Warning: Use Vibrant at your own risk

[GARRIGA]

I am just commenting RE the pests being bugs -- common misconception. If you Google EPA and pesticides, you will find a definition that says a pesticide is any pest, including plants, algae, etc.

Edit, here is the legal definition of what a pest is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/152.5

Perhaps then algaecide would be the more appropriate word. Same labeling requirements such as found on API Algaefix is what I believe the focus of these discussions center around. Don't have a bottle and assume that's what others are referring to.

 

[reef_ranch]

No. It says 'blend' and that could literally be anything. So, let's say you make some stuff - you take some aquarium water, you add some food coloring, and some sugar, and let it get good and stinky over the course of a couple of weeks. Definitely could call this a 'bacterial product' - yay for you! Now, you take that stuff and fill a bottle up with it to 95% of the volume of the bottle and then fill the remainder of the bottle with 5% RODI. You still have 95% by volume of your 'bacterial blend', but *NOT* 95% bacteria by volume (or weight). The blended product you are adding does not matter - especially if you say that it is proprietary.

Of course that renders the description meaningless. A bacteria blend could have

I was commenting as to how 95% and the RODI component can be distinguished. Many have questioned the consistency of that 95% assuming it wasn’t water yet it could be anything. Including distilled or tap or RODI that had bacteria added to it with the 5% RODI being just 100% RODI. Although it seems bacteria not one of the components found during testing and why I’ve commented on another thread that perhaps bacteria was used in the formulation of that 95% but not part of the final product.

Marketing is legally deceptive.

The whole point is that it is deceptive. 95% blend which is made with water added to an additional 5% water volume is intentionally deceptive. But even that misses the point of the thread: it is not a bacteria blend at all, but an algicide. While the blend description may pass legal muster, the misrepresentation as to bacteria/algicide, assuming the tests are correct (and I believe they are) does not.

 

[Lyss]

Perhaps then algaecide would be the more appropriate word. Same labeling requirements such as found on API Algaefix is what I believe the focus of these discussions center around. Don't have a bottle and assume that's what others are referring to.

No, I literally just gave a legal definition for pest. An algaecide is a pesticide. Sigh, I'm going into meetings now for work so that will thankfully stop me from feeling the pull to respond to everything

My whole point was not to question concerns over it not being bacteria, as I've said this stuff I'm talking about is veering off from the actual concerns this thread was started over, I was always just saying that even if it turned out to be bacteria, it is still a pesticide.

 

[GARRIGA]

Of course that renders the description meaningless. A bacteria blend could have

The whole point is that it is deceptive. 95% blend which is made with water added to an additional 5% water volume is intentionally deceptive. But even that misses the point of the thread: it is not a bacteria blend at all, but an algicide. While the blend description may pass legal muster, the misrepresentation as to bacteria/algicide, assuming the tests are correct (and I believe they are) does not.

We don't know for a fact it's an algaecide. We've concluded based on the testing presented that it is but some including myself believe independent testing should be done to make that final determination this is in fact an algaecide. To be fair to all involved. We shouldn't just jump to conclussions regardless how acredited one providing those conclusions or assumptions might be. At least not in how see things and I'm looking at this the same way I would any other point having more than one claim.

 

[Lyss]

We don't know for a fact it's an algaecide. We've concluded based on the testing presented that it is but some including myself believe independent testing should be done to make that final determination this is in fact an algaecide. To be fair to all involved. We shouldn't just jump to conclussions regardless how acredited one providing those conclusions or assumptions might be. At least not in how see things and I'm looking at this the same way I would any other point having more than one claim.

Yes, it is an algaecide, it is also a pesticide b/c an algaecide is a pesticide. EVEN if somehow it turned out that it truly is just bacteria in that blend, it is still an algaecide and a pesticide b/c that is what we use it for -- to eliminate pests in our tanks. Another deception in labeling is that you can get around not registering it with the EPA by just saying it's an aquarium cleaner on the bottle. Not saying that is what happened with this product, but saying it would be a way to avoid needing to register it.

 

[IslandLifeReef]

Not sure why you quoted me.

I'm not sure why you think I quoted you.

 

[GARRIGA]

No, I literally just gave a legal definition for pest. An algaecide is a pesticide. Sigh, I'm going into meetings now for work so that will thankfully stop me from feeling the pull to respond to everything

I don't go to meetings anymore. Beauty of working for myself

Upon your return. What's your opinion on the use of Busan 77 which apparently the community has claimed is the active ingredient in Algaefix and apparently a match in Vibrant (still to be concluded).

 

[GARRIGA]

I'm not sure why you think I quoted you.

Because I'm replying to something you quoted me in

 

[IslandLifeReef]

Yes, it is an algaecide, it is also a pesticide b/c an algaecide is a pesticide. EVEN if somehow it turned out that it truly is just bacteria in that blend, it is still an algaecide and a pesticide b/c that is what we use it for -- to eliminate pests in our tanks. Another deception in labeling is that you can get around not registering it with the EPA by just saying it's an aquarium cleaner on the bottle.

All thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs!

This is not to anyone specific, but I think we need to wait for @UWC to get their tests back.

 

[DopamineKata]

I hope that R2R has good lawyers, because if I were UWC and my tests show that there is no algaecide in the bottles, I would be looking at a libel case against the poster and R2R for allowing the discussion to continue as it has.

Section 230 would like a word.

 

[IslandLifeReef]

This is why the horse has to be beaten even after dead. People have not followed the issue, read the other threads or otherwise are uninformed. There have been more than one anonymous person.... first, the main poster is identified and standing behind their work. Second, the tests are well documented and appropriate. Third, this testing saw the eyes of numerous other scientists before it got posted and then also got the approval of our Reef Chemist and a few others that have very high reputations not only in their fields but also in our hobby community. The only thing else that is needed is perhaps one last NMR from somebody else and then, as our respected chemist said "it is game over."

People who would have followed along from the beginning also know that Busan 77 is an EPA registered algaecide that requires accurate labeling or otherwise under penalty like any other EPA registered product.

This is why it must be said many times... and it is an exercise worth doing so that the narrative stays accurate and honest.

I respect your opinion @jda. And no, I have not read every post on this. I have not seen a post identifying @taricha, so I don't know who they are. I don't know where they purchased their bottle of Vibrant from. In one post by @taricha, it was stated that it was Vibrant Freshwater. These tests haven't been independently verified from what I have read.

After saying all of that, I am not saying that @taricha is wrong, only that I am willing to give @UWC a chance to verify and possible explain before I pass judgment for myself.

 

[jda]

Section 230 would like a word.

...not only this, but real lawyers have chimed in that no smart company would ever sue since they would have disclose their formula in discovery to prove that what somebody said was wrong. Even if they win, they lose because everybody knows what is in their product. I am not saying that every company is smart..

For those that do not know, Section 230 says that web platforms are not responsible for the content that their users post. Basically, nobody can sue r2r for this.

 

[RyonFly]

Don't pesticides kill pests, i.e. bugs? Is algae a bug.

Again, why are so many people putting so much faith into one anonymous posters testing of Vibrant? People are ready to hang UWC, but know nothing about the test and are taking one anonymous persons word for it.

I hope that R2R has good lawyers, because if I were UWC and my tests show that there is no algaecide in the bottles, I would be looking at a libel case against the poster and R2R for allowing the discussion to continue as it has.

@taricha and @Randy Holmes-Farley stayed neutral throughout the tests and even with overwhelming evidence their product matched identically with another known algaecide they gave UWC room to comment and clarify. I don't think anyone needs to worry about backlash from them.
What sucks about this whole mess is the fact it was marketed as a natural bacterial product which has as far as I'm concerned been shown to be anything but and people that have lost a lot from using this for their tanks. What ticks me off is how shady they are being and that my bottle of vibrant should have been trashed or at least somewhere where other potentially harmful chemicals should be stored instead of being potentially in reach of my kid. Shady af.

 

[Eagle_Steve]

...not only this, but real lawyers have chimed in that no smart company would ever sue since they would have disclose their formula in discovery to prove that what somebody said was wrong. Even if they win, they lose because everybody knows what is in their product. I am not saying that every company is smart..

For those that do not know, Section 230 says that web platforms are not responsible for the content that their users post. Basically, nobody can sue r2r for this.

Well said sir.

 

[Duffer]

...not only this, but real lawyers have chimed in that no smart company would ever sue since they would have disclose their formula in discovery to prove that what somebody said was wrong. Even if they win, they lose because everybody knows what is in their product. I am not saying that every company is smart..

For those that do not know, Section 230 says that web platforms are not responsible for the content that their users post. Basically, nobody can sue r2r for this.

Bingo...most folks don't realize that fact:

What protection does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provide?


As part of its broader review of market-leading online platforms, the U.S. Department of Justice analyzed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances.

 

[elysics]

Of course that renders the description meaningless. A bacteria blend could have

The whole point is that it is deceptive. 95% blend which is made with water added to an additional 5% water volume is intentionally deceptive. But even that misses the point of the thread: it is not a bacteria blend at all, but an algicide. While the blend description may pass legal muster, the misrepresentation as to bacteria/algicide, assuming the tests are correct (and I believe they are) does not.

of all the things at issue here, the 95% cultured bacteria blend isn't one (if it were accurate). It follows the same logic as every other product that has a blend/mxture/preparation in it. It didn't even occur to me that people would think that is supposed to mean pure bacteria. Did you expect a dry paste to come out of the bottle with only 5% liquid?

 

[jda]

I respect your opinion @jda. And no, I have not read every post on this. I have not seen a post identifying @taricha, so I don't know who they are. I don't know where they purchased their bottle of Vibrant from. In one post by @taricha, it was stated that it was Vibrant Freshwater. These tests haven't been independently verified from what I have read.

After saying all of that, I am not saying that @taricha is wrong, only that I am willing to give @UWC a chance to verify and possible explain before I pass judgment for myself.

You should read more. My guess is that your opinions will change when you do.

I think that waiting to personally pass judgement is a good idea. Labeling what was done as one anonymous person doing some unverified tests (or whatever you typed) was quite a distance from accurate.

 

[Terence]

I think that waiting to personally pass judgement is a good idea. Labeling what was done as one anonymous person doing some unverified tests (or whatever you typed) was quite a distance from accurate.

Without me passing personal judgement, to the random web visitor that happens upon that thread, that is completely accurate. @taricha may not be anonymous to some, but in that thread he absolutely is. And, while most should have no reason to believe the tests are wrong, intentionally or otherwise, as far as I have seen, that NMR test has not yet been independently verified.

 

[Terence]

Much of this thread is getting old, but it has made me do some additional learning - as best as my non-pro-scientist mind can handle. I thought this might be an interesting related read for some of you. https://academic.oup.com/femsre/article-pdf/41/6/880/21652564/fux029.pdf

 

[Treefer32]

I, like many others fell victom to a cure in a bottle to fight off some briopsys and cyano. Thinking it was more bacteria than algaecide. I followed the directions and dosed my 340 gallon system with it. The only adverse effect was an explosion of cyano and the briopsis didn't die nor did it expand. Eventually I used Reeflux and the Briopsys died. I then worked on getting phosphates down and increased flow and the cyano disappeared.

What in Algaefix or Vibrant would cause cyano explosions? Or is it killing an invisible algae that was consuming the nutrients in the past?