Despite the similarities, an ioniser is the only system to be registered. Although the APVMA has clearly stated that it is not willing to guarantee the efficacy of any other systems it has chosen to exempt the systems from registration and testing.
The system known as Ultra Violet + Hydrogen Peroxide also presents a situation where there is one rule for one and another rule for another.
An article published in a Commonwealth Government publication - CDI (Communicable Diseases Intelligence), Volume 21 No23, 25 December 1997 notes an incident of infections from a spa in Victoria that used Ultra Violet + Hydrogen Peroxide. The extract is self explanatory - "The outdoor spa pool was being treated with hydrogen peroxide solution.......... The use of UV - hydrogen peroxide systems is not allowed in public pools in Victoria due to poor performance levels."
The APVMA was made aware of the problem at the time and since then. The APVMA has chosen to do nothing and when quizzed about its inaction the reasons could be interpreted as it could not be bothered.
Even though the Victorian Government unambiguously states "The use of UV- hydrogen peroxide systems is not allowed in public pools in Victoria due to poor performance levels."
The APVMA has not acted on the expressed risk to public health but yet acts against ionisers with no evidence.
Interestingly, as part of the tactics of half truths, misrepresentation and innuendo adopted by the APVMA, it has used the reference to the incident published in the CDI article as justification of its actions against ionisers and for continued warnings on its web site.