it was the best thing for my future step kids. I was against the getting the pool at first because of the chemical exposure to my self and the kids. (DHMO )
Being the geek I am I started reading on the net about the Nature 2 and the use of chlorine for pools and stumbled upon this forum. Being skeptical by nature I thought the first reading I did while was a bunch of hog wash. I went home and thought about it (girl friend asked about the gear grinding noise and smoke ) and the light flickered and begin to burn as the pieces came together.
Working in a medical lab I am constantly exposed to chemicals so I have to have a some what good understanding of the chemical hazards and effects of chemicals on various body systems. The media and environmental groups scream about the dangers of chlorine but what are the effects of the other pool chemical systems on the environment and the human body? Are these system totally non hazardous? I doubt these systems if capable of sanitizing pool water have no effect on these systems.
But that is just my humble 2 cents.

Thanks again for opening my mind to a better and safer way of protecting my family because bottom line here is to keep people from getting sick while having fun in a body of stagnet water. I do enjoy the side effect of glass like water with the sun dancing across the surface.

CarlD
Better living through chemistry.

Steve

[CarlD]

LOL!

Just remember Ben's rule: THE most dangerous chemical, by far in ANY pool is the di-hydrogen monoxide
.
.
.
.
the water

[waterbear]

Ben:
I have to contradict you:
A small extreme portion of the environmentalists are anti-chlorine--but those people are against ANY chemical usage, as irrational as that sounds.

I like to think of myself as somewhat environmentally aware and responsible (Hey! MY pool is heated with sunshine--as "green" as it gets!) but I would never advocate dropping chlorine usage until a PROVABLE replacement of similar quality is available--and bromine ain't it!

Come one Carl, bromine has it's place in pool/spa use (but not in an outdoor pool). Anyway, the problems with chlorine safety really apply to bromine pretty much also. Some of the organic bromamines are just as bad as the organic chloramines.

[PoolDoc]

Ben:
I have to contradict you:
A small extreme portion of the environmentalists are anti-chlorine--but those people are against ANY chemical usage, as irrational as that sounds.

Maybe that's been your experience, but mine has been quite different. The portion of environmentalists who are anti-chlorine has seemed to me neither small nor atypically extreme.

I'll offer this challenge to you: Try to find even TWO articles which are, overall, pro-chlorine and which are published anywhere on the net by any community, blog, or periodical which self-identifies as being 'environmentalist' in focus and values.

Come one Carl, bromine has it's place in pool/spa use (but not in an outdoor pool). Anyway, the problems with chlorine safety really apply to bromine pretty much also. Some of the organic bromamines are just as bad as the organic chloramines.

Waterbear, this winter ask me for some of the bromine literature I have.

I, for one, am not convinced that bromine has any real value for either pools or spas. And, I'm almost convinced that the use of BCDMH or any other source of bromine bound to dimethyl hydantoin should be strongly discouraged.

I very strongly suspect that bromine has gained its positive reputation purely based on the absence of information. My impression is that chlorine and its compounds are far better known and understood than are bromine and its compounds. It's also my impression that bromates, which form under many conditions if bromine is used in pools or appears in source water, is considered a more serious 'bad actor' than are many of the chlorine products.

Regarding bromamines, I've never been able to find *any* information on what sort of bromamines appear in pools and spas, nor have I ever found a study that substantiates the oft-repeated pool industry maxim that "bromamines, unlike chloramines are good sanitizers".

It's worth noting, that with the demise of Hydrotech (purchased by BioLab), and the death of Jock Hamilton (founder of United Chemicals), pro-bromine pool industry press seems to have diminished to a bare trickle. It makes me wonder if ANYONE, except those trying to sell it, ever thought it was a good idea.

Color me skeptical!

Ben

[CarlD]

Maybe that's been your experience, but mine has been quite different. The portion of environmentalists who are anti-chlorine has seemed to me neither small nor atypically extreme.

I'll offer this challenge to you: Try to find even TWO articles which are, overall, pro-chlorine and which are published anywhere on the net by any community, blog, or periodical which self-identifies as being 'environmentalist' in focus and values.

C'mon, Ben--that's a sucker bet and we both know it. The only people give a dang about chlorine in the environmental movement are those that worry about it. Others spend their time on hydrocarbons, water pollution, landfills, and smokestacks. In other words, all the writing about it is by those who CARE about it, and stay up nights worrying about it. Everyone else (which is most of them) have far, FAR bigger fish to fry. So they DON'T write about it--and why alienate part of your coalition? That's simply politics.

My mother's next door neighbor is one who worries about chlorine. But she also tossed out her stove because she doesn't believe food should be cooked. They live on raw fruits and vegetables, the children are VERY small for their age, they are being "home-schooled" (Hah! I doubt either can read--not to crack on home-schooling but the way THIS nut does it.) She's stunted their growth and their intellectual growth. To me, that's MY stereotypical view of an anti-chlorine fanatic.

[PoolDoc]

Carl,

I don't think it's a sucker bet -- I think you are conceding my point without realizing it. Actually, I think you are saying something worse than what I said!

Maybe I should say it this way:

"When environmentalists speak about chlorine, they engage in anti-chlorine hype. It's possible that not all environmentalists actually believe that stuff, but if they don't, they remaining silent, rather than standing up and objecting to the dishonesty or hype."

To say that "All environmentalists who talk about chlorine engage in dishonest hype" is not quite the same as my original statement, which was:

"Rather they (consumer fears) are a rational response to the persistent and hyped anti-chlorine hysteria shrieked out by modern environmentalists and uncritically parroted by the mass media. The environmentalists are being irrational, but the consumers here are not!",

but, it's close enough for 'government work'!

My original description groups those environmentalists who speak of chlorine into a pool of irrational hysterics. You really haven't challenged this. Instead, you have added that they are a minority, surrounded by a much larger group who are both rational enough to admit private or internally that their comrades are fools, and dishonest enough to go along with they hysteria in public!

I really don't see how that puts things in a better light.

I would suggest that the term "environmentalist" is a politicized one, today, and has meanings of political association that go beyond simply caring for, and about, the natural world. My family and I probably care about, and enjoy the 'natural world' as much as almost anyone not professionally engaged with it. On vacation, we prefer and seek, the company of owls and otters, or sharks and sea stars, or streams and trees, over that of people and 'features'. You'd pretty much have to pay us -- a LOT! -- to go to a place like Las Vegas. My 19yr old son has volunteered well over 1,000 hours as a docent and invertibrate husbandry specialist at the Tennessee Aquarium. And so on. But, given the political and cultural meanings attached to the word today, we'd never call ourselves "environmentalists".

Unfortunately, many of the issues that the "environmentalist" political camp has made its own are based either on weak science or worse, on bogus science. In order to sustain the political goals, the "environmentalists" have had to make public dishonesty a habit and a tool. This is what you have essentially admitted.

I have personally, encountered this again and again. I won't go into the long version of these, but I've encountered this dishonesy, reflected in institutional positions adopted by the EPA, CDC and others with chlorine (of course!) with asbestos, and with DDT.

Even as we speak, people in Africa and Asia are dying of malaria because of the worldwide ban on DDT. This ban remains in force in spite of all the evidence exposing Rachel Carson's fraud, and refuting virtually all of the claims of environmental damage from DDT. The irony is that this continued ban is depends on the current -- not past -- dishonesty of EPA scientists and bureaucrats and their ilk in other agencies who won't step up to the plate and say, "Gee, we were wrong. We're sorry for all the people who died as a result. But, we're going to try to do the right thing now."

So, it seems to me, that to say what you said, that most environmentalists are silent in the face of anti-chlorine hysteria, not because they are themselves hysterical about chlorine, but because they are dishonest, is even worse than what I said!

Unfortunately, I think you are correct!

Ben

[CarlD]

My original description groups those environmentalists who speak of chlorine into a pool of irrational hysterics. You really haven't challenged this.

I don't challenge it at all, Ben. In I thought I had said almost the same thing.

But are their silent brethren immoral for not publiclly challenging it? Perhaps, but the concept of a COALITION is that you agree on big points and don't shatter the coalition on smaller ones. Frankly, the anti-chlorine crowd is a side-show, but to protect the coalition, the other folks let it be.

This is a normal condition in coalitions. You agree on the big stuff and don't sweat the small stuff. Otherwise, you fragment and nobody gets anything done. It's the art of politics, the art of compromise. You could have EXACTLY the same criticisms of the Christian Right, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and even the Libertarian Party.

Even that most virulent group, Islamic Jihadists who engage in suicide bombing are constantly in conflict amongst themselves over interpretations and the "correct" path. Hezbollah can't really get along with Al Qaeda or Hamas.

Are stupid things done consequently? Sure! Would DDT end misery in certain segments in Africa? Probably. But consider: Had DDT been used all these years I submit it would be as useless now as if it had been banned. 40 or 50 years of constant usage would have developed totally DDT-resistant strains of pests who would have supplanted their non-DDT resistant relatives.

Meanwhile, our current administration is ignoring the HIGHLY successful AIDS prevention programs in Africa that tout ABC: Abstinence, Be Faithful and use Condoms. In fact, they are attempting to undermine these very effective programs in favor of abstinence as the sole means of preventions. Isn't that EQUALLY damaging? And we know it's because a particular group with clout demands orthodoxy.

So to get to the point, to demand orthodoxy on every single issue for intellectual or religious purity is an unrealistic violation of that classic maxim of of politics: Politics is the Art of Compromise.

Would I sacrifice the Hudson River to pollution just to shut up the anti Chlorine crowd? No WAY! It's a question of priorities and reality.

[waterbear]

Waterbear, this winter ask me for some of the bromine literature I have.

I, for one, am not convinced that bromine has any real value for either pools or spas. And, I'm almost convinced that the use of BCDMH or any other source of bromine bound to dimethyl hydantoin should be strongly discouraged.
Ben, on this I agree with you 100%. I have never understood the need for bromine tablets in a floater since they are not effective unless the bromine bank is first established with sodium bromine and converted to hypobromous acid with an oxidizer such as chlorine. My feeling is that they are totally unnecessary since bromine sanitation can be carried out with only the sodium bromide and oxidizer.
I very strongly suspect that bromine has gained its positive reputation purely based on the absence of information. My impression is that chlorine and its compounds are far better known and understood than are bromine and its compounds. It's also my impression that bromates, which form under many conditions if bromine is used in pools or appears in source water, is considered a more serious 'bad actor' than are many of the chlorine products.
I have read some vague things alone these lines but have not been able to find out very much info at all.
Regarding bromamines, I've never been able to find *any* information on what sort of bromamines appear in pools and spas, nor have I ever found a study that substantiates the oft-repeated pool industry maxim that "bromamines, unlike chloramines are good sanitizers".
Neither have I.
It's worth noting, that with the demise of Hydrotech (purchased by BioLab), and the death of Jock Hamilton (founder of United Chemicals), pro-bromine pool industry press seems to have diminished to a bare trickle. It makes me wonder if ANYONE, except those trying to sell it, ever thought it was a good idea.

Color me skeptical!
Bromine's often quoted advantage is that it is active over a wider pH range (up to 8.0) and is more stable at higher temperatures but I have not been able to find any actual info to support this. Also bromine is a known sensitizer and reactions to bromine santized pools and spas is not uncommen. It is intersting that what I have read (in a CPO training manual) on the other halogens and why they are not applicable to pool sanitation are that flourine is too expensive although it would be extremely effective (although I personally believe it would also be very toxic) and that iodine in concentrations high enough to sanitize would color the water and would still need chorine present as an oxidizer. I have not been able to find any info to either prove or refute these statements. It makes me wonder where the 'experts' get this information from!
Ben

Color me skeptical too!