Well something i stumbled across on an australian website
two of the mroe interesting claims
"a lot of public poolsi n the USA use ionisers"
"Q: Do I still have to add stabilizer (isocyanuric acid) to the pool water?
A: No, stabilizer is used to maintain chlorine levels in pools that use it. If you choose to oxidize the pool or spa with something other than chlorine you will not need stabilizer. Stabiliser is currently classed as a Toxicity Level One chemical in the USA by their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Use of it is banned in indoor pools and it is prohibited from swimming in levels higher than 30ppm in outdoor pools. There are many documented cases of serious physical harm being suffered by swimmers exposed to high levels of chlorine stabilizer.
The APVMA (Australian Government Body in Charge of Regulating Pool Chemicals) does not class stabilizer as a pool chemical and has therefore not required it to be registered as such. If it were to be assessed under the current APVMA guidelines for Swimming Pool and Spa Chemicals it would no doubt fail the toxicity test contained within these guidelines. Failing this toxicity test by stabiliser would then necessitate the recall of all stabilized chlorine for sale in Australia. We mention this because the APVMA was maligning ionisers here in Australia for several years.
This situation arose when the APVMA demanded that our copper and silver anodes be registered as a swimming pool “chemical†under the banner of “protecting†the public. There has been no recorded incidence due to ionizer use in Australia and there are tens of thousands of ionized pools in Australia at present. This is not the case with chemical controlled pools where problems with skin, respiratory tract malfunction, eyes, and digestive disorders abound. The fact that chlorine creates trihalomethanes that are proven carcinogens and are present in most chlorine pools gives even more credence to the argument that ionization is by far the safer alternative.
Copper is present in much greater amounts in your drinking water than in a pool fitted with a Bioniser. Silver is approved for ingestion in water, with no upper limit on the quantity present, set by none other than the World Health Organization (WHO). We have, at our office, a packet of stabilizer that was sold in Australia that says “may cause death in childrenâ€. This is the voluntary warning from the manufacturer yet the APVMA insists there is no reason to register this chemical.
You be the judge.
This story was not included here with the intention of maligning the work of the APVMA it is to show how some potentially harmful chemicals can slip through the cracks via bureaucratic processes thus placing the unsuspecting public at potential risk. "
what a crock - although you do realise you are swimming in toxic dumps with chlorine and cyanuric acid
two of the mroe interesting claims
"a lot of public poolsi n the USA use ionisers"
"Q: Do I still have to add stabilizer (isocyanuric acid) to the pool water?
A: No, stabilizer is used to maintain chlorine levels in pools that use it. If you choose to oxidize the pool or spa with something other than chlorine you will not need stabilizer. Stabiliser is currently classed as a Toxicity Level One chemical in the USA by their Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Use of it is banned in indoor pools and it is prohibited from swimming in levels higher than 30ppm in outdoor pools. There are many documented cases of serious physical harm being suffered by swimmers exposed to high levels of chlorine stabilizer.
The APVMA (Australian Government Body in Charge of Regulating Pool Chemicals) does not class stabilizer as a pool chemical and has therefore not required it to be registered as such. If it were to be assessed under the current APVMA guidelines for Swimming Pool and Spa Chemicals it would no doubt fail the toxicity test contained within these guidelines. Failing this toxicity test by stabiliser would then necessitate the recall of all stabilized chlorine for sale in Australia. We mention this because the APVMA was maligning ionisers here in Australia for several years.
This situation arose when the APVMA demanded that our copper and silver anodes be registered as a swimming pool “chemical†under the banner of “protecting†the public. There has been no recorded incidence due to ionizer use in Australia and there are tens of thousands of ionized pools in Australia at present. This is not the case with chemical controlled pools where problems with skin, respiratory tract malfunction, eyes, and digestive disorders abound. The fact that chlorine creates trihalomethanes that are proven carcinogens and are present in most chlorine pools gives even more credence to the argument that ionization is by far the safer alternative.
Copper is present in much greater amounts in your drinking water than in a pool fitted with a Bioniser. Silver is approved for ingestion in water, with no upper limit on the quantity present, set by none other than the World Health Organization (WHO). We have, at our office, a packet of stabilizer that was sold in Australia that says “may cause death in childrenâ€. This is the voluntary warning from the manufacturer yet the APVMA insists there is no reason to register this chemical.
You be the judge.
This story was not included here with the intention of maligning the work of the APVMA it is to show how some potentially harmful chemicals can slip through the cracks via bureaucratic processes thus placing the unsuspecting public at potential risk. "
what a crock - although you do realise you are swimming in toxic dumps with chlorine and cyanuric acid
