UV sterilizers are not effective and we should all stop using them, Right?

[spidercrab]

I agree waste of money. Maybe if you have bought everything else possible for your aquarium top of the line and you have extra money to burn go for it. I've even heard plenty of stories of them actually nuking tanks or flooding homes. Because if the pump stops the UV can melt right through the plumbing.

 

[TheHarold]

That's not evidence.
Link me to a Randy Holmes Farley article that extols their benefit?

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. I haven’t read a scientific paper about the bodily risk of jumping in front of moving vehicle; yet people still avoid it based on what other people have experienced...

 

[Neoalchemist]

Make sure the one you chose is described as a sterilizer not a clarifier. It doest take a lot of watts to make a 2000 gallon pond not be green, Probably like 15w. But for other more colonial algae species that will only have the same effect for a much smaller body of water. I use a 55w in surface skimmer unit to provide relief from floating filament fw algae. Just something to keep in mind.

Wrong wave lenght. Sterillizers produce strong uv-c, unlike your lighting that produces uv-a and uv-b which is less dangerous. Also the distance from the light source in a stetillizer is very small. Even a few extra millimeters in distance from the light source can render the unit in-effective. This is why flow rate and power of light can be crucial depending on which pest you are trying to control.

 

[pdxmonkeyboy]

I will say that having email with and read some of the stuff that aquabiometrics has been doing to quantify bacteria populations in the aquarium I got over this notion that 99% of the bacteria in aquariums is on the rocks and not in the water column. Is UV the perfect solution? No. Is there any "perfect" product for aquariums?.. or anything for that matter.

While I am a man of science and have a masters degree in wildlife science, I don't have to read peer reviewed journal articles to come to a satisfactory conclusion on things. It is nice to have them, but at some point you can sufficiently come to conclusions without a study to confirm them.

But whatevs.. as someone said early "you do you, and I will do me". Me has a 220 watt UV unit on his aquarium. The cost of this unit as compared to my lifestock? Maybe 1/100th?

 

[Scott Campbell]

I will say that having email with and read some of the stuff that aquabiometrics has been doing to quantify bacteria populations in the aquarium I got over this notion that 99% of the bacteria in aquariums is on the rocks and not in the water column. Is UV the perfect solution? No. Is there any "perfect" product for aquariums?.. or anything for that matter.

While I am a man of science and have a masters degree in wildlife science, I don't have to read peer reviewed journal articles to come to a satisfactory conclusion on things. It is nice to have them, but at some point you can sufficiently come to conclusions without a study to confirm them.

But whatevs.. as someone said early "you do you, and I will do me". Me has a 220 watt UV unit on his aquarium. The cost of this unit as compared to my lifestock? Maybe 1/100th?

If anything, my Aquabiometrics report has made me even more reluctant to eradicate all the bacteria floating around in my aquarium. Simply because none of it tested as a fish or coral pathogen and I have no idea what role all this bacteria is fulfilling. I expect most (if not all) of the free floating bacteria is probably beneficial in some manner. So I'm not sure what is accomplished by blindly killing bacteria just for the sake of killing bacteria.

 

[brandon429]

How do successful nano/ pico reefs who change all the water factor

that’s most insulting of all actions to reef water, seems not a factor in coral health requirements especially if spot feeding is sufficient. its a water-wasteful method admitted, improvements on water wasting are welcomed

that doesn’t mean I think the water lacks diversity

coral feeding bacterial aggregates, nutrient floc, all present in reef water

to have them is ideal, living plankton

we’ve been measuring total water column insult for two decades patterns are set though, even if ideal isn’t present we still have to chip out live coral constantly to make room, coral growth is excessive even in complete water exchange long term systems. in my opinion it’s helpful to know that strong turnover works, even if we don’t pay for a measure or for a supplement

to measure out of curiosity is great, I’d enjoy seeing the reefbowl sampled

 

[Scott Campbell]

How do successful nano/ pico reefs who change all the water factor

that’s most insulting of all actions to reef water, seems not a factor in coral health requirements especially if spot feeding is sufficient. its a water-wasteful method admitted, improvements on water wasting are welcomed

that doesn’t mean I think the water lacks diversity

coral feeding bacterial aggregates, nutrient floc, all present in reef water

to have them is ideal, living plankton

we’ve been measuring total water column insult for two decades patterns are set though, even if ideal isn’t present we still have to chip out live coral constantly to make room, coral growth is excessive even in complete water exchange long term systems. in my opinion it’s helpful to know that strong turnover works, even if we don’t pay for a measure or for a supplement

to measure out of curiosity is great, I’d enjoy seeing the reefbowl sampled

It's a good question. I would imagine every strategy is shaping the bacterial make-up of the individual tank in some manner. People worry that skimmers skew the bacterial populations toward fewer free floating organisms. It appears macro-algae growth and turf scrubbers influence bacterial populations. I would guess 100% water changes have their own effect. Maybe UV sterilization is no better or worse. Trying to kill all the free-floating bacteria without knowing what that bacteria actually does and then releasing all the nutrients bound up by that bacteria back into the system just *seems* less than optimal to me. But really - who knows.

 

[pdxmonkeyboy]

Maybe the nutrients bound by the bacteria are released to filter feeding corals?

 

[Marlon C]

Uv killed my dinos.

 

[Scott Campbell]

Maybe the nutrients bound by the bacteria are released to filter feeding corals?

It would be interesting to know what happens. Perhaps the nutrients are taken up by corals and filter feeders and the impact of bacterial activity is diminished. Perhaps the existing organisms in the tank simply re-establish the exact same bacterial mix with the nutrients. Perhaps the UV system keeps the bacterial make-up of the tank in a constant state of flux with bacterial strains waxing and waning. Perhaps it pushes nutrients toward surface bacteria. Might be something we eventually figure out with Aquabiometric tests.

 

[jlts21]

I agree waste of money. Maybe if you have bought everything else possible for your aquarium top of the line and you have extra money to burn go for it. I've even heard plenty of stories of them actually nuking tanks or flooding homes. Because if the pump stops the UV can melt right through the plumbing.

And that would nuke or flood your tank how? If the pump that feeds it dies then no water will be going through it. Same goes for if you have it plumbed from a return manifold. If your return pump dies it will not be pushing water. And your setup should not flood your house if the return pump shuts off or dies anyway

 

[LC8Sumi]

And that would nuke or flood your tank how? If the pump that feeds it dies then no water will be going through it. Same goes for if you have it plumbed from a return manifold. If your return pump dies it will not be pushing water. And your setup should not flood your house if the return pump shuts off or dies anyway

If it’s plumbed into the DT and is below the waterline, it will empty the tank

 

[jlts21]

If it’s plumbed into the DT and is below the waterline, it will empty the tank

Explain to me how it would empty your tank. Does your tank empty when the pump shuts off? No, at least I hope not. If the pump stops your not pulling water from the sump (*hint* the pump is not running) and the return plumbing has nothing to do with water draining to the sump (that's what drain lines are for) and even if it does, your tank will only drain to the top of your drain lines

 

[LC8Sumi]

Explain to me how it would empty your tank. Does your tank empty when the pump shuts off? No, at least I hope not. If the pump stops your not pulling water from the sump (*hint* the pump is not running) and the return plumbing has nothing to do with water draining to the sump (that's what drain lines are for) and even if it does, your tank will only drain to the top of your drain lines

That's how: There is a back-syphon on the red line (just like there is a back-syphon when you shut your return in the sump & the tank empties till the nozzle of the input of the return near the top of your tank - or in the case of the uv, till the input of the pump for the uv)

 

[sharpimage]

Explain to me how it would empty your tank. Does your tank empty when the pump shuts off? No, at least I hope not. If the pump stops your not pulling water from the sump (*hint* the pump is not running) and the return plumbing has nothing to do with water draining to the sump (that's what drain lines are for) and even if it does, your tank will only drain to the top of your drain lines

I think you missed the line he said about no water, the bulb burns through the housing and it cracks.

 

[jlts21]

That's how: There is a back-syphon on the red line (just like there is a back-syphon when you shut your return in the sump & the tank empties till the nozzle of the input of the return near the top of your tank - or in the case of the uv, till the input of the pump for the uv)

I don’t know about you, but I use siphon breaks. Utilize siphon breaks like your supposed to and you won’t have that issue. But regardless, it still wouldn’t empty your DT unless you had the output all the way to the sand in your DT

I think you missed the line he said about no water, the bulb burns through the housing and it cracks.

Nope I didn’t miss it

 

[LC8Sumi]

I don’t know about you, but I use siphon breaks. Utilize siphon breaks like your supposed to and you won’t have that issue. But regardless, it still wouldn’t empty your DT unless you had the output all the way to the sand in your DT

Nope I didn’t miss it

The UV is a closed loop, so you can’t really use a siphon break on its input. It’s not the output that will empty the tank, but the via the input.

 

[HotManwich]

The obvious troll is obvious. And if you really aren't trolling well then... jeez dude figure yourself out. This makes me want to post the whole thread on the subreddit /r/iamverysmart.

Here's an article I found after less than a minute of searching explaining EXACTLY that UV light kills and deforms dinoflagellate cells, and reduces their survival and growth rates. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-HYFZ199702000.htm

And another https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01252452
and another where they used it to kill dinos from a reservoir https://www.osti.gov/biblio/220056

Those three articles took me lass than a minute to find. And that's just stuff about dinoflagellates. I'm sick and tired of seeing people making claims with no evidence behind them or denying information because they don't believe in it. "There's no evidence that they do anything. ShOw mE a pEeR rEviEwED ArTiCLe." There's three buddy. People like you who straight up deny facts and information in favor of saying there's no evidence of something (when there is) are the reason vaccine rates have dropped and children are dying of preventable diseases, or flat earthers exist. It's harmful to us as a society and I instantly lose respect for anyone who does that crap.

Seriously. Get a grip.

In the absolute most basic of terms:
UV sterilization has been proven to kill bacteria, viruses, and microorganisms. It's not a stretch in any way shape or form to apply it to the microorganisms in a tank. By flooding an area with UV light you are going to kill microorganisms. Thus, by flooding your tank water with UV light you are going to kill the things in the water. It's not rocket science.

And if you're doing this to be funny, read the room. No one's laughing.

 

[LC8Sumi]

The obvious troll is obvious. And if you really aren't trolling well then... jeez dude figure yourself out. This makes me want to post the whole thread on the subreddit /r/iamverysmart.

Here's an article I found after less than a minute of searching explaining EXACTLY that UV light kills and deforms dinoflagellate cells, and reduces their survival and growth rates. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-HYFZ199702000.htm

And another https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01252452
and another where they used it to kill dinos from a reservoir https://www.osti.gov/biblio/220056

Those three articles took me lass than a minute to find. And that's just stuff about dinoflagellates. I'm sick and tired of seeing people making claims with no evidence behind them or denying information because they don't believe in it. "There's no evidence that they do anything. ShOw mE a pEeR rEviEwED ArTiCLe." There's three buddy. People like you who straight up deny facts and information in favor of saying there's no evidence of something (when there is) are the reason vaccine rates have dropped and children are dying of preventable diseases, or flat earthers exist. It's harmful to us as a society and I instantly lose respect for anyone who does that crap.

Seriously. Get a grip.

In the absolute most basic of terms:
UV sterilization has been proven to kill bacteria, viruses, and microorganisms. It's not a stretch in any way shape or form to apply it to the microorganisms in a tank. By flooding an area with UV light you are going to kill microorganisms. Thus, by flooding your tank water with UV light you are going to kill the things in the water. It's not rocket science.

And if you're doing this to be funny, read the room. No one's laughing.

I agree, but I think the misunderstanding is that while the UV will kill cells, those have to actually go through it more or less 100% - which is not evidently done in an aquarium. It’s easy with a water supply pipe, because with that only the water is used that comes off the UV and then goes to the customers. But in the aquarium there are lots and lots of surface areas where itch, bacteria, algae, dinos are attached to and won’t come off (all of them) to enter the steriliser. One can think of it if there was a bypass pipe parallel to the steriliser in commercial applications - which would then mean that the water after the steriliser, where the pipes join again gets contaminated again. There is a good reason why UV in our hobby works for some and not for others, and this is one of those reasons. Power and contact time being the others

 

[Sidius]

@HotManwich you may not hear it but I'm giving you a slow clap... In one breath OP is saying that setting up a study/experiment would be easy but then claims all attempts by others are not acceptable examples, anecdotal, etc.

@Daniel76 Didn't BRS do a lengthy test on the effects of UV on a reef, over the course of months, and publish it on youtube? Or are you claiming that they're lying because they "have some skin in the game" and stand to gain by preaching false information about equipment they sell?

I'm pretty sure they have proven many times over that if equipment fails to meet the claims that they have no issue calling that piece of equipment or the company out for it.