# Buying distilled water?



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Have foggers or sprayers you buy distilled water for? Don't, catch what comes out of your humidifier or air conditioner. FREE.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> Have foggers or sprayers you buy distilled water for? Don't, catch what comes out of your humidifier or air conditioner. FREE.


I would strongly suggest getting the water evaluated for copper ions (and other minerals) since the condensation coils are copper and this can be a major source of metal poisoning for frogs, eggs, tadpoles, and plants. The impact of metal poisoning from water collected over copper or other metal has been known for a long time for those who are interested I suggest reviewing
*Lock, F.S.; On a supposed action of distilled water as such on certain animal organisms; J. Physiol.; 1895; 18(4): 319-331* 

See http://jp.physoc.org/content/18/4/319.full.pdf 

Distilled water for living organisms should not be collected from metal condensers..... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Would I use a copper still to make my distilled water? No. In that process, you will pick up copper. In your article, you will see they used freshly polished copper and sat it in the water long term. No, don't do that! Water coming off evaporator coils? Not an issue.

But I suppose I would avoid using water that sat in copper, like a teapot.

Can you test the water? Sure, but most hobby kits will say ZERO because the copper is below the threshhold for detection. If you want to test it, go to the store and buy a snail. Throw him in the water. If he makes it a week or two, you are golden.

Coral is sensitive to copper. I know of plenty of people with reef aquariums who have used dehumidifier water successfully.

Food for thought: ever put plant food in your terrarium? You have added much more copper than you would have with distilled water.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Brian,

You are quick to attack a suggestion for precaution through the use of anecdotal and opinionated response which is actually without merit. Nothing in my statement says that it can never be used, I simply pointed out that distilled water is widely recognized as a potential source of metal ion (and other contaminent) poisonings for well more than a 100 years. 

I wish to point out that you are attempting to argue that because they used "bright" copper in the replicates it doesn't demonstrate the safety from distilled water, this position overlooks that the study was begun due to deaths of tadpoles (and other organisms) from water distilled via metal coils, and it demonstrates that copper produces the greatest toxicity of the metals tested. 

As for safety, we should also discuss, the potential threat to people from bacterial contamination. It is also widely recognized that distilled water (even in labs) is frequently contaminated with opportunistic pathogens, including but not limited to Legionella, Pseudomonads, and Mycobacterium (see for example http://www.clinchem.org/content/20/6/687.full.pdf ). 



BrianWI said:


> Would I use a copper still to make my distilled water? No. In that process, you will pick up copper. In your article, you will see they used freshly polished copper and sat it in the water long term. No, don't do that! Water coming off evaporator coils? Not an issue.


Please cite a peer reviewed publication demonstrating that metal ions from metal condensing coils does not contribute metal ions to the distilled water. 
We can look at research standards where triple distilled over glass and stored in glasss to reduce metal ion contamination is the standard.... 



BrianWI said:


> Can you test the water? Sure, but most hobby kits will say ZERO because the copper is below the threshhold for detection.


Note the phrase, "most hobby kits", the obvious conclusion is that if they cannot test it accurately then they shouldn't use it... since the article indicated that they were able to demonstrate toxicity in very low doses (1 part in 10,000,000)..... 



BrianWI said:


> If you want to test it, go to the store and buy a snail. Throw him in the water. If he makes it a week or two, you are golden.


You are supplying personal opinion and anecdotal commentary as supposed rebuttle for peer review science that has stood up to tests for more than 100 years... This does not rise to the level of proof. 



BrianWI said:


> Coral is sensitive to copper. I know of plenty of people with reef aquariums who have used dehumidifier water successfully.


As a rebuttle, corals vary widely in thier sensitivity to copper (see for example http://yyy.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/grosell/PDFs/2010%20Bielmyer%20et%20al..pdf) so as proof it is very lacking



BrianWI said:


> Food for thought: ever put plant food in your terrarium? You have added much more copper than you would have with distilled water.


Please supply peer reviewed reference comparing copper content found in distilled water from dehumidifiers and air conditioners with copper content found in plant food. 
Please supply peer reviewed reference demonstrating that copper is found in all plant fertilizers. 
You made absolutist anecdotal statements as an attempt to rebutt a suggestion to practice care in using a product that has been demonstrated to be toxic to tadpoles..... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## kingfisherfleshy (Mar 17, 2012)

I would say better safe than sorry. 

As a reefer I am also kinda wondering what people were doing with that water in their reefs! I know that I wouldnt do that. 

Is RO water acceptable for frogs and tads?

I have free acess to that...however I get how buying bottled water that is sealed might have a lot of advantages over that.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

kingfisherfleshy said:


> Is RO water acceptable for frogs and tads?
> 
> I have free acess to that...however I get how buying bottled water that is sealed might have a lot of advantages over that.


Yes RO water is safe for tadpoles as long as the filters are maintained. This thread helps with that discussion see http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/70300-water-discussion.html 

Ed


----------



## johnc (Oct 9, 2009)

Surprise: Ed is correct. Dehumidifiers are not a safe source of water for metal-sensitive animals. You can use me as a reference - I'm a chemist.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

John, do you think that also holds true for nutrient sensitive plants, like some carnivores and orchids?


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

kingfisherfleshy said:


> I would say better safe than sorry.
> 
> As a reefer I am also kinda wondering what people were doing with that water in their reefs! I know that I wouldnt do that.


As an ex reef keeper and and ex coral farmer for over 10 years I know more than a few reefers. I'm with kingfisherfleshy. I do not believe that any conscientious reefkeeper would use that contaminated, reclaimed water.


----------



## DannyMeister (Sep 30, 2010)

It is, however, a great way to water your outdoor plants. Sump pump that stuff into a barrel and save a little money on your water bill!

As for frogs... I had an RO unit installed to cut down on the number of trips to the supermarket.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Brotherly Monkey said:


> John, do you think that also holds true for nutrient sensitive plants, like some carnivores and orchids?


There are anecdotal reports of it being an issue see for example 
Carnivorous Plants: drosera grown from seed, collecting rainwater, copper pipes 

Ed


----------



## johnc (Oct 9, 2009)

I'm not a plant expert, so I would hesitate to state a definite opinion on that.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

So how much copper is in the waste water? I know(heard) there are high levels of ammonia and other pollutants in it.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

NathanB said:


> So how much copper is in the waste water? I know(heard) there are high levels of ammonia and other pollutants in it.


what would the ammonia be from?


----------



## SteveR (Jul 26, 2012)

I ran a reef system for many years.

Dehumidifier water? I dont think so. It is, almost assuredly, unsafe for animals that depend on the purity of the water. Go ahead, have a glass-a-day and see what happens.

Dont forget also... a big problem is the ongoing build up and bioaccumulation of trace elements in a system. You may be able to argue the levels of heavy metals are 'relatively' low. Unlikely, but maybe. Lets talk again in 2 years and lets see how healthy your system is.

Fungal spores and strange bacteria can also breed in the stagnant, constantly wet, metallic environment. Seriously - you do NOT know what you are getting.

My opinion - it is not a water source anyone should consider using in a closed system - or in any system used to support life. Bad idea. You want to dump it on some outdoor plants - go ahead - no harm done I suppose... but that is very different.


----------



## 19jeffro83 (Sep 5, 2011)

Ed said:


> I would strongly suggest getting the water evaluated for copper ions (and other minerals) since the condensation coils are copper and this can be a major source of metal poisoning for frogs, eggs, tadpoles, and plants. The impact of metal poisoning from water collected over copper or other metal has been known for a long time for those who are interested I suggest reviewing
> *Lock, F.S.; On a supposed action of distilled water as such on certain animal organisms; J. Physiol.; 1895; 18(4): 319-331*
> 
> See http://jp.physoc.org/content/18/4/319.full.pdf
> ...


As a long time reef keeper I know for a fact that the distilled water wallmart sells does not contain copper. They use glass lined distillation pipes which are copper but not contaminated by it. Other brands and all distilled I can't speak for but that is safe If you buy from them. Also the tds reading is about 10-25 which is more than safe for frogs I'd assume. 
As far as ammonia I've never detected any at all. Ammonia is a result of rotting organics before being broken down by bacteria.


----------



## 19jeffro83 (Sep 5, 2011)

If also like to add that copper affects invertebrates way more than any animal with a spine. The chiton in the exoskeleton is what the copper devastates the most. The the effects of weathering (from my understanding) is what actually causes the damage. 
Correct me if im wrong Ed. I'm no scientist. Just an opinion from what I've read in the past.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

19jeffro83 said:


> If also like to add that copper affects invertebrates way more than any animal with a spine. The chiton in the exoskeleton is what the copper devastates the most. The the effects of weathering (from my understanding) is what actually causes the damage.
> Correct me if im wrong Ed. I'm no scientist. Just an opinion from what I've read in the past.


Actually zinc is the metal that disrupts chitinases and impacts chitin formation.. Copper is absorbed in several ways and copper ions are highly toxic to all cells through oxidative stress. It reacts with various macomolecules in the cells (including cellular membrances).. It has the same impact across taxa and it is toxic in vertebrates as well as invertebrates. 

Acidic conditions can be important in the uptake of copper since the acidity can increase solubility of copper salts.... 

Some comments, 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

19jeffro83 said:


> If also like to add that copper affects invertebrates way more than any animal with a spine. The chitin in the exoskeleton is what the copper devastates the most. The the effects of weathering (from my understanding) is what actually causes the damage.
> Correct me if im wrong Ed. I'm no scientist. Just an opinion from what I've read in the past.


Actually as far as I can determine that while copper can bind to chitin (and particulate chitin in organic debris is a potential sink for copper in marine ecosystems), I cannot find anything about copper "devestating" the chitin. In fact zinc disrupts chitinase's ability to function and this impacts chitin deposition and formation of marine invertebrates. 

Toxicity of water born copper ions for invertebrates can be seen using some of the commercially cultivated shrimp (as an example), was 0.9 mg/l {See reference *below) 

As a comparision, we can see that dissolved copper ions can reduce hatching hatching success and mortality at 25 ug Cu/liter of salamander eggs exposured (see below**)

This is 36 fold difference in sensitivity between the salamander eggs and the shrimp..... 

Chen, Jiann-Chu; Lin, Chua-Hsin;2001,Toxicity of copper sulfate for survivial, growth, molting and feeding of juveniles of the tiger shrimp _Penaeus monodon; _Aquaculture 192: 55-65

**Home, M.T.; Dunson, W.A.; 1995; Toxicity of metals and low pH to embryos and larvae of the Jefferson salamander, _Ambystoma jeffersonianum_; Archives of Enviromental Contamination and Toxicology 29:110-114

So, the general statement of invertebrates being more sensitive than vertebrates isn't necessarily true and is dependent on a lot of qualifications of exposure.. 

Some comments

Ed 
 
​​_​_Jiann-Chu Chen), Chia-Hsin Lin​


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

This screamed at me as a simple experiment, so I grabbed up some snails. Unfortunately, the copper kits at the big exotic pet store were insensitive.

I have used my dehumidifier water for years for misting for tarantulas, springtails and other inverts. But, I wanted to test some more.

So, now I have some bottled distilled. I have bottle RO. I have water from my rolling humidifier/ air conditioner. I have tap water. I put the bottled distilled water into my copper teapot to sit over night. And I put the drain tube on my other air conditioner into a 2 liter bottle to collect.

I'm going to put a snail in each one. I am going to do the same for some springtails.

Stay tuned!


----------



## johnc (Oct 9, 2009)

Water snails tend to be a lot more tolerant of nasty water conditions than the likes of dart frog tadpoles.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Not looking for nasty conditions. I want to see if the copper level is high. Snails do not tolerate copper well.


----------



## johnc (Oct 9, 2009)

Well, good luck. I think the snails will be tougher than the frogs though.


----------



## 19jeffro83 (Sep 5, 2011)

Once again Ed thanks for the lesson. As I said I am no scientist and apparently I was mislead/miss-understood a bit in my readings. 
But as stated I've personally tested Walmart distilled and came up w no traces of copper in it using a salifert copper test kit.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

19jeffro83 said:


> Once again Ed thanks for the lesson. As I said I am no scientist and apparently I was mislead/miss-understood a bit in my readings.
> But as stated I've personally tested Walmart distilled and came up w no traces of copper in it using a salifert copper test kit.


The glass lining of the tubes is going to prevent copper (and other metals from the solder) ending up in the distilled water as long as they don't use a metal storage container. However we should note that this is a big difference from collecting water from copper coils in a dehumidifier and/or a air conditioning unit, as the copper is in direct contact with the water. This is why I suggest that testing the water is going to be a good practice. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

With respect to the snails as a "canary in the coal mine" usuage, there is a fair variety in the ability of different freshwater species to tolerate copper in solution, including a number of species that can tolerate it levels above what has been shown to be toxic to amphibian larva and tadpoles. 

For example, we can see that _Melanoides tuberculata*_ has a LC50 of 0.14 mg/l of dissolved copper which is significantly higher than the 25 ug/l shown to damage salamander eggs and increase larval mortality and higher than tadpoles in multiple species of anurans. For example, in leopard frogs doses of copper as low as 25 mcg/l** caused reduced growth and 100mcg/l caused


> Tadpole survival, swimming performance, percent metamorphosis, time to metamorphosis, and survival during and time required for tail resorption


. 
In Bufo viridis, the LC50 of copper is 0.058 mg/l***, which again is significantly smaller dose than required by the snail listed above.... Aquick glance into the literature turns up other freshwater snails that show tolerances above that of amphibians, for example _Pomacea canaliculata_ tolerated 67.5 ug/l and only showed some reduced growth and feeding during the trial****



*Toxicity of Metals to a Freshwater Snail, Melanoides tuberculata
**Adverse effects of chronic copper expos... [Environ Toxicol Chem. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
***http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/zoology/issues/zoo-12-36-2/zoo-36-2-10-0909-18.pdf
**** Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Volume 79, Number 6 - SpringerLink 

One of the reasons that freshwater snails (and other invertebrates) can tolerate some surprisingly higher levels of exposure to copper is that they can sequester copper in the hepatopancreas and other tissues as granules of copper salts (usually copper phosphate). 

So we can see based on the data from previous studies that using snails as an indication that the water is safe for tadpoles runs into some serious roadblocks. 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## 19jeffro83 (Sep 5, 2011)

Agreed! And as I started I only know for a fact that the distilled from Walmart Is safe and has no copper in it. Other brands may be different.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

distilled water should not have any copper in it


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

NathanB said:


> distilled water should not have any copper in it


It shouldn't but this depends on contamination from contact with metals (such as the copper cooling coils (particularly if there is a chip in the glass lining), as well as containers in which it was stored, There is a surprising amount of literature on contaminents in distilled water. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> I'm going to put a snail in each one. I am going to do the same for some springtails.


Soil contaminated with copper doesn't show any mortality in at least one species of springtail in levels up to 1000 mg/kg soil.. See Sublethal toxicity of copper to a soil-dwelling springtail (Folsomia fimetaria) (Collembola: Isotomidae) - Scott-Fordsmand - 2009 - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry - Wiley Online Library other studies showed the similar effects at levels up to 2500 mg Cu/kg of soil Effects of copper on reproduction of two collembolan species exposed through soil, food, and water - Pedersen - 2009 - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry - Wiley Online Library

At lower levels (but still higher (38 mg Cu/kg) than that shown to be a problem for tadpoles and amphibians) it can reduce growth... 

So as a test of safety for tadpoles, this again doesn't look to be sensitive enough to prove the water to be safe for tadpoles..... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## kingfisherfleshy (Mar 17, 2012)

I agree with Ed. 

Its a good "just for fun" experiment - but really has no application to the effects that you might see/expect on an invertebrate. 

Although I agree that inverts are incredibly sensitive to copper - it doesnt mean that it will effect frogs less or more necessarily. Requires a separate test.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Oddly enough, Ed, I think you made an erroneous assumption. The post is about mister/fogger water, suing distilled water to keep the disk from failing prematurely. I don't know where tadpole water comes into it.

I had some help from the aquarium guys. These ramshorns were said to be sensitive to copper and always die when fish in the tank are treated. Should be a good canary. Very similar to the original test you posted.

However, I also bought a copper test kit that can measure down to 10ug per liter. For this discussion, lets us ug and not switch as usually you don't switch terms inside the same paragraph. mcg is easier to typo.

Once the kit arrives, I will test the existing water and the original sources. We will see if the snails concur.

The snails went in the water at about 10 -10:30 am. All seem happy. I did add one additional test; I used the water from the bottom of a dart frog tank.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

> Its a good "just for fun" experiment - but really has no application to the effects that you might see/expect on an invertebrate.


If you are one of these snails, it certainly does.



> Although I agree that inverts are incredibly sensitive to copper - it doesnt mean that it will effect frogs less or more necessarily. Requires a separate test.


Lets find out: Ed, what is the most sensitive dart frog tadpole (even though this isn't about tadpoles, we will use this as I have the test kit coming)? What level of coppor, in our ug/l standard unit, would kill them in a fairly short time frame?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> Oddly enough, Ed, I think you made an erroneous assumption. The post is about mister/fogger water, suing distilled water to keep the disk from failing prematurely. I don't know where tadpole water comes into it.


Actually the risk to tadpoles is very simple.. If you have tadpoles in either phytotelmata or other water holding locations in the enclosure, the tadpoles are going to be exposed to the copper. In this case, if you review the literature, copper ions in soft and acidic water depending on chelating can actually be much more toxic (there is also a temperature effect)... So while you didn't explicitly state it would be used for tadpoles, it was clear from the context that they would be exposed to it... Not quite the smoking gun for an erroneous assumption on my part since you didn't include any suggestions that would limit tadpole or even egg exposure. 



BrianWI said:


> I had some help from the aquarium guys. These ramshorns were said to be sensitive to copper and always die when fish in the tank are treated. Should be a good canary. Very similar to the original test you posted.


So at what concentration do those snails show a LC 50 and at what time length? What species are they? How about posting pictures so we can confirm the identification? 



BrianWI said:


> However, I also bought a copper test kit that can measure down to 10ug per liter. For this discussion, lets us ug and not switch as usually you don't switch terms inside the same paragraph. mcg is easier to typo.


So your doing what I suggested and you decided to attack me over.. Well it's nice to see someone being responsible.... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> Lets find out: Ed, what is the most sensitive dart frog tadpole (even though this isn't about tadpoles, we will use this as I have the test kit coming)? What level of coppor, in our ug/l standard unit, would kill them in a fairly short time frame?


There are problems with only using a "short" term exposure test.. See some of the above literature, Copper ions are an issue at multiple levels including at the lowest levels your test kit will demonstrate over time.. one of the benefits taking a look at the literature... 

Brian, I have to point out that your prior "experimental" results as well as attacking a suggestion to test as a responsible thing are going to weigh against whether or not you are going to report what actually happened.... 

Ed


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

> Actually the risk to tadpoles is very simple.. If you have tadpoles in either phytotelmata or other water holding locations in the enclosure, the tadpoles are going to be exposed to the copper. In this case, if you review the literature, copper ions in soft and acidic water depending on chelating can actually be much more toxic (there is also a temperature effect)... So while you didn't explicitly state it would be used for tadpoles, it was clear from the context that they would be exposed to it... Not quite the smoking gun for an erroneous assumption on my part since you didn't include any suggestions that would limit tadpole or even egg exposure.


Don't get so testy. you are assuming things again. Try to stop and stick to the subject, please. If you want to calculate the content of copper ions in fog/ mist, please do so. I'm not seeing data....



> So your doing what I suggested and you decided to attack me over.. Well it's nice to see someone being responsible....


Ed, we both know you attack me and others all the time, then try to play the victim card. Stop already, don't be childish in the main forum, please.

If you do not have the relevant data I graciously asked for, just say so and we will have to go on without it. Do you know what Cu concentration kills the most sensitive dart frog tads or not?

I know you will attack me, Ed. It was expected even before the post was made


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

As for what concentrations will kill these snails in a shorter time period... I doubt the information is out there anywhere. Hence, I am going to find out. BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

This is another GREAT example of things people can try at home!

I never believe everything I read. I remember the formula concerning the decay of chlorine and how it caused ozone holes. Later, we found out the decay rate was actually slower by more than an order of magnitude. If you read posts from aquarium enthusiasts, you will find some who swear against dehumidifier water, often based on rumor, and you will find those who are doing it without issue. 

So, why not try it yourself? I could have put the snail in the distilled water and he could have burst into flames (lol). I'd certainly know that the water had the potential to harm tadpoles.

I also should mention, I am adding one more set up. I "brightened" the spout cover of my teapot (made of the same copper) and have it stewing awhile in some bottled distilled water. Should be ready this evening for a snail.


----------



## Mike1239 (May 15, 2012)

Gallon jug = .70 cents. It may be worth buying then the effort to make or get for free. Just saying.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I think it comes down to are you willing to risk a $20-$300 tadpole/frog based on what happens to a $0.05 snail?


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Of course not. Similar to the reason we test first on rats for products meant for human use 

Once I tested with the snails and the kits, would I test on $20-30 tads? Sure I would. It is a logical progression.

Mike,

Don't let those water conservation people hear you! LOL. Ever read what is found in bottled water? Hehehe.
Obviously I am goofing, but I think this is a great test people can do at home. I have nothing invested but time and $20 in the kit with shipping (well, I traded for the snails).


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> Don't get so testy. you are assuming things again. Try to stop and stick to the subject, please. If you want to calculate the content of copper ions in fog/ mist, please do so. I'm not seeing data....


Brian, 

I have been consistent from the first post in this thread. Please explain why there would be any need to calculate the concentration of copper in a mist/spray when we would know the concentration in the original solution.... 




BrianWI said:


> If you do not have the relevant data I graciously asked for, just say so and we will have to go on without it. Do you know what Cu concentration kills the most sensitive dart frog tads or not?


I asked you for multiple references in this thread before you even made that comment (and I requested it directly) and you have not supplied any of them. As a result I am under no obligation to supply you with any data. 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> As for what concentrations will kill these snails in a shorter time period... I doubt the information is out there anywhere. Hence, I am going to find out. BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
> 
> This is another GREAT example of things people can try at home!


So to make it clear, you do not know the species of snail, nor do you know any of the concentrations or time at specific concentrations to even make an evaluation if the snails are fine, the frogs/tadpoles/eggs would be fine. 



BrianWI said:


> I never believe everything I read. I remember the formula concerning the decay of chlorine and how it caused ozone holes. Later, we found out the decay rate was actually slower by more than an order of magnitude. If you read posts from aquarium enthusiasts, you will find some who swear against dehumidifier water, often based on rumor, and you will find those who are doing it without issue.


Irrelevent comparision, straw man argument as a method in an attempt to change the issues. 

So you are running an experiment with no idea if the snails are going to respond to any copper with a LC50 that may or may not be relevent to sensitivity in tadpoles?

I'm not seeing a lot of reason to be confident that any results will be accurately reported... You are creating a lot of potential errors which will render the test unusable if any level of copper is found in it... In addition, even if copper isn't found in your reclaimed water, that doesn't mean that other people's dehumidifiers or air conditioners are safe sources of water assuming you are actually testing it instead of making up data... 

This is a major flaw in the purported experiment and why I still stand by the recommendation that anyone who intends to use that water for thier enclosures to test it... I would also suggest testing it with respect to the metals in the welds since they can also leach (solder leachates are well established via public water supply tests). 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

BrianWI said:


> Of course not. Similar to the reason we test first on rats for products meant for human use
> 
> Once I tested with the snails and the kits, would I test on $20-30 tads? Sure I would. It is a logical progression.


I see. So it makes sense to test something on a gastropod and if that passes, test it on an amphibians. We do that because we test something on a mammal, and then use it on another mammal. Gotcha. That is totally logical.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Ed, you just can't stcik to the topic at hand, always to assumption and attack! Please, stop, you really should just stop posting if you cannot control yourself!



> So to make it clear, you do not know the species of snail, nor do you know any of the concentrations or time at specific concentrations to even make an evaluation if the snails are fine, the frogs/tadpoles/eggs would be fine.


As soon as I have done these tests, I will let you know. Don't you EVER do anything but read old studies?



> Irrelevent comparision, straw man argument as a method in an attempt to change the issues.


First, let me say I am talking to others at the same time. You always assume so much! In any case, it is clear you don't know what a straw man argument is. Still, it wasn't for you.

You make up so much stuff, it just gets crazy. Like comparing dehumidifier coils to distillation with heat in a copper still to leaching from home plumbing! You are all over the map. All the error is yours.

Last, you fall back on "musta made it up". Ed, why does data scare you so much?

In any case, it should be clear you will always attack people. I have heard from so many people that said that already, its not funny. But, I won't argue any of your misinformation or misinterpretation anymore. I will update results or changes as I have them.

I used a copper cleaning pad, brightened the copper cap of the pot and made the water: it sat for 9 hours. I have placed the snail in it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Once again, unsupported accusations with attempts at inferred insults instead of supplying the information... 

You could have responded with the citations I requested in this post in this thread http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/beginner-discussion/85563-buying-distilled-water.html#post756111 

Oddly enough you ignored all of those requests, 
You've ignored the request for the species of snail, 
you've ignored the request for data on which the supposed snail would react to copper in a standardized controlled experiment

You have repeatedly attempt to dismiss examples of a large body of literature that has been steadily accumulating for more than 100 years..... I'm not surprised that you need that data to be minimized.... 

I'm going to go back and repeat what I said earlier 



> So you are running an experiment with no idea if the snails are going to respond to any copper with a LC50 that may or may not be relevent to sensitivity in tadpoles?
> 
> I'm not seeing a lot of reason to be confident that any results will be accurately reported... You are creating a lot of potential errors which will render the test unusable if any level of copper is found in it... In addition, even if copper isn't found in your reclaimed water, that doesn't mean that other people's dehumidifiers or air conditioners are safe sources of water assuming you are actually testing it instead of making up data...
> 
> This is a major flaw in the purported experiment and why I still stand by the recommendation that anyone who intends to use that water for thier enclosures to test it... I would also suggest testing it with respect to the metals in the welds since they can also leach (solder leachates are well established via public water supply tests).


Some comments

Ed


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

I'm sorry, I'll try this again....

I am going to determine the concentration of Cu that will kill this species. Hope that is clear enough?


----------



## guylovesreef (May 3, 2012)

How has Ed attacked you? Or bullied you? Your stating what you believe to "facts" and he is telling you why they are incorrect and giving you opportunities to prove him wrong... which from what I've read, you haven't done, haven't been able to do or just completely ignore in general.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

You would probably have to know the history.

What facts? Thats some animals don't tolerate copper well? That is a given. But, you have to not be lured into the false arguments.

The point: I am taking snails and putting them into various sources of water. I want to see if any of the levels of Cu kill the snails. I got snails that someone very experienced with them said they were very sensitive to copper, more than any other species he had. I will also determine what concentration will kill them (has to wait for the test kit).

In the end, I will have tested using a kit, and by snail. It is fun and informative. There really is NO argument against it. In the end, we will know the concentration of Cu in the water.

What happens is, sometime people get distracted by false arguments. Its like saying, in coconut, there is high levels of copper, both in the meat and the milk (true). Therefore, we should not use coconut fiber in our frog terrariums because it contacted copper. However, coconut husk is actually great for eliminating Cu from aqueous solutions. I know, throw in some numbers, it can be distracting. But it isn't real or relevant. Do you care what species the snail is? No. Do I care right now what level would kill a tadpole? No. What would I compare it to at present? Do I care about leaching in water pipes? No, that was just a distraction. Water sitting in the copper pipes in your home is a different issues (especially hot side) than water in short term contact with a condenser coil. It is also irrelevant to using a copper still. All facts on those are just entirely irrelevant.


You read forums, you hear a lot of things are "bad". Trying to find someone who actually did it? Near impossible. I recently visited someone who uses his dehumidifier water in a reef tank with great success. I have used it for a long time with inverts. Makes a good experiment!


----------



## kingfisherfleshy (Mar 17, 2012)

First off - Id like to say that I mis spoke in my first post, I believe I said "invertebrates" once where I meant to say frogs. 

This seems to have turned into a pissing contest. 

Running the test with frogs to me (or finding relevant exsisting research on the topic) will be the only way to really tell whether or not this is an okay practice.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I'd like to know if, since we can extrapolate what affects gastropods, will show similar effects in amphibians, can we extrapolate anything that affects gastropods will similarly affect amphibians? How about invertebrates in general compared to vertebrates?


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

MonarchzMan said:


> I'd like to know if, since we can extrapolate what affects gastropods, will show similar effects in amphibians, can we extrapolate anything that affects gastropods will similarly affect amphibians? How about invertebrates in general compared to vertebrates?


You mean using gastropods to determine what might happen when a drug is used on human tissues?

Pharmaceutical Research, Volume 16, Number 8 - SpringerLink

It is actually a patented methodology:

Method for testing the toxicity of chemical substances using gastropods - U.S. Patent Number 6,436,630 :: Justia Patents

I would read the abstract:

Abstract

An in vivo and an in vitro toxicity test method is described using an organisim or part of an organism from the class Gastropoda. The method is particularly useful for toxicity testing of chemical substances intended for application to human or animal mucosa, such as the intestinal, vaginal, buccal, nasal or respiratory mucosa. The test method may be used both as a screening test and also as a quantitative toxicity test suitable for ranking the toxicity of chemical substances.

Is that explanation enough?


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

A demonstration of the flaws in animal models as stand in for humans... see http://www.andrewknight.info/publications/anim_expts_overall/sys_reviews/AK%20Sys%20rev%20RRCT%202008%203(2)%2089-96.pdf 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Yet, most medical testing is done on an animal 

I suppose you could argue with those scientists.

Ed's source:

Australian-British animal ethicist Dr. Andrew Knight is a ridiculously busy bloke. He is a European Veterinary Specialist in Welfare Science, Ethics and Law; a Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, which is dedicated to advancing the ethical status of animals through academic research, teaching, and publication; the Director of Animal Consultants International, which provides multidisciplinary expertise for animal issues; and a Spokesperson for Animals Count, which is a British political party for people and animals.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> You mean using gastropods to determine what might happen when a drug is used on human tissues?
> 
> Pharmaceutical Research, Volume 16, Number 8 - SpringerLink
> 
> ...


Lol. From the way you are using these references as proof, you either didnt read them or didn't understand them. "I would read the abstract" he says. Yes. You should. Then the whole paper.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

guylovesreef said:


> How has Ed attacked you? Or bullied you? Your stating what you believe to "facts" and he is telling you why they are incorrect and giving you opportunities to prove him wrong... which from what I've read, you haven't done, haven't been able to do or just completely ignore in general.


Don't sweat it... He started out by with open insults, attempts to get people on the board to attack one another and claims how stupid others are in relation to himself, along with other commentaries about how whom ever is responding to him doesn't understand (along with more comments on how stupid they are). 
When these don't work he progresses to attempts to insult your work, and if that doesn't get you off track he moves to the statements like those above, where he implies that people don't like you, consider you to be wrong etc to see if your insecure. In this case he also threw in an inference supposedly indicating that I don't have a social life, to see if that would get me off track. 

None of these have worked so we'll have to see the next attempt... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

BrianWI said:


> Have foggers or sprayers you buy distilled water for? Don't, catch what comes out of your humidifier or air conditioner. FREE.


I'm quoting your first post this far into the thread for a reason... that reason is just to try to put this whole thing in perspective.

You came out basically saying "hey everybody do this its a great idea!"

It has now turned into "well this is what I am going to do to test and see if this is a good idea"

What has happened in the meantime is that other people have pointed out potential flaws in your idea and have voiced concern about it. Concern that is most likely aimed at preventing other people from blindly taking your initial "advice".

If they initial post was "hey I am going to run a test on whether or not I can use the runoff from a humidifier or air conditioner. This is how I'm going to do it... etc etc" the thread may have gone another way. Relax, don't take everything so personally... and lets take some steps to come up with real solutions and ideas rather than flaming about petty things.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Didn't read the paper? I bet I know what sentence you are referring to... read it again. It is trying to make sure something else isn't being considered as prior art.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Snail in water that had brightened copper soaked in it... DEAD. Not sure when he died, sometime overnight.

New snail added.


----------



## JPccusa (Mar 10, 2009)

BrianWI said:


> As for what concentrations will kill these snails in a shorter time period... I doubt the information is out there anywhere. Hence, I am going to find out. BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
> 
> This is another GREAT example of things people can try at home!


There are more humane methods of measuring copper levels. Killing animals as an attempt to establish a Cu safety level for another totally different species is not something I'd like to try, ever!



BrianWI said:


> You make up so much stuff, it just gets crazy...
> 
> ... Ed, why does data scare you so much?


Now this was funny!
I do not know any other member on DB that provides more solid data and references than Ed.


----------



## kingfisherfleshy (Mar 17, 2012)

Not to be a science snob - but there are also 999,999,999 other things that could kill that snail. 

Old age. Bad health. Other water parameters. Lack of food. Method of collection/transportation/housing. 

Hard to establish a true control in such a simple experiment. 

Some thoughts, 

Fleshy


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Replacement snail in the brightened copper water died while I was at work. They definitely don't like that water.

As for killing snails... I also fish. I kill worms all the time (and minnows). I give crickets to tarantulas and fruit flies to frogs. I am not too upset over the snails. Mice and rats...


----------



## Shinosuke (Aug 10, 2011)

How are you dealing with evaporation?


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Right now, lids with only minimal ventilation.. If this goes long enough that I have to worry, I will have the kit to tell me more as to what I should replace water with.

All other snails are happily going about their business. No change.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Please be very discrete when reusing water from dehumidifiers. A man in Oregon was arrested and fined recently, for collecting rainwater on his property.


----------



## jeeperrs (Jan 14, 2010)

Did I miss a literature review prior to this stunning experiment? Did I also miss the control sample? Do we have any statistical analysis? 

Based on the results, I will continue to buy my distilled water from Target. 

I am just giving you a hard time.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

pl259 said:


> Please be very discrete when reusing water from dehumidifiers. A man in Oregon was arrested and fined recently, for collecting rainwater on his property.


OK, fill me in...


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

jeeperrs said:


> Did I miss a literature review prior to this stunning experiment? Did I also miss the control sample? Do we have any statistical analysis?
> 
> Based on the results, I will continue to buy my distilled water from Target.
> 
> I am just giving you a hard time.


It is almost as funny in jest as it is when people truly say those things!


----------



## fishman9809 (Dec 8, 2008)

Not sure I understand the point of this thread....

Ed isn't trying to screw you over, he's trying to save you some life AND money. And that's what he always does. He's not attacking anyone.

I also don't understand why you're even doing this experimentation when it's already been done...many...many...many times by people who actually know what they're doing....


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

If its been done so many times, how much copper is in the dehumdifer water on average?


----------



## Mdtalley22 (Feb 29, 2012)

Some states, especially in the west, have laws against storing rain (since most west states are desert-y they have laws that are against a first come first serve type of deal) water as it Shea's to be made available for the community and you get your share from the community (which of course now comes out of your tap). It should probably be an out dated law but with the first settlers of the west it was a life saver.


----------



## guylovesreef (May 3, 2012)

imagine a cop coming to your house after it rained, looks in your rain barrel and then you get arrested for it! hahaha id be PI$$ED


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

NathanB said:


> If its been done so many times, how much copper is in the dehumdifer water on average?



We shall find out  I could not find any evidence there were any tests done of this particular source. I read a lot of posts on reef sites, but it was all based on "from what I have heard". Plus, I talked at length with an enthusiast who has done it for years. The water drains into a holding tank where it ages a bit then is used to top off aquariums. The study posted used brightened copper and that certainly appears to create toxic copper levels, but the action is very different and contact times were much longer.

Again, I use the water here a lot. We will see what the copper content is. 

So far, all of the other snails are doing well.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

NathanB said:


> If its been done so many times, how much copper is in the dehumdifer water on average?


Copper aside, think about how a dehumidifier works. It works by sucking in air within a home and passing that air over a cool condensation unit. The water in the air condenses onto the condensation unit and then drips to a collection area while the dehumidified air passes back into the home.

Now, consider everything that is in the air in a home. Aerosolized fertilizers from spraying house plants, mold spores, that Fabreeze that you used to cover up a smell, pesticides from that farm next door, that Axe body spray you used, cigarette smoke. The list can go on and on. Water vapor can trap these particles (remember acid rain?), and while normally, they would be at very low concentrations in the air, a dehumidifier would work to condense them as well as the water. Copper is only one of many concerns of what can be in waste water.

And because each home is different in what they use, this study is pretty meaningless. It "tests" one variable while having many that can and would have negative affects for amphibians. We all know BS will report the results he wants to see and will prove his point, but the simple fact of the matter is that the results are not repeatable since the particulate in the air is different for each house (and we really don't know any of the methodology, but that is beside the point).

Everyone is welcome to do whatever they want. Are you, Nathan, going to be using dehumidifier waste water to rear tads and spray frogs?


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

MonarchzMan said:


> Copper aside, think about how a dehumidifier works. It works by sucking in air within a home and passing that air over a cool condensation unit. The water in the air condenses onto the condensation unit and then drips to a collection area while the dehumidified air passes back into the home.
> 
> Now, consider everything that is in the air in a home. Aerosolized fertilizers from spraying house plants, mold spores, that Fabreeze that you used to cover up a smell, pesticides from that farm next door, that Axe body spray you used, cigarette smoke. The list can go on and on. Water vapor can trap these particles (remember acid rain?), and while normally, they would be at very low concentrations in the air, a dehumidifier would work to condense them as well as the water. Copper is only one of many concerns of what can be in waste water.
> 
> ...


Nope, my 1st post on the topic stated I thought there was pollutants in it. But there were about 10 people who said you couldn't use it because of the copper, which they didn't/dont know if its present or if its at a dangerous level. Usually Ed points that stuff out.


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

As reefer for over 25 years I would never consider using water from that source in fact this is the first time I have heard of using water from that source in all the years of being on dart or reef forums. Hell I wouldn't even use tap water here in Michigan unless it went through an RO system. For me it wasn't just the risk of coral.and fish but also looking at the $1000s of dollars I had invested in my reef creatures if something went wrong. There are much safer and eazier ways to aquire water for tadpoles and reefs. In the end why even take the risk?
sent from my Galaxy S lll


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Azurel said:


> As reefer for over 25 years I would never consider using water from that source in fact this is the first time I have heard of using water from that source in all the years of being on dart or reef forums. Hell I wouldn't even use tap water here in Michigan unless it went through an RO system. For me it wasn't just the risk of coral.and fish but also looking at the $1000s of dollars I had invested in my reef creatures if something went wrong. There are much safer and eazier ways to aquire water for tadpoles and reefs. In the end why even take the risk?
> sent from my Galaxy S lll


I read a lot of the posts on reef sites. There were a few doing it. Not unheard of. I could not find first hand NEGATIVE experience...

In any case, nothing lives in a bubble. We could start talking about second hand smoke and pets, but what is the point?

I have read the water could be foul. Really? I would not use the basement dehumidifier water in the slime filed container that hasn't been cleaned in 100 years, but do people really let that happen to an air conditioner in their living areas? Eww. I dunno about your home, but in mine, the water is far from foul.

When you run an aquarium, do you filter your air that goes into the pump then thru the water? I wonder if those same "pollutants" would somehow NOT stick in the aquarium water thru that source?

But, back to the test, we will see the copper content concern. The test kit was shipped today. I assume it will be here next week some time.

As for tads, I don't think I'd use any distilled water to raise them in. I know that is being erroneously being thrown in to this topic to create some overreaching argument, but I don't even use that for drinking water for pets. I use regular bottle drinking water for consumption. But to keep my foggers in good working order, distilled it is. Although in the big exotic pet plabe, they use DI water. I'd be more worried about that.


----------



## jeeperrs (Jan 14, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> I read a lot of the posts on reef sites. There were a few doing it. Not unheard of. I could not find first hand NEGATIVE experience...
> 
> In any case, nothing lives in a bubble. We could start talking about second hand smoke and pets, but what is the point?
> 
> ...


On a serious note. I only buy distilled water. I do not add any additives to the misting water. I have zero buildup on the nozzles due to this, which is nice. As much muck that gets tracked around by the frogs I think the pooled water in the broms are fine. The frogs often lay in that water and have shown no ill effects. For my tads, I add some conditioner that has calcium in it (made by zoo med). I also add a couple drops of RO Right and Blackwater to the gallon jug. Some people say that I do not need to do this but I feel it is best. Unlike the terrarium I don't have muck being tracked into the tad water, so I add a little. Like I said, I only do a couple drops per gallon. I just like having the control over what is going into my water without having to test it.


----------



## SteveR (Jul 26, 2012)

BrianWI said:


> I read a lot of the posts on reef sites. There were a few doing it. Not unheard of....


really? I was a member on the big reef sites for years. I can say - it was well known tabboo. A no-no. If you think it groundless dogma - thats your choice and I am fine with that. Personally - I think you are pushing too hard against something with a bit too much risk - and again - we are talking about closed systems and the accumulated build up of any substance / element / pathogen is not often a good thing. 

And really - it doesnt have to be putrid to be undesirable. Aside from the metals argument (which I think has merit over long term use), it is also a perfect substrate (...still, dark, wet) for breeding bacteria, random fungi.. maybe a little legionella.. yeah unlikely. A little. Likely enough that I dont want to drink it, nor do you. I also dont think you make it a habit of scrubbing down your condensate container.

Shrug. Interesting. And sort of funny.. since I remember this debate on the reef sites more times than was necessary - and it was always (forgive me) the newbie trying to setup a tank for the first time that hadnt really thought it through. I have no doubt you know what you are doing - and dont need to be in a position of defending yourself to me or anyone else. Have at it - and perhaps everything will work out quite nicely. We are all on the same side.

For me? No thanks.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

NathanB said:


> . But there were about 10 people who said you couldn't use it because of the copper, which they didn't/dont know if its present or if its at a dangerous level. Usually Ed points that stuff out.


I thought I had back from the first page.... 



> As for safety, we should also discuss, the potential threat to people from bacterial contamination. It is also widely recognized that distilled water (even in labs) is frequently contaminated with opportunistic pathogens, including but not limited to Legionella, Pseudomonads, and Mycobacterium (see for example http://www.clinchem.org/content/20/6/687.full.pdf ).


It is pretty clear that condensation (even off distillation coils) is a good trap for virtually anything that is air born. There was a question about ammonia contamination, that is due to nitrogen containing organics and amino acids that are captured in the condensate which provides the source of nitrogen for the ammonia. 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Hmmm. Do you think the concentrations of nitrogen containing organics would be higher than a frog or fish would produce?

Do you think sending that same air thru the water thru an air stone would also put those contaminants in the water?


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

Ed said:


> I thought I had back from the first page....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't see it, blame my selective vision


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

I used to use distilled water for misting. It became too much of a pain to buy and keep, and I felt the lack of minerals could be an issue. I also tried adding a product called something like RO Restore. No notable effects, positive or negative, with that.

For the last two plus years now, I've been using aged tap water, straight from the city and through my home's copper pipes. I've seen no ill effects from doing this. 

I wonder how many other froggers have been using copper pipe distributed, aged tap water, and their experiences with it. Might make a good data producing poll.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

the problem is that "pure" water tends to be a lot more reactive. This is why they don't recommend the use of copper with r/o systems


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

pl259 said:


> I used to use distilled water for misting. It became too much of a pain to buy and keep, and I felt the lack of minerals could be an issue. I also tried adding a product called something like RO Restore. No notable effects, positive or negative, with that.
> 
> For the last two plus years now, I've been using aged tap water, straight from the city and through my home's copper pipes. I've seen no ill effects from doing this.
> 
> I wonder how many other froggers have been using copper pipe distributed, aged tap water, and their experiences with it. Might make a good data producing poll.


Actually this as a source of copper is easy to avoid, simply run it for a little bit as that flushes out the Cu from the system (assuming that it hasn't been run for awhile) see for example http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/water/docs/pbcu-factsheet.pdf 

In addition, there is an increasing trend to treat tap water with silicates and/or phosphates which not only removes copper from the water but prevents further corrosion from releasing more copper into the system. See for example http://www.pqcorp.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3h6XAmumvF8=&tabid=155&mid=640 (I had to laugh since I worked on PQ for awhile...) 

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

BrianWI said:


> Do you think sending that same air thru the water thru an air stone would also put those contaminants in the water?


You miss the entire point. A dehumidifier is specifically designed to suck the air from an entire room, and therefore any pollutants that can occur there. A air pump is designed to pull the air from the immediate area. Yes, it will pull in pollutants from the immediate area, but the issue has been accumulation. The concentration of pollutants transferred into the water from an air pump would be a minute fraction of the concentration of pollutants transferred into the waste water of a dehumidifier over the same period of time. People, fortunately, can do water changes in an aquarium to remove nitrogenous wastes, and they also remove some of those pollutants from the air stone, thus keeping pollutant concentration very low.

But that is all moot. Who is going to use an air pump on tadpoles or frogs? You're just grasping at straws to try to justify your method.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

MonarchzMan said:


> You miss the entire point. A dehumidifier is specifically designed to suck the air from an entire room, and therefore any pollutants that can occur there. A air pump is designed to pull the air from the immediate area. Yes, it will pull in pollutants from the immediate area, but the issue has been accumulation. The concentration of pollutants transferred into the water from an air pump would be a minute fraction of the concentration of pollutants transferred into the waste water of a dehumidifier over the same period of time. People, fortunately, can do water changes in an aquarium to remove nitrogenous wastes, and they also remove some of those pollutants from the air stone, thus keeping pollutant concentration very low.
> 
> But that is all moot. Who is going to use an air pump on tadpoles or frogs? You're just grasping at straws to try to justify your method.


You keep trying to introduce tadpoles when it is simply not part of the issue. However, let me try to understand you rother argument...

The dehumidifier in the room circulates the air... EXCEPT it doesn't move the air in the area surrounding the air pump?!?! Why is the "bubble" of air by the pump unmoved by the dehumidifier? What phenomenon shields it from the dehumidifier circulated air? If the dehumidifier is off, is the air stagnant? Does smoke also avoid this bubble? If it it is an airconditioner in the room, does that bubble also stay hot and not cool down?


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

You're completely missing the point to try to fight for an untenable position. I bring it back to tadpoles because we're talking about use of water to rear tadpoles or spray frogs. You're trying to argue that "oh, people use air pumps, they must be introducing pollutants!" but that argument is entirely pointless because we do not use air pumps for tadpoles or frogs. YOU are, however, suggesting using waste water from a dehumidifier for tadpoles or frogs. THAT is why I keep on bringing it back to that.

Bringing up irrelevant points to try to fight for a failed position doesn't help your argument.


----------



## cbreon (Apr 25, 2005)

So, let me get this straight, I have hundreds or thousands of dollars, depending on the hobbyist, into my frog setups and I am going to risk using recycled water from an a/c unit to save a couple dollars? I am sure most see the flaw in this with a quick cost-benefit analysis...


----------



## JL-Exotics (Nov 10, 2005)

BrianWI said:


> When you run an aquarium, do you filter your air that goes into the pump then thru the water? I wonder if those same "pollutants" would somehow NOT stick in the aquarium water thru that source?


Every aquarium air pump I've ever owned had a filter. Just an observation.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Well, again, tadpoles aren't part of it. They aren't part of what the water was used for. However, we may find out copper levels in the water that will or will not reflect them.

However, reef tanks, as brought up, DO use air pumps. You can't have it both ways, including tadpoles becasue you want to, and not reef aquariums becasue you don't. That is Cherry Picking, another logical fallacy.

In any case, we will go back to the main topic: using dehumidifier water in fogging/misting units. Will copper be an issue? We must wait for the results.

Recap: Brightened copper soaked in distilled water seems to raise the copper level high enough to kill these ramshorn snails (3 out of 3, the last one died in about 3 hours). When the test kit arrives (shipped today) we will find out what that level was. I will then try to determine the concentration necessary to kill them in 4 hours (LC50). I DEFINITELY would avoid brightened or new copper at this point.

The other water samples have had no visual effect on the snails. This includes water held in unbrightened copper, window air unit water, portable air cond/ dehumidifer unit water, store bought RO water, store bought distilled water, tap water (although I know it is very hard water) or water from the bottom of the frog viv. Level testing will be done when the kit arrives.

As for doing it to save a buck... maybe some will. Or the inconvenience of buying water. Or just in a pinch when they are out of store bought. Or because they think green. I do it for some combination of those above, plus I don't keep my animals in an artificially sterile environment. I have a LOT of terrariums and extremely hard water (the calcium is thru the roof). It is a great option for me and in the MANY years of having inverts, it has never been a problem. Now, I do clean the filters regularly, spray a little Oxine solution on the coils and in the bucket from time to time, but it is still more convenient.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

JL-Exotics said:


> Every aquarium air pump I've ever owned had a filter. Just an observation.


Just like every air conditioner/ dehumidifier I ever owned. But, none of the air pumps I had ever had a filter. I never would worry about it.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> Well, again, tadpoles aren't part of it. They aren't part of what the water was used for.


Well, lets look at this critically... Technically, the phrasing means that you have never used the water for tadpoles and are now claiming, you didn't intend to use it for tadpoles. Your also spinning your trial isn't about tadpoles despite comments about using snails to prove the water isn't "toxic"....

So let us look at your original post 

Do you now deny you explicitly typed this as the original post? 



BrianWI said:


> Have foggers or sprayers you buy distilled water for? Don't, catch what comes out of your humidifier or air conditioner. FREE.


This is the first post with the recommendation to use it in any and all misting/spraying situations, since people have frogs, eggs, and with many species tadpoles in thier enclosure which are supplied with water via misting or spraying, you are directly stating that all condensate water collected from any dehumidifiers and air conditioners is safe.. You left out any and all qualifiers indicating that you did not intend it to be used with frogs..eggs... tadpoles...or any other animal. 

You then tried to claim, you didn't understand where tadpoles came into it after I posted the references and information indicating that snails are questionable as a indicator species for tadpoles (much less frog eggs). specifically here 



BrianWI said:


> Oddly enough, Ed, I think you made an erroneous assumption. The post is about mister/fogger water, suing distilled water to keep the disk from failing prematurely. I don't know where tadpole water comes into it.


Despite your clear suggestion that it was safe to use in inhabited enclosures in your first post...you also did not include anything indicating that meant for it not to cause the disk to fail prematurely... 
For you to continue to deny that you meant for the water to be used in enclosures that contained eggs, tadpoles and/or frogs is pretty much going against your own statements. The context is very clear..... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

BrianWI said:


> Well, again, tadpoles aren't part of it. They aren't part of what the water was used for. However, we may find out copper levels in the water that will or will not reflect them.
> 
> However, reef tanks, as brought up, DO use air pumps. You can't have it both ways, including tadpoles becasue you want to, and not reef aquariums becasue you don't. That is Cherry Picking, another logical fallacy.


Ed covered why tadpoles are part of it, so I won't bother restating it.

However, like I said, air pumps do not circulate a full room of air like a dehumidifier, and what little air the put into a tank, brings with it an even smaller amount of airborne pollutants. Since a responsible aquarium keeper will do water changes regularly, the concentration of airborne pollutants can be kept at a very, very low level. Comparing dehumidifiers to air pumps is like comparing apples and oranges. You're just arguing at this point to pick any irrelevant argument possible to distract from in incorrect position. You really are being, at this point, unnecessarily obstinate when it would seem everyone here has said why this isn't a good idea.

Further, if you want to avoid tadpoles and frogs on a frog board, fine. We can talk reefs. We have had a number of reefers here say they would never use waste water and don't know who would. You say you know a guy. Personally, I take more stock in "he said" rather than "he said she said."


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Stay Tuned...


----------



## fishman9809 (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm still not quite sure what BrianWI is trying to prove here. Every piece of equipment is different from another just like every organism is different from another. Your experiment cannot be applied to frogs because snails aren't frogs, obviously. And even then, each frog species is different, and even each individual is different. Your dehumidifier is not the same as everyone else's. Another person might have a lower grade or higher grade dehumidifier that produces lower amounts of metals in the water or higher amounts of metals in the water. Just because yours is safe, doesn't mean everyone else's is safe, and vice versa. 

While to be honest many of us may not particularly like you, the pieces of advice that have given aren't meant to harm you, only help you. All you do by taking the advice is avoid risks and therefore avoid potential losses, that's it. I'm sure Ed or JP take advice from others too. Not everyone is out to get you Brian....jeez talk about paranoia


----------



## mrzoggs (May 27, 2012)

maybe hes just trying to get in your head  ignoring him and letting him do his thing might be a better tactic


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

fishman9809 said:


> I'm sure Ed or JP take advice from others too


I can't speak for Ed, but I take advice all the time. Mostly I do a lot of reading to develop my own methods. I certainly am not infallible in my methods, and will turn to others with more experience than I.



mrzoggs said:


> maybe hes just trying to get in your head  ignoring him and letting him do his thing might be a better tactic


The only problem is the first post. He made a declarative statement of what people can do to spray frogs. If this was ignored, there may be some folks who would think that this was a good idea. At this point, it's clear that the experiment will be a sham and serve no purpose. It probably didn't have to go for 10 pages, but it did need to be addressed lest some unsuspecting person follow his advice.


----------



## mrzoggs (May 27, 2012)

MonarchzMan said:


> The only problem is the first post. He made a declarative statement of what people can do to spray frogs. If this was ignored, there may be some folks who would think that this was a good idea. At this point, it's clear that the experiment will be a sham and serve no purpose. It probably didn't have to go for 10 pages, but it did need to be addressed lest some unsuspecting person follow his advice.



seems to me like everyone has done all they could though.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

MonarchzMan said:


> I can't speak for Ed, but I take advice all the time. Mostly I do a lot of reading to develop my own methods. I certainly am not infallible in my methods, and will turn to others with more experience than I.


Laughs... I do as well... I modified an enclosure for UVB exposure based on suggestions by Todd (Venustus)..... 

Ed


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

fishman9809 said:


> I'm still not quite sure what BrianWI is trying to prove here. Every piece of equipment is different from another just like every organism is different from another. Your experiment cannot be applied to frogs because snails aren't frogs, obviously. And even then, each frog species is different, and even each individual is different. Your dehumidifier is not the same as everyone else's. Another person might have a lower grade or higher grade dehumidifier that produces lower amounts of metals in the water or higher amounts of metals in the water. Just because yours is safe, doesn't mean everyone else's is safe, and vice versa.
> 
> While to be honest many of us may not particularly like you, the pieces of advice that have given aren't meant to harm you, only help you. All you do by taking the advice is avoid risks and therefore avoid potential losses, that's it. I'm sure Ed or JP take advice from others too. Not everyone is out to get you Brian....jeez talk about paranoia


It is VERY easy to argue (even if erroneously) against something. One can always find counter arguments, whether real or not. Like saying one set of copper coils is going to be worse than another. Where did you find that data? Do any store bought distilled waters come from copper stills? How much copper can an adult frog take? A tadpole? Is it a different amount than a snail? None of these have concrete answers. However, it does not invalidate the measurements. It is about the measurements.

So say we measure copper content and find 25ug kills the snail. We also find out that 25ug is the limit for raising a tadpole safely. Now, do I know that a snail would be a good test subject to determine if water is safe for tadpoles? Yes. Not everything is proven completely in one test or one result. Chytrid is found in a wild population. We also test a captive population, positive result. Does these two test prove the pet trade caused the outbreak? No. But if it is the same strain, the argument is stronger. If we then find gravel from the pet store aquarium in the infected pond, conclusions can start to be made.

Scientific theories and conclusions aren't made due to one test, instead they are often built piece by piece.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

So... Let me get this straight.

25ug of copper will kill a snail

25ug of copper will kill a tadpole

Therefore, snails are a good indicator of water quality for tadpoles...?


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm curious where the data is to support that?

Even if we determine that 25ug kills the snail (or 15ug or whatever) where are you getting the data to support that level kills the tadpole? (without sacrificing the tadpole)

in the end (and im NOT advocating this at ALL)... Why not just throw the tadpole in and see what happens? Why waste the snail? This seems to be where this is going anyway...


----------



## fishman9809 (Dec 8, 2008)

BrianWI said:


> It is VERY easy to argue (even if erroneously) against something. One can always find counter arguments, whether real or not. Like saying one set of copper coils is going to be worse than another. Where did you find that data? Do any store bought distilled waters come from copper stills? How much copper can an adult frog take? A tadpole? Is it a different amount than a snail? None of these have concrete answers. However, it does not invalidate the measurements. It is about the measurements.
> 
> So say we measure copper content and find 25ug kills the snail. We also find out that 25ug is the limit for raising a tadpole safely. Now, do I know that a snail would be a good test subject to determine if water is safe for tadpoles? Yes. Not everything is proven completely in one test or one result. Chytrid is found in a wild population. We also test a captive population, positive result. Does these two test prove the pet trade caused the outbreak? No. But if it is the same strain, the argument is stronger. If we then find gravel from the pet store aquarium in the infected pond, conclusions can start to be made.
> 
> Scientific theories and conclusions aren't made due to one test, instead they are often built piece by piece.


Scientific theories and conclusions may not be due to one test, and are in fact built up, in this case the science is not exact and universal because of the variability found between each case.

Copper coils will always be different between brands...obviously. Saying that all copper coils are alike is like saying that all solders in computer chips are the same. That's simply not true. The make-up of the alloys is different from supplier to supplier and will be leaded, maybe unleaded. And even in each category (leaded vs. unleaded), the alloys are made up of different proportions of metals. The same is true with the dehumidifier coils. Some are copper, some are aluminum, some are alloys with varying proportions. And with the rising costs of copper, I'm sure that most companies are changing the proportions to contain less and less copper, but again, each has their own proportion.

There's also an aspect that has been shoved aside in the topic of dehumidifier water. Regardless of the metals in the water, there will still most likely be mold, bacteria, or just grime in general that would need to be filtered or sterilized before safe usage can be assumed. To be safe you'd have to filter and UV sterilize anyway, and at that point, is it even worth it? The whole idea is weighing the potential benefits against the risks. In this case the risks outweigh the benefits. In the end it's your decision to use the water or not (although I feel bad for your tads and whatever other life you're taking risks with).


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

Having run a few dehumidifiers in my day, subjectively I'd have to agree that the water that comes out of them is pretty nasty, slimey, and generally not suited for much. Except maybe watering some plants. I suspect other plants might even have problems with it.

That's not to say that it couldn't be treated/filtered. Water conservation is a good thing. My SWAG would be that the water recovered from current day humidifiers, doesn't have a lot of copper in it. In order to meet current efficiency standards, I suspect the bulk of the surface area, collecting the condensate, is from stainless steel fins on the condenser. Fins which also filter particulates from the air.

The best data and conclusions would be from a direct straight up analysis of the water, IMO. No need to introduce additional variables.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

carola1155 said:


> I'm curious where the data is to support that?
> 
> Even if we determine that 25ug kills the snail (or 15ug or whatever) where are you getting the data to support that level kills the tadpole? (without sacrificing the tadpole)
> 
> in the end (and im NOT advocating this at ALL)... Why not just throw the tadpole in and see what happens? Why waste the snail? This seems to be where this is going anyway...


First, if Ed said that copper harms tadpoles in certain concentrations, the data may be out there. If not, sure, we can test on tadpoles. But after we determine that level, we can sacrifice a snail instead of tadpoles in the future to see if the copper levels are safe.



> I'm curious where the data is to support that?


If the data already existed and was known to be factual, why would an experiment be done. Getting the data is kind of the point.

But, we will have plenty of data soon enough.

As of today, the snails in all other samples than the brightened copper water, the snails are doing well!


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

I have to say one thing... you really get some stretches when people use pseudoscience to try to prove someone wrong out of spite.

Dehumidifiers creating nitrogenous waste that obviously must be higher than the frogs themselves (or fish or tadpoles). Magic bubbles of static air that protects aquarium pumps from airborne pollutants.

Then you get into air conditioner coil alloys (oddly enough, many of the acceptable alloys use phosphates in them now and copper no longer leeches out).

We also learned that you can run the water from the tap to clear the copper leeched while the water is sitting to make it safe, but somehow ignores the fact that water never sits on the condenser coils either...

Constant changing ones stance like using it in tadpole water, but can't use aquarium examples. Use in tadpole water being the same as fog from water maybe contacting a tadpole, etc.

Then, the ultimate "cover my fake argument": the results are made up. LOL!

I must have ordered the kit as a cover! How ridiculous. It is a BIT weird that running an experiment VERY similar to the one Ed posted and considers valid has now warped into bad practice. LOL  Anyone else notice that?

And to others, thanks for the supporting PM's!



> Good news, BRIAN!
> 
> Your aquarium supplies have been carefully picked from Marine Depot's shelves like delicate berries and placed into a wicker basket lined with unicorn fur. With the grace of a ballerina, we tiptoed them to our packing station where Santa's Elves—who work with us during their off-season—prepared your order for shipment.


I had to say, I liked their confirmation email!


----------



## carola1155 (Sep 10, 2007)

BrianWI said:


> First, if Ed said that copper harms tadpoles in certain concentrations, the data may be out there. If not, sure, we can test on tadpoles. But after we determine that level, we can sacrifice a snail instead of tadpoles in the future to see if the copper levels are safe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The problem is it seems like you are doing this test backwards. It would make more sense to test to find what level kills the tadpole first... then find out if that level is toxic to the snail. If snails end up being able to tolerate a higher level than the tadpoles, you are wasting your time.


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

That is a pretty funny confirmation e-mail....

sent from my Galaxy S lll


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> Dehumidifiers creating nitrogenous waste that obviously must be higher than the frogs themselves (or fish or tadpoles). Magic bubbles of static air that protects aquarium pumps from airborne pollutants.


as someone already pointed out, this argument was based on the volume of air that each unit moves to perform it's basic function. For example, I can feel the exhaust on my dehumidifier unit from across the room. No such effect is even noticable from a few feet away, with my heavy duty air pumps

the assumption could be right, or it could be wrong. What is clear though is that the amount of air cycled through a dehumidifier is much greater than your average aquarium air pump, and even any heavy duty unit I have used. And simply ignoring this, or mischaracterizing it, does absolutely nothing to help your argument


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

carola1155 said:


> The problem is it seems like you are doing this test backwards. It would make more sense to test to find what level kills the tadpole first... then find out if that level is toxic to the snail. If snails end up being able to tolerate a higher level than the tadpoles, you are wasting your time.


I was hoping that may have been done already. Maybe Ed knows.

The whole point isn't some miraculous discovery. It is more that testing ideas ISN'T a waste of time. Simple experiments are part of each hobby and are valid. My other experiments provided me with insight and new directions to look into. People should enjoy doing so.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> I was hoping that may have been done already. Maybe Ed knows.
> 
> The whole point isn't some miraculous discovery. It is more that testing ideas ISN'T a waste of time. Simple experiments are part of each hobby and are valid. My other experiments provided me with insight and new directions to look into. People should enjoy doing so.


did people come out against the value of "simple experimentation", or did they come out against the value of your "particular" experiment?


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Brotherly Monkey said:


> did people come out against the value of "simple experimentation", or did they come out against the value of your "particular" experiment?



Have you not noticed "who" has been against it and the unsupported reasons why? Really, some of those reasons are pretty far out there.... Do you believe your dehumidifier is likely to produce more nitrogenous waste than your frogs? Do you think air ceases to flow in the immediate area of aquarium air pumps?

What if I find out that these snails die at a certain Cu concentration? Then I learn the Cu concentration in several water sources. Nothing more. Does that make the experiment invalid? Is data never extrapolated to other applications?

It was like the comment about using gastropods to test reactions in humans (however, that person never did acknowledge they were wrong, and never do). It is a patented process. And when these "counterarguments" are PROVEN invalid, yet they continue, maybe the most invalid concepts are those arguments and hence, the argument was never fair nor purposeful to start, only to falsely discredit. After all, wouldn't a scientist shown his own glaring error acknowledge he was in error?


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> Have you not noticed "who" has been against it and the unsupported reasons why? Really, some of those reasons are pretty far out there.... Do you believe your dehumidifier is likely to produce more nitrogenous waste than your frogs?


I definitely wouldn't rule out the possibility. Being that flushing material from a brom seems likely to occur regularly, especially in an open environment. While the waste would continuously build in collection coils




BrianWI said:


> Do you think air ceases to flow in the immediate area of aquarium air pumps?


as explained above, we are talking two drastically different levels of air volume being cycled to perform it base function


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Brotherly Monkey said:


> I definitely wouldn't rule out the possibility. Being that flushing material from a brom seems likely to occur regularly, especially in an open environment. While the waste would continuously build in collection coils
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why would waste continuously build in collection coils. This is an argument I'd like to hear. Especially, since if this was true, then it wouldn't get in the water! And if the dehumidifier is doing the circulation of the entire room, would it not be circulating the air by the pump as well? How is the air around the pump immune to being moved by the dehumidifer?!?!

See how those invalid arguments work? You just demonstrated very well! There is no logic in them, just some superficial statement, w/o backing, to make the appearance of validity when there is none.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Another very telling issue that shows people are not arguing with science is that even when asked, you won't get back data that may support your position


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> Why would waste continuously build in collection coils.


 This is an argument I'd like to hear.[/QUOTE]

Not sure about most units, but I can't even access the ones on mine, and do little more than try to shoot a jet of water through the front grill, once, or twice, a year



BrianWI said:


> Especially, since if this was true, then it wouldn't get in the water! And if the dehumidifier is doing the circulation of the entire room, would it not be circulating the air by the pump as well? How is the air around the pump immune to being moved by the dehumidifer?!?!


the water condenses on the coils and covered the air volume difference above, and am unsure how both circulating the same air is relevant, when the issue is "volume of air"


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> I have to say one thing... you really get some stretches when people use pseudoscience to try to prove someone wrong out of spite.
> 
> Dehumidifiers creating nitrogenous waste that obviously must be higher than the frogs themselves (or fish or tadpoles). .


Interesting that you are the person to make this comment since you were the one that also specifically said 



BrianWI said:


> Hmmm. Do you think the concentrations of nitrogen containing organics would be higher than a frog or fish would produce?


Your the only one that has made that suggestion..outside of that there was a reference that indicated that ammonia contamination (along with other organics including mircobes) can be found in distilled water... Seems to be your arguing against yourself as part of your experiment.. which is of course another fallacy... 



BrianWI said:


> Do you think sending that same air thru the water thru an air stone would also put those contaminants in the water?


Well lets see here... a random sampling of dehumidifiers (see Compare Dehumidifier Technical Specifications | AllergyBuyersClub) have CFM (cubic foot per minute ratings) ranging from 150 CFM to over 650 CFM. Aquarium pumps range as high as 6.8 CFM (Aquarium Air Pumps) and even regenerative blowers used in large facilities (see Central Air Pumps) run about 67 CFM at the higher end, so we can see that there is approximately a three fold difference from the higher end regenerative blowers to the lower end dehumidifiers, and almost a 22 fold difference between the higher CFM aquarium pumps and the lower end dehumidifiers... The differences are even more extreme when if we compare lower end aquarium pumps to higher CFM dehumidifiers...... 

The scale of difference between them is excessive enough that your attempt to compare the two as equivalent pollution risks is really an apples and oranges comparision.... 




BrianWI said:


> We also learned that you can run the water from the tap to clear the copper leeched while the water is sitting to make it safe, but somehow ignores the fact that water never sits on the condenser coils either...


 Well the only way to be able to compare it is if you have some data that compares the amount of time it takes for water to traverse the condensation point... If you don't have that then you can't make the comparision.. and attempting to claim it is psuedoscience is very premature.... What we can prove is that copper condensation coils are a known source of copper contamination, (see my first post in this thread and relevent references), just as we know that copper can build up in tap water lines...... 



BrianWI said:


> Constant changing ones stance like using it in tadpole water, but can't use aquarium examples. Use in tadpole water being the same as fog from water maybe contacting a tadpole, etc.


See the above comparision showing the faults in attempting to compare a dehumidifier to a air pump...


Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> Another very telling issue that shows people are not arguing with science is that even when asked, you won't get back data that may support your position


Ironic that you are making that statement since you have refused to supply references or data in multiple threads... you still haven't answered my requests in this thread.... You are the one who is attempting to make comparisions when you don't supply the information to support whether or not your comparision is correct...see for example the comparision on dehumidifiers and aquarium pumps above...

Some comments

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> It was like the comment about using gastropods to test reactions in humans (however, that person never did acknowledge they were wrong, and never do). It is a patented process. And when these "counterarguments" are PROVEN invalid, yet they continue, maybe the most invalid concepts are those arguments and hence, the argument was never fair nor purposeful to start, only to falsely discredit. After all, wouldn't a scientist shown his own glaring error acknowledge he was in error?


You mean like your supposed refutation of my reference showing the potential issues between animal models and humans? You didn't attempt to discredit the data by any method other than attacking the person who wrote the article (which was peer reviewed).... You did not discredit the reference instead you used a logical fallacy as an attempt to discredit it... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

carola1155 said:


> I'm curious where the data is to support that?
> Even if we determine that 25ug kills the snail (or 15ug or whatever) where are you getting the data to support that level kills the tadpole? (without


Actually the data provided earlier shows that there is actually a difference between species of snail and sensitivity to copper and that freshwater snails can bioaccumulate copper to prevent toxicity. See for example Copper bioaccumulation freshwater snail Lymnaea peregra toxicological marker environmental human health? 

In addition to rapid mortality, copper can cause long-term damage to the snails (and amphibian larvae) at sub-lethal concentrations all of which means that using snails as a "canary in a coal" for copper isn't an appropriate method since the choice of the snail to use was very subjective.... 

Some comments

Ed


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Man, a lot of nonsense to cover in a short period of time.

On the nitrogen waste from dehumidifier being higher than frog output. Either you wanted to take it out of context or don't know when someone is being sarcastic. Pick either, LOL. See how that false argument is used?



> Well lets see here... a random sampling of dehumidifiers (see Compare Dehumidifier Technical Specifications | AllergyBuyersClub) have CFM (cubic foot per minute ratings) ranging from 150 CFM to over 650 CFM. Aquarium pumps range as high as 6.8 CFM (Aquarium Air Pumps) and even regenerative blowers used in large facilities (see Central Air Pumps) run about 67 CFM at the higher end, so we can see that there is approximately a three fold difference from the higher end regenerative blowers to the lower end dehumidifiers, and almost a 22 fold difference between the higher CFM aquarium pumps and the lower end dehumidifiers... The differences are even more extreme when if we compare lower end aquarium pumps to higher CFM dehumidifiers......


Here we have him distorting this issue. It is building distortion on top of distortion. I was amused by the "bubble effect", but it took on a nonsensical life of its own because the original argument was nonsensical and irrelevant. Another common tactic.



> Well the only way to be able to compare it is if you have some data that compares the amount of time it takes for water to traverse the condensation point... If you don't have that then you can't make the comparision.. and attempting to claim it is psuedoscience is very premature.... What we can prove is that copper condensation coils are a known source of copper contamination, (see my first post in this thread and relevent references), just as we know that copper can build up in tap water lines......


More silliness. If my dehumidifer removes 70 pints of water a day, continuously dripping from the coils of very limited surface area, do you think the contact time is short or long, as opposed to water sitting in pipes say overnight? This is more of those seeming arguments that just don't hold up to scrutiny.

As far as animal models and science... since this is recognized in patent, all over in medical science and medical testing groups to this day, I think I will say that Ed posting the opinion piece that animal testing is useless is another one of those "stretches". After all, we also don't get insulin from pigs, use their heart valves, etc. They are just too different!  So obviously, the scientists developing and using those gastropod tests as models for human mucous membranes must not be as smart as they think?? Is that the right conclusion?

Man, I need taller boots !!


----------



## ChrisK (Oct 28, 2008)

How about posting something that scientifically proves or argues in favor of your position (or at least makes sense) as a rebuttal, instead of distracting from people who are trying to see the facts with "Nonsense! Distortion! Lies! Irrelevant!"?


----------



## illinoisfrogs (Apr 16, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> Have you not noticed "who" has been against it


No one is against it, they are just pointing out, with substantiated proof, a myriad of reasons why your "experiment" will prove nothing.

Kudos to Ed, he has more patience than I do.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> You don't like it when I use their same tactics back, huh?
> 
> Let's do a look at how people attack experiments here using a hypothetical situation.


people are not just raising irrelevant differences though. Take for example the point about air volume, and how much is cycled through a dehumidifier, versus that which is cycled through an air pump. Clearly cycling more air means more potential for contaminates to accumulate, making your earlier comparison, in regards to the ability of contaminates to accumulate in both systems problematic.


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Great example. How much copper is in the air...

Besides, air flow was a hypothetical question to the hypothetical study as well. Covered that.


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> Great example. How much copper is in the air...


this aspect of the discussion always concerned various contaminates found in a home 



BrianWI said:


> Besides, air flow was a hypothetical question to the hypothetical study as well. Covered that.


it was a comparison you brought up to challenge the contaminate issue


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

BM, Are you bored now that TD was tamed down or something?


----------



## Brotherly Monkey (Jul 20, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> BM, Are you bored now that TD was tamed down or something?


no, not particularly. Though i'm unsure what that has to do with what was mentioned above


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> So obviously, the scientists developing and using those gastropod tests as models for human mucous membranes must not be as smart as they think??


Looks like you finally got around to reading the paper you used as a reference. Or parts of it anyway.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Thread cleaned up, infractions issued. This is not the TD and site rules will be enforced.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

BrianWI said:


> As far as animal models and science... since this is recognized in patent, all over in medical science and medical testing groups to this day, I think I will say that Ed posting the opinion piece that animal testing is useless is another one of those "stretches". After all, we also don't get insulin from pigs, use their heart valves, etc. They are just too different!  So obviously, the scientists developing and using those gastropod tests as models for human mucous membranes must not be as smart as they think?? Is that the right conclusion?
> 
> Man, I need taller boots !!


Brian,

As noted by some others, your "proof" needs some support.. And I should point out that a patent is not proof and does not refute peer reviewed data. Your attempting to use it as a credible reference but the fact is, simply being patented (and even being used) does not in and of itself confer crediability. As an example, Electronic Reactions of Abrams was granted a patent in 1916 since it was supposed to be able to 


> Oscillations ‘discovered’ by Albert Abrams, M.D. that could identify various diseases. It was also claimed to identify a person’s religion


*.. not surprisingly it was later shown to be ineffective.. so the sheer fact that a patent has been granted does not confer any validity on the claim... 

Some comments,

Ed 
*Category:Questionable Medical Devices - Eurêka and The Electronic Reactions of Albert Abrams


----------



## BrianWI (Feb 4, 2012)

Ed,

We will agree to let you be wrong.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

BrianWI said:


> Ed,
> 
> We will agree to let you be wrong.


What's this "We" business?


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

BrianWI said:


> If the data already existed and was known to be factual, why would an experiment be done. Getting the data is kind of the point.
> 
> But, we will have plenty of data soon enough.


Wait. You mean like the dozens of studies that Ed has given you on this and your other "experiments"? Are you talking about those data and trends being known? Because if you are, you have a tendency to ignore them in light of your own preconceived notions on how things actually should work.


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Take the warning seriously people.

We've had discussions and the decision is - we're going to be issuing a WHOLE bunch of Infractions / Time Off - if things do not change.

s


----------



## srrrio (May 12, 2007)

Was there just a 14 page "discussion' about buying distilled water for 98cents a gallon vs reclaiming waste water. My loaf hurts (got that from the Olympics)


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Scott said:


> Take the warning seriously people.
> 
> We've had discussions and the decision is - we're going to be issuing a WHOLE bunch of Infractions / Time Off - if things do not change.
> 
> s


Scott, not trying to be difficult or start something, but it's difficult to look the other way when potentially injurious or hazardous advice is given as the gospel truth. What is the correct way to deal with situations like that? I by no means am referring to anything particular, I would like to know for future reference, should such situations arise. I am also not asking for myself, but for anyone interested in correcting someone making unreasonable claims.


----------



## JPccusa (Mar 10, 2009)

I do not think infractions would be issued based on friendly disagreement. The problem arises when tempers flare and people forget about the user's agreement. 

As for correcting misinformation, some people never tire of doing that while others give up really fast. I believe misinformation should be corrected, but members should know when it is time to stop beating a dead horse. 

Look at the amount of replies in favor of each sides of the issue and your choice should be pretty clear.


----------



## frogfreak (Mar 4, 2009)

srrrio said:


> Was there just a 14 page "discussion' about buying distilled water for 98cents a gallon vs reclaiming waste water. My loaf hurts (got that from the Olympics)


Yep, and while all this was going on I fed my feeders, moved some tads over, pulled some eggs and fed the adults. Oh wait that was yesterday during the day. Ah, after that had dinner with some buds last night and a few beers. Chilled a bit today and just came home with 25 gallons of RO which will last me well over a month for 10 bux! lol


----------

