Melafix And Uv Sterilizer

FishForums.net Pet of the Month
🐶 POTM Poll is Open! 🦎 Click here to Vote! 🐰
Dechlorinator works so fast and usually you put in a large enough dose so that chances are exceptionally slim that dechlorinator would be rendered unless.
 
not being a scientist, i offer no evidence, except the fact that many skin and other protection creams and potions add tea tree oil, FOR its uv protection properties. and tea tree oil and uv are used in the aquaculture business on a large scale to control and prevent infection.

what i cant find is any warning anywhere, that tea tree oil breaks down, when in water, because of UV. though the concentrated containers are best kept from UV light.


only found one comment on the break down of tea tree oil, and that was for a hair tonic!!!!!!
 
Just because tea tree oil is in some sunscreens doesn't mean it's immune to uv radiation...
What bignose is trying to say is that you don't know exactly how uv light will react with melafix, therefor it's safer to assume that it does react. Much in the same way you don't know exactly how a found object will react with your tank water, therefor you assume it will react.
 
Ah ha, boboboy, which is better: for the sun's UV to break up the molecules on the layer of creme that is on the outside of your skin, or for the sun to break up the molecules in your skin? The sunscreen has some reflective properties, but it also is there to be sacrificial so that the molecules on the sunscreen get broken up rather than the ones of your skin. Those molecules on the outside adsorb the rays, and the reaction of those molecules are just like I've been saying. This is a large reason why sunscreen needs to be reapplied periodically (that and a lot of them get wiped off with sweat).

Please go read an organic chemistry textbook, or even better a textbook on polymerization, especially the chapters about how organic molecules react to UV radiation. Again, in polymerization all the time, UV lamps are used to keep the reactions going. The reactions keep going because the UV radiation energizes the molecules, and the molecules use this extra energy to bond together. This ( http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/1560060101001.png ) isn't the best picture, but it is an example of what I am talking about. The organic molecules on the left are very stable just on their own. But, being exposed to UV light breaks open those double bonds, and the moleucules start to bond together to fulfill the bonding requirements. UV light can also break open rings and sometimes single bonds. And so, UV can break open the bonds of the chemicals in the tea tree oil, and make them bond with other things, or polymerize together or who knows. If UV light didn't do this, why would they be used all the the time in polymerization experiments and even on the processing level? For that matter, some printers have a UV lamp in them so that the ink bonds together and hardens rather than runs. It is very well understood the way UV light reacts with organic molecules. And you don't have to take my word for it, go to your library and read a book on organic chemistry or polymerization.

I told you before, I couldn't find any study on what specifically happens to the ingredients in tea tree oil when exposed to UV. Most likely, there isn't a big call for that knowledge in the research world. It just hasn't been studied because it isn't all that interesting. And, it isn't all that interesting because it has been known for a long time what happens to organic chemicals when exposed to UV. But, again, if you look these things up in the proper texts, not just on the Internet, you will find it is pretty well understood. Just because no one has done a study on it does not mean that it doesn't occur. I am trying to share my expertise and knowledge about such things, I have studied them and read journal articles about polymerization using UV, if you are really going to be stubborn I'll dig out my organic chemistry book and my polymers book but I'd rather not since I plan on moving soon and they are packed away. But, like I said, any good polymers book or organic chemistry book is going to talk about the reaction organic chemicals have to UV light. Again, you don;t just have to take me word for it, this can be independently checked by you. Please do go check these out on your own before you try to argue these points again, because if you don't, it is only an argument of your beliefs versus the facts I am trying to present. And it seems right now no matter how many facts I try to present you are just going to believe what you are going to believe, and it is pointless for me to continue. I'd personally rather continue to try to discuss these issues and others scientifically and share my knowledge of chemical processes, but if I have to argue against just belief and not fact, it is pointless to try to continue. Please let me know how you want to proceed.
 
Ah ha, boboboy, which is better: for the sun's UV to break up the molecules on the layer of creme that is on the outside of your skin, or for the sun to break up the molecules in your skin? The sunscreen has some reflective properties, but it also is there to be sacrificial so that the molecules on the sunscreen get broken up rather than the ones of your skin. Those molecules on the outside adsorb the rays, and the reaction of those molecules are just like I've been saying. This is a large reason why sunscreen needs to be reapplied periodically (that and a lot of them get wiped off with sweat).

Please go read an organic chemistry textbook, or even better a textbook on polymerization, especially the chapters about how organic molecules react to UV radiation. Again, in polymerization all the time, UV lamps are used to keep the reactions going. The reactions keep going because the UV radiation energizes the molecules, and the molecules use this extra energy to bond together. This ( http://www.emeraldinsight.com/fig/1560060101001.png ) isn't the best picture, but it is an example of what I am talking about. The organic molecules on the left are very stable just on their own. But, being exposed to UV light breaks open those double bonds, and the moleucules start to bond together to fulfill the bonding requirements. UV light can also break open rings and sometimes single bonds. And so, UV can break open the bonds of the chemicals in the tea tree oil, and make them bond with other things, or polymerize together or who knows. If UV light didn't do this, why would they be used all the the time in polymerization experiments and even on the processing level? For that matter, some printers have a UV lamp in them so that the ink bonds together and hardens rather than runs. It is very well understood the way UV light reacts with organic molecules. And you don't have to take my word for it, go to your library and read a book on organic chemistry or polymerization.

I told you before, I couldn't find any study on what specifically happens to the ingredients in tea tree oil when exposed to UV. Most likely, there isn't a big call for that knowledge in the research world. It just hasn't been studied because it isn't all that interesting. And, it isn't all that interesting because it has been known for a long time what happens to organic chemicals when exposed to UV. But, again, if you look these things up in the proper texts, not just on the Internet, you will find it is pretty well understood. Just because no one has done a study on it does not mean that it doesn't occur. I am trying to share my expertise and knowledge about such things, I have studied them and read journal articles about polymerization using UV, if you are really going to be stubborn I'll dig out my organic chemistry book and my polymers book but I'd rather not since I plan on moving soon and they are packed away. But, like I said, any good polymers book or organic chemistry book is going to talk about the reaction organic chemicals have to UV light. Again, you don;t just have to take me word for it, this can be independently checked by you. Please do go check these out on your own before you try to argue these points again, because if you don't, it is only an argument of your beliefs versus the facts I am trying to present. And it seems right now no matter how many facts I try to present you are just going to believe what you are going to believe, and it is pointless for me to continue. I'd personally rather continue to try to discuss these issues and others scientifically and share my knowledge of chemical processes, but if I have to argue against just belief and not fact, it is pointless to try to continue. Please let me know how you want to proceed.

please understand i do realise what you are saying, i am mealy putting another point of view. one however that is, supported by the evidence, generally available. believe it or not i understand you comments on the possible polymerisation caused by UV on tea tree oil. But you must understand, i can find no warning, or article on uv used with tea tree oil, or the ingredients of matafix. i can however find warnings not to us uv with malachite green.

my problem is, whilst fully understanding you point, i can find no practical evidence, that uv in an aquarium, causes any problems with metafix! yet i can find evidence that other treatments are effected!

perhaps the requirement's needed for the polymerisation, are not met, by aquatic uv units, dwell time, uv strength or the distance from the light source. i cant help feeling that if this were a real problem with this remedy, someone, apart you would have, would have warned us! especially as uv is so well used in the aquarium trade.
 
Well the effects of melafix are in most cases muted to say the least, i'm not sure if any fish keeper would notice if the melafix they added started breaking down and not working, as it seems that in alot of cases melafix does just that fine on its own.
If uv radiation (hypothetically) affected fish health directly, you or i would notice it right away. If it affects melafix in the water column, i doubt without chemical testing you would notice it not working anymore, as it seems like that way most the time anyway.
 
you can tell whether melafix has been removed if you don't have activated carbon filtration, but uv running. if the water you pour out of the bucket into the sink has bubbles which pop readily, then that means the melafix is gone. at least that's what i think.
 
please understand i do realise what you are saying, i am mealy putting another point of view. one however that is, supported by the evidence, generally available. believe it or not i understand you comments on the possible polymerisation caused by UV on tea tree oil. But you must understand, i can find no warning, or article on uv used with tea tree oil, or the ingredients of matafix. i can however find warnings not to us uv with malachite green.

my problem is, whilst fully understanding you point, i can find no practical evidence, that uv in an aquarium, causes any problems with metafix! yet i can find evidence that other treatments are effected!

perhaps the requirement's needed for the polymerisation, are not met, by aquatic uv units, dwell time, uv strength or the distance from the light source. i cant help feeling that if this were a real problem with this remedy, someone, apart you would have, would have warned us! especially as uv is so well used in the aquarium trade.

But, the evidence you have cited it circumstantial and unscientific. I told you why there are no scientific studies done on tea tree oil, from a research point of view it is uninteresting. Though, if someone were to pay for the research to be done, I am sure it could be done. Just because no one has mentioned or talked about UV's affects on Melafix, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Part of the issue is that I think there is a lot of placebo effect with Melafix anyway. But even then, the concentration of Melafix in a tank isn't very large in the first place, so reducing that concentration further via UV isn't going to be a large effect.

Until a full study is done, there can't be a 100% answer to this question. But, I can use my experiences and knowledge and evidence from prior experiments to make a good guess about what will happen. The evidence I have cited can be found in many, many textbooks and is well accepted across the scientific community. Could I be wrong, yes, I freely admit that. But, I can also make an exceptionally educated guess about what will happen, by comparing the ingredients in tea tree oil with molecules that have a known reaction to UV light. And from there, since the ingredients are very similar, extrapolating those effects is not too large of a stretch. Again, you don't have to take my word for this, it can be looked up pretty easily.

That is how science is done. Science is not performed by just believing what you want to believe, then saying "well no one proved me wrong, so I must be right." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In the same vein, I can claim that an invisible elf lives in my backyard, and challenge you to prove me wrong. Just because no one can prove that I am wrong in my belief about the invisible elf, does not make it true that an invisible elf does indeed live in my backyard.

Science is done by taking known facts and extrapolating them onto unknown situations. That is what I have done here. I know how UV reacts with molecules that are very similar to the ingredients in tea tree oil, and I extrapolated those same effects onto those ingredients. Again, I admit I could be wrong, but that is the best guess at the moment. And all the scientific facts support my point of view at this time, so I am sticking with it.
 
You mention the placebo effect, but that is a psycological effect whereby humans feel better and often heal themselves if they believe by taking something it will cure them. There have been studies where people on long term medication were given a placebo instead of their medication and they felt no different if not better than with the drug. But how can fish who as far as we know don't respond to complex psycological effects, only habitual stimuli, who don't know what we are putting in the water, and why, display results from a placebo effect? This is a bit off topic, but melafix does appear to have general healing effects for general wound treatment.
 
You mention the placebo effect, but that is a psycological effect whereby humans feel better and often heal themselves if they believe by taking something it will cure them. There have been studies where people on long term medication were given a placebo instead of their medication and they felt no different if not better than with the drug. But how can fish who as far as we know don't respond to complex psycological effects, only habitual stimuli, who don't know what we are putting in the water, and why, display results from a placebo effect? This is a bit off topic, but melafix does appear to have general healing effects for general wound treatment.
The placebo in this case would be people putting it in and observing their fish getting better when it was the fishes' own natural immune/repair system that has actual cured the problem.
 
You mention the placebo effect, but that is a psycological effect whereby humans feel better and often heal themselves if they believe by taking something it will cure them. There have been studies where people on long term medication were given a placebo instead of their medication and they felt no different if not better than with the drug. But how can fish who as far as we know don't respond to complex psycological effects, only habitual stimuli, who don't know what we are putting in the water, and why, display results from a placebo effect? This is a bit off topic, but melafix does appear to have general healing effects for general wound treatment.
The placebo in this case would be people putting it in and observing their fish getting better when it was the fishes' own natural immune/repair system that has actual cured the problem.

i take it andy you dont think teatree oil is a real help to fish keepers?

lol you are right about the Hitler thing, still laughing
 
i take it andy you dont think teatree oil is a real help to fish keepers?

lol you are right about the Hitler thing, still laughing
I have no opinion of it at all. I have never used it, and probably never will.

I was merely pointing out how there can be a placebo effect without resorting to asking the fish if they feel better.
 

Most reactions

trending

Members online

Back
Top