Quote Originally Posted by chem geek View Post
Welcome back, Richard. I hope you had a good trip.
At the beginning this idea was new to me:

"A properly maintained outdoor residential pool usually measures little or no CC so the need for shocking the pool is rare"

I've started to witness its validity. It's been two weeks now that I've maintained my FC between 4.5 and 6.8 as per the tables (CYA=60) and my CC has been < 0.5 , although it's non-zero. You can say that I keep maintaining the 10X rule without actually "shocking" whether it's a valid rule or not, because my average FC is at least 5.

On the other hand, you can also say that a properly maintained pool (FC according to charts, etc) shouldn't have an algae bloom, and still people get it.

So suppose CC is >0.5 for a few days. What should be the level of FC needed in shocking, regardless of what the underlying arithmetics is based on - kinetics or stoichiometry?


You said:

"I'd much rather see the industry shift towards full disclosure of basic information.... until the integrity of the pool/spa industry improves".

I did a little reading on the "official" view of a few Health Depts in the country and I was shocked (but not superchlorinated ) at what I read. Their covering of the obvious disadvantage of using "stabilized chlorine" can be explained by either sheer stupidity or corruption (I prefer to call a spade a spade, and misinforming the public in a way that benefits a particular industry smells of corruption.)
I'd be glad to share my findings. I wonder what would be the right forum. "Using Chlorine" may not be the right one because I wouldn't post anything that we don't know about proper chlorine usage. OTOH, the "China Shop" is supposedly for debating or clarifying topics in more depth, and again, I'm not debating you, but on the contrary. Please advise.