# ClorAm - X Has Anyone Used This?



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

I'm thinking about trying out cloram x as an alternative to the product I have been using for the past few months. I was wondering if anyone has tried it before and if so what their experience with it was? It seems really cost efficient for me and given that I can go through a gallon of water conditioner in 2 weeks or so that's important lol. Any feedback would be great!


----------



## juanitow (Jun 21, 2008)

I started to use a lot of conditioner after I started keeping snails. I've used chloramx for a few months now and I haven't had unexplained deaths yet. I change 30% water at a time.


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

I've never used it before Cory, in fact I've cut back on my usage of Seachem Prime by using aged water instead treating new water.

I'd try it on some hardier fish first, and see how it goes. 

Me personally? I typically stick with what I know works and is safe, so I would be hesitant to try it.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

Its the best stuff I have ever used hands down worth the money beats all the other products out there. It is safe to use with almost if not all living things. It does more in terms of function ( lower ammonia and such ) compared to Prime who claims to be the best LOL it does not smell like death and well it is just great stuff to use.

I recommend trying to see if you like it or not


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

I'm not sure if it does more than Prime actually. 

Prime also detoxifies nitrite and nitrate, which ClorAm doesn't seem to do.

Prime also detoxifies the ammonia produced by the process in which ammonia in detoxified (I know that sounds odd, but ammonia is produced as a byproduct of removing ammonia). ChlorAm claims that you need to overdose and have excess in the water stream for it to be able to react with this secondary ammonia. It also claims that it does so as a slower process than the initial removal of ammonia.

Prime also stimulates, without the use of polymers of course, the proper production of a healthy slime coat, which is also a good preventative measure, especially in a tank that sees a bit of aggression now and again.

So again, I'm not sure if it provides more functions than Prime. In fact, it seems likes it does a lot less.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

Chris S said:


> I'm not sure if it does more than Prime actually.
> 
> Prime also detoxifies nitrite and nitrate, which ClorAm doesn't seem to do.
> 
> ...


As a conditioner it is much better. For one I would not use any product to reduce nitrite or nitrates in my tanks I would do what should be done and change the water. It lowers more ammonia than Prime. It is safer then prime that is for sure because I asked a rep of seachem and they said it should not be used with amphibians or turtles. I dont know if that is because they have not done tests but that is what I was told.

I read into this stuff before I bought it and have asked around and many people say it is better then Prime. I agree. I find prime causes the water to go brown and it just stinks. Personally I would never use it again.

Cory have a read on this site it breaks down what CloramX is all about.
http://www.reed-mariculture.com/cloram-x/index.asp


----------



## Zebrapl3co (Mar 29, 2006)

I second Jackson on that. Chloram-X is the best dechlor product you will ever use hands down. I've tried over 8 dechlor products before settling on Prime for a few years. Then I switch to Chloram-X and have been using it since. I don't think I will every pick up any other product. People drive all the way to the states to buy this stuff. Consider yourself lucky if you manage to get your hands on some of the stuff. Although I have to admit, it's becoming more available in recent years.
But don't take anyone's word for it. Try it yourself and you be the judge.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## gucci17 (Oct 11, 2007)

I've read the same site Jackson was referring to in the past. I think Ultimate is more like Prime as it adds a slime coat additive. 

I personally use Prime but I am not biased. I've heard Cloram X is very good as well. I should probably use Cloram X instead for the cost savings especially since I age my water in drums anyways. 

I really can't say which is better. IMO anything is better than straight out of the tap.


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

Prime stinks a bit, that is for sure. As for turning the water brown, I've been using it for many years and have never experienced that ever. I think whatever is turning your water brown is unrelated. I have crystal clear water.

I'm not sure how you measure how "much" ammonia they remove in comparison. I'm pretty sure they both "remove" ammonia completely, aside from the fact that Prime also binds the ammonia in the secondary process as well.

As for turtles and amphibians - I've never heard it was unsafe for either. I can't understand why it would be unsafe.

To be honest, I don't use Prime to detoxify ammonia, nitrites or nitrates, as I feel it is completely unnecessary. In a pinch though, I think it is more effective than this ChlorAm stuff.

Please be careful in making claims regarding products, as other people less versed than us read these posts and take advice from them.

Unqualified statements such as: 


> It lowers more ammonia than Prime.


and


> It is safer then prime that is for sure...


aren't backed up by any evidence, that I can see, and are misleading.

Not to bash on ClorAm, as it seems that being cheaper is the real upside to it. I can't see any evidence that it is more effective than Prime, rather to the contrary in that it does less, which makes sense since it is cheaper.


----------



## gucci17 (Oct 11, 2007)

Chris S said:


> Prime stinks a bit, that is for sure. As for turning the water brown, I've been using it for many years and have never experienced that ever. I think whatever is turning your water brown is unrelated. I have crystal clear water.
> 
> I'm not sure how you measure how "much" ammonia they remove in comparison. I'm pretty sure they both "remove" ammonia completely, aside from the fact that Prime also binds the ammonia in the secondary process as well.
> 
> ...


I would have to totally agree with Chris. It wouldn't be fair to mislead less knowledgeable people who view this thread for information without hard facts. There are many who don't do enough information and assume the first tidbit of info they come across online is 100% accurate.

I too have never experienced brown water using Prime in my years.

If you are interested in Cloram X, hit *sugarglidder* up on PN as he has some for sale. He should be making another trip down this Sunday.


----------



## KnaveTO (May 13, 2007)

I have only used Prime so can't compare the two to state which is better than the other. Since info was posted about ClorAm-X I thought to be fare the same should be posted for Prime

http://www.seachem.com/Products/product_pages/Prime.html

and the MSDS

http://www.seachem.com/support/MSDS/Prime.doc.pdf

and from the Clor-Am-X manufacturers

http://aquascienceresearch.com/PDFs/ClorAm-X PDS.PDF


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

Thanks for the input folks, I think I will give it a try. I was using WON brand because 1 gal was $17 which I couldn't beat but I realized it wasn't neutralizing any ammonia and so Id often have clouded water after changes and I had to start neutralizing the freed ammonia manually or at least altering my filtration so that the free ammonia would dissipate quick as possible. That's why I need a new conditioner. I know a good place to get cloram x for quite a lot less than sugarglider is selling it, and plus I hate the guy so I'll pass on him . If anyone else is after some for a low price let me know and I can add you into my order. 

If I could find prime for the same price I'd probably give it a go although I was never as impressed with Prime as others were. I actually like API stress coat the best I found that the aloe additive really made the fish look great. Unfortunately, when you're changing up to 500 gallons a week sometimes you have to make cuts here and there.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

Chris S said:


> Prime stinks a bit, that is for sure. As for turning the water brown, I've been using it for many years and have never experienced that ever. I think whatever is turning your water brown is unrelated. I have crystal clear water.
> 
> I'm not sure how you measure how "much" ammonia they remove in comparison. I'm pretty sure they both "remove" ammonia completely, aside from the fact that Prime also binds the ammonia in the secondary process as well.
> 
> ...


LOL here you go

FOOD FISH USE

ClorAm-X™ may be used on fishes intended for human consumption. The United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that the use of the chemical that constitutes ClorAm-XTM (sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate) in water with fishes, intended for human consumption, does not come under FDA jurisdiction. For a copy of the FDA's "letter of determination" please write or fax us.

Now that is proof for you.

Prime treats more water per dose according to seachem. So Cloramx is not cheaper.

Cloramx can be used on amphibians and turtles as well as food fish ( fish meant to be food for humans ) Prime is not safe for all 3.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

gucci17 said:


> I would have to totally agree with Chris. It wouldn't be fair to mislead less knowledgeable people who view this thread for information without hard facts. There are many who don't do enough information and assume the first tidbit of info they come across online is 100% accurate.
> 
> I too have never experienced brown water using Prime in my years.
> 
> If you are interested in Cloram X, hit *sugarglidder* up on PN as he has some for sale. He should be making another trip down this Sunday.


LOL agree with him all you want I really don't care Cloramx is the safer product proof is all over so he needs to look harder to find it.

As for the water turning brown. I have not had this happen to me since I stopped using that crap. Don't assume it is something else when I am telling you what I have experienced.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

Cory said:


> Thanks for the input folks, I think I will give it a try. I was using WON brand because 1 gal was $17 which I couldn't beat but I realized it wasn't neutralizing any ammonia and so Id often have clouded water after changes and I had to start neutralizing the freed ammonia manually or at least altering my filtration so that the free ammonia would dissipate quick as possible. That's why I need a new conditioner. I know a good place to get cloram x for quite a lot less than sugarglider is selling it, and plus I hate the guy so I'll pass on him . If anyone else is after some for a low price let me know and I can add you into my order.


Kensfoods or what ever his place is called sells it. But that is the guy in the states. Or you can contact pingpong on PN he sells it for $10 a lb.


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

Thanks Jackson  I have somewhere to get it already, I just wanted to know what others thought of it because the price was the best I'd found since the WON stuff. I'm going to get enough to treat 200,000 gallons in all likelihood and I don't think pingpong or any of the other small vendors will want to scoop that out for me .


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

Cory said:


> Thanks Jackson  I have somewhere to get it already, I just wanted to know what others thought of it because the price was the best I'd found since the WON stuff. I'm going to get enough to treat 200,000 gallons in all likelihood and I don't think pingpong or any of the other small vendors will want to scoop that out for me .


Are you buying from teh states or here? That is a lot of Cloramx 
How much is it in total? 55lbs?


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

Jackson said:


> LOL here you go
> 
> FOOD FISH USE
> 
> ...


I wasn't aware we were using this for fish that would later be eaten. I thought that was a safe assumption.

More importantly, read over the quoted statement you have provided. Nowhere does the FDA state that ClorAm is FDA approved, nor does it state that it is safe for use on fishes intended for human consumption. All it states is that the chemical sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate (thanks copy and paste!) does not come under the *jurisdiction* of the FDA. Explain to me how this is proof!



Jackson said:


> Prime treats more water per dose according to seachem. So Cloramx is not cheaper.


Fair enough, I'm not going to bother working out the math here.



Jackson said:


> Cloramx can be used on amphibians and turtles as well as food fish ( fish meant to be food for humans ) Prime is not safe for all 3.


I see no evidence, nor have I heard anyone but you say that this is the case.



Jackson said:


> As for the water turning brown. I have not had this happen to me since I stopped using that crap. Don't assume it is something else when I am telling you what I have experienced.


I'm making the assumption based on the hundreds of others who have used the product without this happening. I couldn't even find evidence of it searching the net. That said, I stand by my assumption that something else was turning your water brown despite your experience.

To each their own - I don't care what you use, just that information here is correct and not completely skewed by opinion.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

Chris S said:


> I wasn't aware we were using this for fish that would later be eaten. I thought that was a safe assumption.
> 
> More importantly, read over the quoted statement you have provided. Nowhere does the FDA state that ClorAm is FDA approved, nor does it state that it is safe for use on fishes intended for human consumption. All it states is that the chemical sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate (thanks copy and paste!) does not come under the *jurisdiction* of the FDA. Explain to me how this is proof!
> 
> ...


You asked to prove how it is safer than Prime right there is proof. It is used on fish, shellfish and so on meant for human consumption.

Seachem suggest using gloves and protective eye wear when using Prime. Prime can not be used on fish and so on meant for human consumption.

Cloramx does not fall under the FDA's jurisdiction why I don't know. Maybe you can ask them! I never said they approved it. From what I know it is not under their jurisdiction because there is nothing wrong with using the product on these fish shellfish and crustaceans meant for human consumption. It was tested by the FDA and they found nothing wrong with it.

I don't care to go back and forth with you. Like I said I did not say it was approved by the FDA but the FDA does not seem to say it is not safe for use on fish and what not intended for human consumption. If they even had the slightest thought it was not safe it would not be used on these fish, shellfish and crustaceans.

The stuff is used by fisherman, fish farms and so on who sell their fish, shellfish and what have you as food meant for human consumption.

I have compared both and after reading this

http://www.seachem.com/support/MSDS/Prime.doc.pdf

and then this

http://aquascienceresearch.com/PDFs/ClorAm-X PDS.PDF

Cloramx seems to be a safer product.

If you look back I asked a rep over @ seachem if I should use Prime with my turtles he said no we have not done the right tests so I suggest you don't use it on them. Go email them and see what the next rep has to say. reason I asked is nowhere on their site or labels does it say it is safe to be used on them.

Cloramx has performed research to determine it is safe for these animals.


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

Bah who cares about turtles and frogs anyways? They're icky and green and slimy.... Just kidding 

Anyways, my question is not worthy of an argument over. I'm going to try the stuff and I'll let everyone know how it goes . 

One thing I did note about cloram x which is really stand-out to me is that you cannot overdose it. I overdosed another dechlorinator once and killed a bunch of fish. It doesn't happen often but sometimes your hand slips or you make a mistake and it's nice to know that this stuff is safe in 10x the recommended dosage which I doubt I'd ever reach under any circumstance.


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

Actually, beyond any debate here, I find it very fishy that ClorAm uses that statement from the FDA to claim that it is safe for human consumption.

From what I read, the FDA has only said "this is not our jurisdiction", meaning, we don't deal with this sort of thing.

I don't think that should be interpreted as a product being safe for human consumption, by any means. In fact, nothing that I have seen has backed up their claim that the product is safe for human consumption.

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just saying there is nothing really providing evidence that it is.

In retrospect, I know what Cory does and what he will be using it for. Human consumption isn't one of those things. Unless of course, Cory has some explaining to do.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

MMmmmmmmm yum! Barbs!

Cory, why don't you just use filtration? A bunch of carbon filters a la RO/DI units I think in the long term would be cheaper.

*I guess if this isn't an option if it's for your service contracts


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

Pfffft, you should try the dwarf puffers.


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

Chris : No explaining here, all my fish are for show purposes only lol. Beyond the paratilapia I don't think any of the fish would even be big enough to be worth eating... Then again cpds were food fish where they came from so what do I know lol. 

Eric: The main reason for not doing anything of that nature is that I want to move in a year or less and I don't want to do anything permanent or even semi-permanent until then. I also have a few display setups that are nowhere near the fishroom and it wouldn't be practical to fill them from the basement so I'd need dechlor for them anyways. Once Im set up in a new place I want to convert the basement into a more permanent style fishroom with what you mentioned to purify water as well as a temperature control unit with a guage which I saw used when I worked for Doug White. Im also going to get a central air pump to run my sponge filters etc. but right now I'm already stretching it just keeping this many tanks here. If I started running air manifolds around the basement and stuff.. well ... lol Ideally though, yah I'd like to eventually get a more automated, purpose-built fishroom setup. If I can go barebottom with most of the breeding tanks I'll even do an automated water change system down the road. And of course, there is what you mentioned with clients although there is a little system you can buy designed for aquarium service that has a built in filtration system and all kinds of other neat gadgets.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

Chris S said:


> Pfffft, you should try the dwarf puffers.


Only if they have little tiny poison sacks. BTW, puffer is delicious, if you ever get the chance.


----------



## gucci17 (Oct 11, 2007)

Jackson said:


> LOL agree with him all you want I really don't care Cloramx is the safer product proof is all over so he needs to look harder to find it.
> 
> As for the water turning brown. I have not had this happen to me since I stopped using that crap. Don't assume it is something else when I am telling you what I have experienced.


That's fine that you don't care but still doesn't change the fact that there are people out there that don't know better. I never said Prime was better so I don't know why you're trying to prove it otherwise. I said straight up that I have no problem using either one. Prime has never killed my fish so if you're saying Cloram is even more expensive per dose, then thanks for letting me know. I could care less because it's just a conditioner. Whatever floats your boat....if something happened to my fish using Prime, I'd have no problems switching to Cloram.

As for the brown water thing, I never assumed anything. You said it did and I said it never did for me. So you're the one assuming things.

Bro, you need to relax a bit sometimes. I never tried attacking you at all. Like you, I was merely stating my experiences as well.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

gucci17 said:


> That's fine that you don't care but still doesn't change the fact that there are people out there that don't know better. I never said Prime was better so I don't know why you're trying to prove it otherwise. I said straight up that I have no problem using either one. Prime has never killed my fish so if you're saying Cloram is even more expensive per dose, then thanks for letting me know. I could care less because it's just a conditioner. Whatever floats your boat....if something happened to my fish using Prime, I'd have no problems switching to Cloram.
> 
> As for the brown water thing, I never assumed anything. You said it did and I said it never did for me. So you're the one assuming things.
> 
> Bro, you need to relax a bit sometimes. I never tried attacking you at all. Like you, I was merely stating my experiences as well.


Gucci~
Sorry for tripping

For those who don't know they can check out their web site and have a read on their own >> http://www.seafarm.com/cloram-x/ 
There is lots of "evidence" there to show it is a non-toxic product.

You can read the letter from the FDA >> http://www.seafarm.com/cloram-x/fda.PDF
Interpret it however you like.

ClorAm-X has been used in fish, shrimp, and shellfish hatcheries all over the world for something like 20 years. It is so widely used that if there were problems with it, it should be easy to find negative reports using a search engine like Google.


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

Jackson said:


> You can read the letter from the FDA >> http://www.seafarm.com/cloram-x/fda.PDF


When comparing products, it would be better to not rely on manufacturer's own claims, since those are usually marketing stuff.

The letter of FDA says - "FDA determines use of CloramX out of its jurisdiction" which means they simply don't care how it's used. There's no claims that FDA approved or tested and found it safe. It simply states the chemical component is not something governed by FDA, and you can legally use it for fishes for human consumption.


----------



## KnaveTO (May 13, 2007)

Jackson said:


> For those who don't know they can check out their web site and have a read on their own >> http://www.seafarm.com/cloram-x/
> There is lots of "evidence" there to show it is a non-toxic product.
> 
> You can read the letter from the FDA >> http://www.seafarm.com/cloram-x/fda.PDF
> Interpret it however you like.


Actually the link you posted is a retailer of Clor-Am-X

I posted the link to the manufacturer back on page 2


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

conix67 said:


> When comparing products, it would be better to not rely on manufacturer's own claims, since those are usually marketing stuff.
> 
> The letter of FDA says - "FDA determines use of CloramX out of its jurisdiction" which means they simply don't care how it's used. There's no claims that FDA approved or tested and found it safe. It simply states the chemical component is not something governed by FDA, and you can legally use it for fishes for human consumption.


Yes and the FDA says this
"Because this product is a water treatment and not a drug it is not under
the jurisdiction of the FDA. It is under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency."

I take it that this means it is safe to be used on fish and so on meant for human consumption. It is not a drug or a dangerous chemical. It is non-toxic.

Why does it fall under the "environmental Protection Agency" because of water run off into natural water sources. They have to make sure it will not affect the lakes, rivers and so on in a negative way. They also have to make sure it will not pollute when it is disposed of. 


KnaveTO said:


> Actually the link you posted is a retailer of Clor-Am-X
> 
> I posted the link to the manufacturer back on page 2


Actually! They both have the same exact info. The one I posted just has a bit more info.


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

Jackson said:


> Yes and the FDA says this
> "Because this product is a water treatment and not a drug it is not under
> the jurisdiction of the FDA. It is under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
> Environmental Protection Agency."
> ...


Nowhere does it say it was found safe. It is probably safe, but that's not what FDA said. FDA simply said it had nothing to do with that product. Nowhere in the letter says it was found safe by Environmental Protection Agency either, it simply stated it's someone else's concern, not FDA. To be complete, they should have had a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency too then.

So all in all, the FDA stuff on this product seems pretty bogus.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

conix67 said:


> Nowhere does it say it was found safe. It is probably safe, but that's not what FDA said. FDA simply said it had nothing to do with that product. Nowhere in the letter says it was found safe by Environmental Protection Agency either, it simply stated it's someone else's concern, not FDA. To be complete, they should have had a letter from the Environmental Protection Agency too then.
> 
> So all in all, the FDA stuff on this product seems pretty bogus.


You are right but the FDA said they woudl not of let the product by them if they found it unsafe. I have asked because I did not understand how this stuff was OK to be used on fish meant to be food for humans.

They said to check with teh EPA.

I will check with EPA and see what the approved uses/concentrations are.


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

Jackson said:


> You are right but the FDA said they woudl not of let the product by them if they found it unsafe.


The problem is that FDA does not regulate anything that is not intended for *direct* human consumption. Feeding toxic substances to animals intended for human consumption is not FDA's concern either.

This product is NOT intended for human consumption, so FDA doesn't get involved there.

My point is that the whole "FDA" thing around this product should be thrown out, and makes it look awfully suspicious when they are marketing the product with this letter attached. I'd say over-marketing.


----------



## Chris S (Dec 19, 2007)

conix67 said:


> The problem is that FDA does not regulate anything that is not intended for *direct* human consumption. Feeding toxic substances to animals intended for human consumption is not FDA's concern either.
> 
> This product is NOT intended for human consumption, so FDA doesn't get involved there.
> 
> My point is that the whole "FDA" thing around this product should be thrown out, and makes it look awfully suspicious when they are marketing the product with this letter attached. I'd say over-marketing.


I was thinking I was the only one that interpreted it as such, at least I know I'm not crazy.

Why the hell would they post that on their site anyway?


----------



## Cory (May 2, 2008)

A different interpretation might be that the FDA saying it doesn't fall under its jurisdiction means that they tested it and don't feel there is a need for them to control the substance thereby deeming it safe for human consumption. The Environmental Protection Agency then determines if it is environmentally friendly and if so how it should be handled, disposed of etc. This makes more sense to me for two reasons A) Why would they put that as a benefit of the product if it doesn't mean anything? B) Most of what I've read says it is safe for food fish and I think that conclusion has been widely drawn based on actual evidence. 

Ultimately though, edible or not makes no difference to a hobbyists.


----------



## KnaveTO (May 13, 2007)

I just thought of this actually... we are discussing whether or not a foreign governments administrative body states whether or not something is safe. Doesn't really matter what they say, because it is whether or not the appropriate body in Canada states that it is safe. The US's FDA and EPA have no jurisdiction in Canada, and based upon their track record I am glad they have none.


----------



## conix67 (Jul 27, 2008)

Cory said:


> A different interpretation might be that the FDA saying it doesn't fall under its jurisdiction means that they tested it and don't feel there is a need for them to control the substance thereby deeming it safe for human consumption.


There's no evidence that FDA tested it. The application was for use of the substance in the water with animals intended for human consumption, and as it does not fall under jurisdiction of FDA, FDA simply sent a letter back stating that. There's no results or opinions by FDA for the substance in question.

Also, no one can say it is safe for direct human consumption... if it was meant to be for human consumption, FDA would have tested it and approved it (once found safe).



Cory said:


> Ultimately though, edible or not makes no difference to a hobbyists.


Exactly. The marketing of these products, they push it to the point stating things that look somehow good for their product, while staying within legality of claims, so that they cannot be sued for false claims. Lawyers do these things.. thus the confusion arises..

Ultimately, when comparing products, it's always best to find some third-party results and real-world results by other users. Manufacturer's own claims should be taken with a grain of salt, probably better with lots of it.


----------



## ameekplec. (May 1, 2008)

My fish are Organic. 


So are the shrimp. They're $5/ea as a result.


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

ameekplec. said:


> My fish are Organic.
> 
> So are the shrimp. They're $5/ea as a result.


LOL very funny you always knwow what to say 

Well I sent out a few questions to them so I will wait to see what the EPA has to say about this product.

KnaveTO "I just thought of this actually... we are discussing whether or not a foreign governments administrative body states whether or not something is safe. Doesn't really matter what they say, because it is whether or not the appropriate body in Canada states that it is safe. The US's FDA and EPA have no jurisdiction in Canada, and based upon their track record I am glad they have none."

Well the procuct is used here in fish, shrimp, and shellfish hatcheries as well as all over the world. Maybe we should ask our side about this. who do you suggest I contact?


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Jackson said:


> Gucci~
> Sorry for tripping
> 
> For those who don't know they can check out their web site and have a read on their own >> http://www.seafarm.com/cloram-x/
> ...


This is what they say it is, and these products are not harmless. You're overstating the supposed "harmlessness" aspect

ClorAm-X® (sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate, sodium formaldehydebisulfite or formaldehyde sodium bisulfite)

Of course the product lowers oxygen availablity, possibly dangerously.

here is some explanatory stuff on it and aquaria

http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-11/rhf/feature/


----------



## Jackson (Jan 30, 2009)

knight of ni said:


> This is what they say it is, and these products are not harmless. You're overstating the supposed "harmlessness" aspect
> 
> ClorAm-X® (sodium hydroxymethanesulfonate, sodium formaldehydebisulfite or formaldehyde sodium bisulfite)
> 
> ...


Thanks we have made that clear so far. You are a bit late with your reply. I am still waiting to see what the CFIA has to say about it.


----------



## Mr Fishies (Sep 21, 2007)

Jackson said:


> I am still waiting to see what the CFIA has to say about it.


I'm curious too, but I don't really hold much hope for a sensible answer when it comes to this sort of thing.

A semi related strangeness... We as private citizens in Ontario, under the premise of protecting our health and environment, are not allowed to use 24-D and Mecoprop as broadleaf weed control agents on our lawns, but farmers can use it between crop rows of at least wheat and possibly corn intended for public sale. Go figure...I wonder who uses more tons a year and how more gets into our systems, water runoff or direct absorption by plant?

Lots of nasty things are done in order to grow food (plant and animal) fast enough to feed us all _while maintaining profitability_ _of course_. I don't completely believe that the world population could be fed exclusively on organically grown plant/animal...I hope I'm wrong.

Not to be defeatist, but we all may be doomed...no matter what we eat/drink/do.


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Mr Fishies said:


> I'm curious too, but I don't really hold much hope for a sensible answer when it comes to this sort of thing.
> 
> A semi related strangeness... We as private citizens in Ontario, under the premise of protecting our health and environment, are not allowed to use 24-D and Mecoprop as broadleaf weed control agents on our lawns, but farmers can use it between crop rows of at least wheat and possibly corn intended for public sale. Go figure...I wonder who uses more tons a year and how more gets into our systems, water runoff or direct absorption by plant?
> 
> ...


our farmers are not allowed to feed feces to food animals, but in the US no problem..and then they can sell beef here cheaper than our farmers can. http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/1217667

also, arsenic feed is big time and goes into the ground and water. http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2004/Arsenic-Chicken-Roxarsone4jan04.htm

so you're right.


----------



## knight of ni (Oct 8, 2006)

Jackson said:


> Thanks we have made that clear so far. You are a bit late with your reply. I am still waiting to see what the CFIA has to say about it.


I don't see that the info in my link, or about oxygenation, was given anywhere. 
However, since you seem to prefer hearing something totally different, here> vitamin C

http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdf/05231301.pdf
http://books.google.ca/books?id=nBC...#v=onepage&q=ascorbic acid chloramine&f=false
http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/14/11/2579


----------

