Safer and more effective alternatives to excel + reduces nitrates - Page 2

  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Yeah, well Acetyl-COA is in continuum. So yeah this is a potential for fermentation processes in table sugar instead, when it is not a problem in continuum... I have read that high enough concentrations of glucose and it outcompetes nitrifying bacteria and that is why I did not try to high testing for table sugar, I was afraid it would mess up the tank then kill the fish. So, I don't know the max and I have not tested it at length, but I did torture testing on the continuum. It survived better than the excel. I could tell the fish needed more oxygen for sure though, but he lived. I will probably eventually switch to it entirely because my fish are slightly more active with continuum, but I didn't say it because I don't know if its a placebo.

Those are the reasons I gave the warnings for table sugar first.

EDIT: I did put a lot of sugar in at one time to try to test it but I got cold feet immediately after and did a big water change for the fish.
 

fisharegreat8962

Member
uncclewis said:
Yeah, well Acetyl-COA is in continuum. So yeah this is a potential for fermentation processes in table sugar instead, when it is not a problem in continuum... I have read that high enough concentrations of glucose and it outcompetes nitrifying bacteria and that is why I did not try to high testing for table sugar, I was afraid it would mess up the tank then kill the fish. So, I don't know the max and I have not tested it at length, but I did torture testing on the continuum. It survived better than the excel. I could tell the fish needed more oxygen for sure though, but he lived. I will probably eventually switch to it entirely because my fish are slightly more active with continuum, but I didn't say it because I don't know if its a placebo.

Those are the reasons I gave the warnings for table sugar first.
Some of these facts are scientifically proven, and so I respect all this research, but the toxicity and things that have been described don't have real studies, which you yourself have admitted. Studies and scientific testing are where real scientific evidence bases itself off of.

You did torture testing on the continuum? Really? Okay, firstly, I thought you cared about your fish. Really though. Like, you've tried to prove your point about this product being toxic in certain levels, but you tested these things and tried to figure it out for yourself? If in doubt, why just not try it at all?

Secondly, your torture testing that you've done couldn't have been valued as a real study on how it affects fish. Know why? Because in studies, they have MULTIPLE experiments take place. More than just one. In a study of what the majority of people think, they don't just ask one person. They ask 100+ people. Starting to see my point here?

Because they're trying to average the MAJORITY. Not just one. So any testing or study that you've done is going to be pointless, because it doesn't hold the value. If this ever turns into a real study and you can present it to us, please let us know. That will be the day when I will stop using this product.

But while your science facts have evidence, because they're science facts, your conclusions that you have jumped to and deemed "evidence" have no real facts to back them up. Sorry.
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
I actually took advice from online that seachem was fine in overdose without reading more about it. To my AMAZEMENT seachem would sell a disinfectant as a CO2 plant product! So, when I wanted to learn more about this, then I tried this product. However, given my level of knowledge I knew there was a high chance of the fish dying with sugar, especially since the other fish barely made it. I do care about my fish, but, After using seachem excel, I learned that these products do not undergo enough testing before being marketed to us. First, how fast they say it should be used in the tank is clearly WRONG. Yeah, but, but in my error and learning you do can learn from at the very least when things go wrong.

As for continuum, there was no research on its safety so I tested it.

My "seachem study" is low quality,and I do not have the results. However, would you honestly look at those photos and ignore it? I can tell you I used double dosage to 2.5 dosage, but no more than 2 for initial dosages and changed the water like I do every 4 days. I was not treating for anything else at the time, my fish were healthy.

At the very least it behooves you, to look at that photo and others if you want me to send them to you.

You can learn from this, because seachem does not publish safety for fish, on their product.

There were alternative behaviors, but, I started noticing weird behavior within 10 minutes of putting it in there. I was so diligent on this thread so that others do not harm their fish too...

I thought it was going to get better, until I figured out it was getting way worse. All of the sudden there was a massive death of many fish. All kinds of crazy symptoms. These are definitely from a strong disinfectant. Their organs were shutting down, half of their bodies wouldn't move. They were pale, they look like I had begun fixing them. There was internal hemogragging, massive swelling, eyes that turned white, swim bladder problems, upside down swimming, not eating, lethargy, fast breathing etc...

AND I wanted to say I do not recommend even overdosing continuum! My fish did suffer, even though he survived, but I know the toxicity was low, at least for him. Still I DO NOT recommend overdosing it

You did not ask how long it took? I lost a fish after the 3rd day, so I thought it was something else. I started noticing big issues around about a week (like 4th or 5th day) and that is when I lost them. That is how I know it accumulated and the damage. They do not test these well enough!

fisharegreat8962 said:
Some of these facts are scientifically proven, and so I respect all this research, but the toxicity and things that have been described don't have real studies, which you yourself have admitted. Studies and scientific testing are where real scientific evidence bases itself off of.

You did torture testing on the continuum? Really? Okay, firstly, I thought you cared about your fish. Really though. Like, you've tried to prove your point about this product being toxic in certain levels, but you tested these things and tried to figure it out for yourself? If in doubt, why just not try it at all?

Secondly, your torture testing that you've done couldn't have been valued as a real study on how it affects fish. Know why? Because in studies, they have MULTIPLE experiments take place. More than just one. In a study of what the majority of people think, they don't just ask one person. They ask 100+ people. Starting to see my point here?

Because they're trying to average the MAJORITY. Not just one. So any testing or study that you've done is going to be pointless, because it doesn't hold the value. If this ever turns into a real study and you can present it to us, please let us know. That will be the day when I will stop using this product.

But while your science facts have evidence, because they're science facts, your conclusions that you have jumped to and deemed "evidence" have no real facts to back them up. Sorry.
 

fisharegreat8962

Member
uncclewis said:
I actually took advice from online that seachem was fine in overdose without reading more about it. To my AMAZEMENT seachem would sell a disinfectant as a CO2 plant product! So, when I wanted to learn more about this, then I tried this product. However, given my level of knowledge I knew there was a high chance of the fish dying with sugar, especially since the other fish barely made it. I do care about my fish, but, After using seachem excel, I learned that these products do not undergo enough testing before being marketed to us. First, how fast they use it is used in the tank is clearly WRONG. Yeah, but, I in my error and learning you do can learn from at the very least when things go wrong.

As for continuum, there was no research on its safety so I tested it.

My "seachem study" low quality, I just do not have the results. However, would you honestly look at those photos and ignore it? I can tell you I used double dosage and changed the water like I do every 4 days. I was not treating for anything else at the time, my fish were healthy.

At the very least it behooves you, to look at that photo and others if you want me to send them to you. The most I ever used was 2.5 dosage and that was not an initial dosage.

You can learn from this, because seachem does not publish safety on their product.

There were alternative behaviors, but, I started noticing weird behavior within 10 minutes of putting it in there. I was so diligent on this thread so that others do not harm their fish too...

I thought it was going to get better, until I figured out it was getting way worse. All of the sudden there was a massive death of many fish. All kinds of crazy symptoms. These are definitely from a strong disinfectant. Their organs were shutting down, half of their bodies wouldn't move. They were pale, they look like I had begun fixing them. There was internal hemogragging, massive swelling, eyes that turned white, swim bladder problems, upside down swimming, not eating, lethargy, fast breathing etc...

AND I wanted to say I do not recommend even overdosing continuum! My fish did suffer, even though he survived, but I know the toxicity was low, at least for him. Still I DO NOT recommend overdosing it
If there is no research on the safety of a product, you wait. You wait until other people have completed valuable and scientific studies that we can base our facts off of. Your study will have been invaluable. You used double dosage? Aren't you just begging for trouble? You can't overdose and then say it's toxic. It's just toxic in high levels. Just like Ammonia, Nitrites and Nitrates are. It's like being a teacher and having two classes and taking the highest scored test in one of the classes and the lowest scored test in the other class and then pretending that clearly one class was superior. Do you see my point? This is why you do not overdose medication! Everyone knows this! It is toxic in high levels! Note that I said in high levels. You're noticing the deaths and behaviors and noting these as if you were adding regular dosage levels. Overdosage is unfair in a study in which overdosage doesn't apply.
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
No, because you guys are on a different world. In the lab we use these chemicals to fix organisms that are dead and dissect them, which I hated doing. I feel like I live on a different planet where it is OK to put them in a tank! This is why they do not have biologists administering these products, I can tell, for sure... And seachem will never release their safety, they are not required to by law because it is not regulated.

Here please look at this. This is what we do with them and we try to stay away from the fumes and everything. For us it is a work hazard because they are toxic substances.

For this compound a 2% solution would be used to starve of nearly all offending organisms that would break down the carcass.
 

fisharegreat8962

Member
uncclewis said:
No, because you guys are on a different world. In the lab we use these chemicals to fix organisms that are dead and dissect them, which I hated doing. I feel like I live on a different planet where it is OK to put them in a tank! This is why they do not have biologists administering these products, I can tell, for sure... And seachem will never release their safety, they are not required to by law because it is not regulated.

Here please look at this. This is what we do with them and we try to stay away from the fumes and everything. For us it is a work hazard because they are toxic substances.

For this compound a 2% solution would be used to starve of nearly all offending organisms that would break down the carcass.
But if you use a chemical as a disinfectant somewhere and add it to a tank, how do you know that the water quality or anything like that won't affect it's toxicity levels? If they do not release safety policies and you're in doubt, then don't use the product. Don't decide to jump to conclusions and then proceed to overdose in an already invaluable study in which overdosage doesn't apply and is therefore unfair when you already knew that almost all chemicals can be toxic when in high levels.


 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Yes other factors can and DO affect the toxicity, this is why this product should NEVER be allowed to be used for such a frivolous purpose. Not this type of product!

Well, I am trying to get it into your head how we use these products in more regulated circles. We have such high standards for humans but we lack it for others. This stuff would never be allowed to even get close to us in this manner and be marketed. I feel the same about using formaldehyde with fish too. I do not use that too. And I hope you do not as well. These are all biotoxins for you too. They can cause long term damage. It is best to stay away from them all, unless you are required to do it for work. Because if you are, I would suggest that you start working on your workers compensation, just in case.

I hoped that the cat dissection would help you to see that using this for this purpose is like putting a 1000L engine in a very small car and trying to only go one inch
 

Grimund

Member
Seachem has an FAQ and they don't recommend using more than recommended dose. I would think they understand the need to not overdose if they put that out there.

And putting large engines in small cars is quite common. 1/4 and 1/8 mile drag races? Not the best comparison there
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Not a 1000L the analogy was that you cannot get the toxin to just stop damaging it is going to damage no matter what, it just has a dose dependent relationship.

I know it says that, but, you must understand my amazement as a biologist that this stuff would even be allowed to be sold. This is so foreign to me. Selling a disinfectant mascarding as CO2 and saying oh I told you not to overdose, is not acceptable.

Do we do this with people? No, and when we do administer drugs, we typically use far less toxic things and we allow for overdosing and it not causing harm.

Basically would you drink this knowing what it does? If not, why would you make your fish?

I do not know why you guys are supporting deplorable behavior on the part of big businesses. But I feel alone here.

Anyway we can discuss this later going to hit the sack soon. What if you watched it kill in a microscope or how the organism reacts to the substance and etc it may seem more real and you will understand for instance what a fixative actually is

This is a human example of it; but the organism is dead.
 

fisharegreat8962

Member
uncclewis said:
Yes other factors can and DO affect the toxicity, this is why this product should NEVER be allowed to be used for such a frivolous purpose. Not this type of product!

Well, I am trying to get it into your head how we use these products in more regulated circles. We have such high standards for humans but we lack it for others. This stuff would never be allowed to even get close to us in this manner and be marketed. I feel the same about using formaldehyde with fish too. I do not use that too. And I hope you do not as well. These are all biotoxins for you too. They can cause long term damage. It is best to stay away from them all, unless you are required to do it for work. Because if you are, I would suggest that you start working on your workers compensation, just in case.

I hoped that the cat dissection would help you to see that using this for this purpose is like putting a 1000L engine in a very small engine and trying to only go one inch.
I continue to disagree. If we shouldn't allow it to be marketed, well, there's nothing we can do about that. Do you have no self-restraint? If you're so worried, just DON'T USE THE PRODUCT. This is my point! No one is forcing this product on you. Formaldehyde with fish is a different topic and while it's slightly related, the toxicity levels between formaldehyde and the product we're discussing are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

They are biotoxins for us you claim, yet you not only decided to do an invaluable study that not only (in your mind) poisoned your fish, but also poisoned you. Even if your study was valuable and scientific, it's stupid to do that until there's studies out there for your and the fish's safety. And if they aren't regulated to deliver the safety hazard to us by law, then I'm sure someone like you will do a good study that's actually valuable.

Even if no one ever does a good study, why wouldn't you just not buy the product and follow your own list of "cheaper and safer" methods? You believe it works. Maybe I won't, but you will, so why not listen to yourself instead of trying to force these things on us? No one is forcing anything on you.
 

slayer5590

Member
The only deplorable behavior here was you using twice the recommended dosage and then blaming the company for your loses.
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
I will bite. I take an advil sometimes. I occasionally take an extra. If I do, is it really the company is not liable for it killing me, if it is that toxic? I do not normally work on this side of testing and medicine. I work with animals and have subjected them to this, but, not for something so frivolous as this and never would I. The company should never be allowed to market it for this use and not expect this to happen. That would never happen in human research. We know people very well, and how they act. So, these safeguards are build into the normal dosage for humans... I am much more accustomed to thinking in those terms, this caught me off guard. This is a blatant disregard for life. I am not blaming them for my overdose, I am blaming them for being businessmen and nothing more or less.

But for all of your health, I strongly encourage you to stay away from it. My main research interests are cognitive dysfunction and I am interested in these effects. These are additive and you may see me in my office later in life with Alzheimer's disease or similar.

The good thing is that for illnesses and CO2 injection there are much more effective things because they allow the immune system to be able to still work and kill the other organism. Kanaplex, metroplex are extremely safe and target a wide variety. For drugs, always stick with what we use on humans, because we first test them on organisms such as fish and make sure they are very effective. Good night all!
 

slayer5590

Member
If you can't read the directions, your at fault not the company.
 

abrooks12376

Member
Glut is really only used as a disinfectant in this form. It comes with an activator bottle which gets tossed if its for aquarium use. My main question still remains. Why though. Injecting co2 is the best way. It's safe of done correctly. Glut safe too, if done correctly. Why really invent the wheel??
 

Grimund

Member
abrooks12376 - there's plenty of other types of wheels out there and even a 'standard' wheel can be improved upon or tuned to specific applications.

It's like a Studded Wheel for traction in icy conditions and a Sticky Wheel for traction in dry conditions. Multifaceted, put simply.
 

abrooks12376

Member
I get it, I love tinkering, I guess it just all seems over complicated and a bit sketchy.. to each his own
 

Grimund

Member
abrooks12376 said:
I get it, I love tinkering, I guess it just all seems over complicated and a bit sketchy.. to each his own
Some are, lol. This sugar seems like one of those sketchy ones
 

fisharegreat8962

Member
uncclewis said:
I will bite. I take an advil sometimes. I occasionally take an extra. If I do, is it really the company is not liable for it killing me, if it is that toxic? I do not normally work on this side of testing and medicine. I work with animals and have subjected them to this, but, not for something so frivolous as this and never would I. The company should never be allowed to market it for this use and not expect this to happen. That would never happen in human research. We know people very well, and how they act. So, these safeguards are build into the normal dosage for humans... I am much more accustomed to thinking in those terms, this caught me off guard. This is a blatant disregard for life. I am not blaming them for my overdose, I am blaming them for being businessmen and nothing more or less.

But for all of your health, I strongly encourage you to stay away from it. My main research interests are cognitive dysfunction and I am interested in these effects. These are additive and you may see me in my office later in life with Alzheimer's disease or similar.

The good thing is that for illnesses and CO2 injection there are much more effective things because they allow the immune system to be able to still work and kill the other organism. Kanaplex, metroplex are extremely safe and target a wide variety. For drugs, always stick with what we use on humans, because we first test them on organisms such as fish and make sure they are very effective. Good night all!
I get where you'd be coming from. Imagine there's a person who's going to overdose something and the person who created the product is condoning the overdosage of it. Obviously I'm not talking about drugs here. Just a product. So get drugs out of your mind. The person who overdosed should be held responsible, but what if they didn't know about the safety hazards of overdosing? So, by law, the person who condoned the overdosage should be held legally responsible and could be sued. There's an example.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED! In this story, you, the person who overdosed, did not even make an effort to contact the people who made this product to see if they condoned it. You didn't even try. And then you're blaming the fact that you overdosed on the company when they didn't condone it because THERE WEREN'T SAFETY REGULATIONS ON THE PRODUCT. SO THEN DON'T USE IT! How do you not understand this?

You know what, you've done useless torture testing on fish, done dissections, subjected poor innocent animals to animal testing, and I don't know why I would be able to get through to anyone who does things like that. I'm going to unsubscribe now, because me stating the facts will not change your opinion because you will clearly never stop jumping to these illogical conclusions based off of invaluable torture testing and non-existent labels on a product. So I'll bow out now. Goodbye.
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
I think this thread went a little off topic, lol. I know of nearly no fish products which present their research on safety. None of it is regulated. They are able to have this compound because glut. is not regulated for this use for the most part. Only when humans are involved, then at most- the concentration allowed is extremely low, and is only used for topical application and to only small amounts of the body and only in certain locations in the world.

My point is that, using these toxic substances in this way is frivolous. For any animal testing, we jump through sooooo many hoops, that I generally avoid it and only resort to it when there are not alternatives. For us to use this toxic substance in this way, it would have to be for world peace (e.g. curing Alz disease) and the general public benefit- while the general public will use it to make CO2. Let alone I do not condone senseless testing.

The fact that overdosing by twice the dosage causes death over a short period, shows that the formulation did not undergo enough testing and is quite dangerous. Very few human drugs at twice dosage would cause significant problems (especially short term).

The fact of the matter is that when most drugs and chemicals are determined to be safe, they first subject organisms to increasing dosages until it is lethal to determine that dosage. So, if a double dosage of this product would kill fish, they would either make it 1% as strong, or they would not market it.

Glut. is sold because it is cheap! Only that... just like formaldehyde; 1 tons costs about 225.00 US for a 37% solution with water, plus you dilute it further. They are cheap chemicals for fish, so that companies can keep more profit.

I do not consider my fish to be any different than me. This is why for me, it is better if you subject one fish to an elevated dosage to see if it is safe than to continually subject them all. Eventually, if it is toxic and you treat your fish well, they WILL die from it, even if you think it was something else.

However, if there is data that a product is toxic, then you do not need to test it. In this case, there is plenty for me.

I understand they are saying not to overdose it, but to release a product that at twice dosage almost always kills, means the risk of the product, is entirely unacceptable.

Also my learning lesson was not to overdose a product if I do not know its safety. This was hard learned. I held the companies up to high of a standard, the human one. Now, I know better and to research them and test if nothing is remotely available. And of course I would only test, if I am going to be introducing the product for the rest of their lives.

Anyway, this went off from the topic at hand, which is that there are more effective alternatives and seachem excel and formaldehyde products are harmful for you. Many years of testing was done just to see how much it would kill everything. So, then we spent many more years developing better stuff. I think that the one from continuum is better. If you guys use it and have a dissolved CO2 meter, please let me know your results and how well it works for you.
 

Aster

Member
I've heard of many people using excel at double or triple the dose to get rid of algae, and their fish were fine. Not saying that overdosing is always safe, but as with all living things, it depends on a lot of circumstances.
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Aster said:
I've heard of many people using excel at double or triple the dose to get rid of algae, and their fish were fine. Not saying that overdosing is always safe, but as with all living things, it depends on a lot of circumstances.
Yeah, that is why I thought it was fine, but I did not read that it was a disinfectant or I would not have done that.
Yeah, I did read that it is Ph dependent, so if you guys have either ph above 7 or below 7, but particularly high ph, then it lingers even longer in the water. However the only way it ever produces CO2 is if the fish process it. Generally the ones that were more strongly affected were smaller fish, but I did lose big fish too, also, I learned that the initial seachem dosage was too high, after seeing the cumulative effects from water changes. Of course we need a study to show it, but the way my fish reacted suggested that while it was no longer in the water after 1-2 days, the fish were still trying to process the toxin, so at least my overdose has shown that it takes at least 3 days for the fish to fully process the toxin, both in the water and what enters their blood. Fyi...
 

Grimund

Member
What size tank and what dosage? I'm curious on both volumes
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
75 gallon and usually 2x initial and subsequent dosages (however I do not know the full amount of time for sure how long it took). I wish I knew, I was extremely busy during the semester and had a lot of stuff to do. as per the bottle, I followed the initial dosage per volume changed, for large water changes. But, now that I think of it, I think they made it through 1-2 of the regular dosages and two initial dosages (I changed the water once). I remember putting it into the water one time when I changed the water and my arm was slightly red later... They died shortly after that and then I realized what I was putting into the tank.

Which reminds me, if you are not following the dosing schedule strictly then you are easily overdosing.

The reason I am saying it takes longer is because I attributed their ill health to something else, they were showing signs way longer between dosages. I was treating them for other stuff, and they had gotten better and I thought it was that. Like literally I had no clue what I was putting in there! I did lose one early, and again I attributed it to something else.
 

Grimund

Member
So you were dosing 75ml on water changes and 15ml daily?
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Here is a study, ha, it DOES say longer than 3 days. As did mine (which I wish never happened )..



Not daily, HA! I was using every other day. so 75 ml plus every 2 days 15 ml. However, mind you my ph was as high as 8, 7.5-8.

However, on the day that I did the WC it was on an everyday schedule* because that is how I would have timed it because I was busy.
 

abrooks12376

Member
Yah but... excel is for human use. Fish don't dose they're own tanks. From a legal standpoint Seachem would have to consider the worst case scenarios and take it from there. Yes it has a child safe cap. No it does not recommend wearing gloves or a mask when handing. Therefore it is harmless enough that the average aquarist (7-99 years old) has been entrusted with proper administration. Don't drink it!!! That's all.
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Actually, since it is not a regulated substance they can do more with it. Yeah, they are definitely business people! I wish they were more, like I care about my fish and thought they would. This goes against most of their other products for an otherwise great company. I think here they just followed the pack.

As per their website for the product, which I wish I read.

First aid measures:
"INGESTION: Rinse mouth with water and drink a glass of water. Further rst aid not generally required.If unconscious, do not induce vomiting. If in doubt, contact a poison information center or a doctor. EYE CONTACT: Immediately ush eyes thoroughly with water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contactlenses after the initial 1-2 minutes and continue ushing for several additional minutes. If effects occur,consult a physician, preferably an ophthalmologist.
SKIN CONTACT: Wash contaminated area with soap and plenty of and water. Get medical advice ifneeded.
INHALATION: In case of inhalation of dust, remove victI'm to fresh air and keep at rest and warm. IfvictI'm feels unwell, call a doctor or physician.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO PHYSICIANS: Treat symptomatically. First aid responders should wearsuitable protective equipment for eyes, skin, and protective mask depending on the situation




Accidental release warning:
SPILL AND LEAK RESPONSE: Wear suitable protective equipment described in section 8. Sweep upscattered materials or vacuum them using a vacuum cleaner so as not to cause dust then collecting intoan empty container. Do not eat drink or smoke near release area, handling, or storage location. Takemeasures to prevent the ow or spread of materials into drains, sewers, basements, or other closed areas.

Use

WORK PRACTICES AND HYGIENE PRACTICES: Install or use appropriate equipment and wearsuitable protective apparatus described in Section 8. Wash thoroughly after handling this product. Donot eat, drink, smoke, or apply cosmetics while handling this product. Avoid generating and breathingdusts or particulates generated by this product. Use in a well-ventilated location. Launder contaminatedclothing before reuse.
STORAGE AND HANDLING PRACTICES: Store material in original containers. Store in a cool, dryarea protected from environmental extremes. Store away from incompatible materials and foodstuffcontainers. Protect containers against physical damage and check regularly for leaks.


VENTILATION AND ENGINEERING CONTROLS: Use adequate ventilation to ensure exposurelevels are maintained below the limits provided below or ventilation devices when administering the product


MATERIALS WITH WHICH SUBSTANCE IS INCOMPATIBLE:Avoid contact with: Strong acids. Strong bases. Strong oxidizers. aka seachem buffers, which I do use.
DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS:




Decomposition products can include and are not limited to: Carbon dioxide, Alcohols, Ethers,Hydrocarbons, Polymer fragments. .










See the following does not apply to the active ingredient because it is less than 1%. So this is the water so ignore the below and follow the above. This is the loop hole in OSHA. This is why it is not regulated for this type of usage.
Acute Toxicity Estimates (ATE) are calculated according to US OSHA Hazard Communication Standard29CFR 1910.1200. The calculation is based on specI c toxicology data for components present inconcentrations greater than 1%.
ACUTE TOXICITY
Acute oral toxicity
The calculated ATE(mix) for this product is > 9,000.Product has negligible toxicity if swallowed.
Acute dermal toxicity
Prolonged skin contact is unlikely to result in absorption of harmful amounts.
Typical for this family of materials.LD50, Rabbit > 5,000 mg/kg Estimated.Acute inhalation toxicity
No adverse effects are anticipated from inhalation.SKIN CORROSION/IRRITATION
Essentially nonirritating to skin.
SERIOUS EYE DAMAGE/EYE IRRITATION
May cause eye irritation. Corneal injury is unlikely.SENSITIZATION
The components of this product are not known to be human skin or respiratory sensitizers.SPECIFIC TARGET ORGAN SYSTEMIC TOXICITY (SINGLE EXPOSURE)


Evaluation of available data suggests that this material is not an STOT-SE toxicant.
 

Grimund

Member
I'm confused here. Human contact with the product seems like it requires far more concentration levels than in the bottle or aquarium. I'm not sure what you're getting at now.

It isn't a regulated product because of the low amount of Glutaraldehyde and the fact it's for aquatic plants. It isn't "meant" for use with fish, but can be. I believe even when dealing with animals, there's far less restrictions in regards to products produced.

Can you please elaborate, and without repeating a majority of your post, what you're trying to get at with this?
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
The product is toxic no matter what, this is why I am studying its effects on long term nerve damage, these are the sort of things we know less about. I am interested in others misfortune, but my goal is to help. They have to put that on the safety part. We are NOT eating it, but rather just putting it into the aquarium is minimal risk to us, and thus they allow us to put up to about 10x the lethal concentration into any tank that we want to kill our fish to our desire. However, OSHA is setup for human ingestion, with this use in mind. So, this is what they have extrapolated that would happen if we ingested this product. They are not here for other animal ethics, they here for humans primarily. They do not want to impede our freedom to greatly. So if we want to dose our tank with toxins with minimal damage to us, we can do so.

The product is toxic no matter how you spin it, but, OSHA allows any concentration below 1%, as long as it is not consumed by humans, to be used, and is not in a form that is readily inhaled (however, you can never avoid all fumes). This is because the risk is relatively low in this form of usage and the dosage they prescribed FOR US. However, there are still risks and so they note those risks there. So, basically, they would give us the authority to use it however we please, but NOT consume and use ventilation.

Now, if we were supposed to ingest this, it has to be .00005% or lower I think. I can't recall the amount and then this safety thing would look way different.

So the loophole is that it is not regulated because OSHA is not setup for fish livelihood. And I wish I read that first because I would know the product. I know you guys are fighting me, but I have long known how toxic this stuff is. It is one of the most toxic substances known to man.
 

Grimund

Member
I can mix chemical A and chemical B together to make mustard gas in my bathtub and I can buy both at the dollar store. I wish I was kidding. OSHA says that both are fit for humans to use. It's how we use these products that dictate the outcome.

Using products off label is one thing that happens. Here in your case, that the product wasn't meant for. It's not labeled with directions for, or marketed as, an algaecide. By not following the label, you generated a different set of events and circumstances that lead to an outcome that differs from what the labeled use would have
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Yes, you can also make formaldehyde. But, we do not make these products. And I do not put them in my tank. Yes, you can also have gluta. in seachem excel this is what I was not describing. For glut. the human use maximum is .1ppm, for mustard gas it is slightly higher. Therefore, you are technically correct, but the concentration is so low that it has minimum effects. STILL!!! People must wear the proper equipment or it is not legal

So, basically, these products irreversibly destroy cells by binding to DNA molecules irreversibly. When this occurs in neurons, it is lost for life. And these low dosage effects are cumulative, such as you guys administering the toxin at home. This is one of the things which interests me scientifically.
 

Grimund

Member
uncclewis said:
Yes, you can also make formaldehyde. But, we do not make these products. And I do not put them in my tank. Yes, you can also have gluta. in seachem excel this is what I was not describing. For glut. the human use maximum is .1ppm, for mustard gas it is slightly higher. Therefore, you are technically correct, but the concentration is so low that it has minimum effects. STILL!!! People must wear the proper equipment or it is not legal
Yes, but OSHA mainly dictates these in the safety policies that are to be placed in work places. I worked at a previous job with Mean Green. The MSDS had to be present in the workplace as the law dictates. I have the same product under my kitchen sink, but I don't need to have the MSDS on hand.
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Well, I would heed the warnings because these all have long term effects. When I was a bit younger, I did not care. But after enough research and seeing people losing it all, then I started caring.

Basically, if you have to use it at work, then have workers comp. If you do not have to subject yourself to it, avoid it. So basically, OSHA does not care about our fish. However, we are not to ingest or inhale it or we could die.

Basically, as a fish company, it is deplorable. But glut. molecule is sooooooo cheap to make, so it makes business sense. However, I am smarter then them and I am willing to tell them to.... you guess

Also, I think seachem tested the continuum product and found it was superior because guess what, they released a product approaching the other one but not as good

I definitely think so!
 

Grimund

Member
Which product is this?

And you can easily make the choice to not use a product as easily as I can to use it. There are people who've used this product over the full span of a fish's life. It didn't do the fish in prematurely in these cases, so I still don't get how using Excel as directed is truly that toxic? Yes, you can point to the reports that say it's toxic, but where's the long term study on aquatic life?

And being 'smarter' is subjective.
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
I debate that people have used it for a fishes entire lifespan because often times we do not even know how long this is. However, when I have asked the few people who have fish that live long, and have clown loaches if they have ever used it, they said no. I have yet to meet any ppl who have, honestly.

It is called flourish advance, it is their new product, and makes me realize further that I definitely made the right choice. Seachem knows its days are numbered with excel. However, I will give seachem the advertising genius, because they market it better, but they are very unclear about what they use. If they were open about excel they would only have 1/1000th of the number of population actually using it. However they put all safety things in the back, just very smart. It also is good because it causes premature fish and plant death, which ensures that people buy more of their water conditioners.

I strongly recommend continuum. My plants are growing like crazy and they look very healthy (except for one that my fish keep munchning on). Yummy I guess... however, its still making it. Like the health is much much better.

I removed 3/4 of my plants 1-2 weeks ago. It was 5 gallons of wisteria when I tried smashing it temporarily into my 5 gallon to save it. its already all coming back. Also my fish dug up that plant today.


Also it would appear that I was prematuring worrying about ethanol on the others, because it would appear that ethanol is created in breaking down excel
 

Aster

Member
Why is Continuum better than Advance?
 

abrooks12376

Member
Here is the 75 gallon sa setup, these fish are all less than a year old and have been subjected to 50ml of straight metricide 14 everyday.
 

abrooks12376

Member
While the plants look awful the fish look absolutely amazing, they've grown to their full potential in months. Sadly they all eat plants as do the 3 Pecos in here so it's a losing battle for the plants yet they still grow.
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Well. Its a neurotoxin. Eventually they will die from it. When I can't answer, sorry. No one knows
 

abrooks12376

Member
And here's the 40b after a wc. Injected co2 and 25ml metricide daily
Look closely, this tank is under a build my led, see any algae on the back glass? Intake/outtake? Anywhere?? There is some but I won't locate it for you why really invent the wheel..
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
It adds energy directly for plants to grow. So, they can also use photosynthesis and it has hormomes which enhance this and root production. Provides more co2 and is non toxic for both of you
And probably reduces nitrates,but the last part, I'm not promising. Its dependant on the number of plants
 

clk89

Member
I was actually interested in the science part, but in more laymen terms. As it is it sounds more and more like an ad for this Continuum product then anything else. I could post my tank too that plants are growing, lush and green just like yours. I don't use CO2, Excel, nor Continuum, but I'm also not saying that those products must suck because I get healthy plants and fish without using them.
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
I will. Give me a bit. I understand. Writing a paper too. That's why it is vague
 

abrooks12376

Member
Science aside. Whatever you're doing isn't working. Your fast growing stem plants are riddled with bba.. dead giveaway..
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Lol. Its working well thank you. I have fish that are big and eat about my hand big every 2 days. You do better. plus, I have high light. To penetrate 30 inches deep. Ill be back in a bit and its not a neurotoxin. Sorry I'm multI tasking. Its not neuron specific. Its cytotoxic. Meaning, it just kills all cells. Not just neurons, however, it does them too.
 

abrooks12376

Member
High light huh?? What exactly is lighting your 30" tank? Par ratings? I fail to see how hand feeding is related too any of this??
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
also look at my other photo, that is actually what was burried deep within my other wisteria and was starting to die. That is what it looked like before. I might not be able to talk until tomorrow. But you all are fun, about to get busy for a couple of days because I have a deadline for a paper on monday and have to get my car registration and tag transferred before all insurance and everything expires from out of state on monday

I am saying that the light is 100 watts of LED on the surface so algae grows more strongly there right at the surface. I am saying that they eat a lot so when food is introduced a lot of excess algae- loving stuff is there. I also use live foods and frozen foods, and I am sure they have algae. When I was using excel before overdosing, do you want to see the photo?really? it looks quite terrible compared to this. one second let me get it. They eat a lot. I actually have a denitrate tower because they are such growing pigs lol. many were starving when I got them.
 

abrooks12376

Member
Dude. I'm saying I have an led that is far more powerful and I have almost no fast growing stem plants @ 16" ..so many words yet so much to learn.. good luck with your car
 
  • Thread Starter

uncclewis

Member
Yes, but probably do not have the nutrients that I have. I will not tell you how over stocked I am because I am ashamed, but trust me, everyone I have bothered telling me is surprised I do not have algae everywhere.

I have 3 finnex planted + and 4 LED that provide light in the back that keep my loaches in the front so I can see them that are about 10Watts

That may be true, but I had 300Watts of a different LED it was no where near as bright. I switched to this

Either way my plants grow extremely fast, and are very healthy. I cannot help the excess nutrients, but I have my nitrate tower to help and eventually I will rehome some fish. I am going to be upgrading before long. Actually at the end of the year... right now they are in a large quarantine.

And with this product, I actually turn the lights off sometimes and they don't run all day or for 1-2 hours... which is different
 

abrooks12376

Member
Bba is not present on a healthy plant. You can mediate excess nutrients with proper stocking. It's all very simple really. Not made to be as complicated as you say.
 

Random Great Thread

Latest threads

Aquarium Calculator

Aquarium Photo Contests

Find a Guru

Top Bottom