|
|
Swimming Pools in France
Topic has 13 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 15/04/2008, 21:23
|
mjw
Joined on 12/04/2008
Posts 4
|
|
|
Thanks for the posts John & Hagar - all adding to top up my knowledge on these things.
As I stated earlier, i was finding it difficult to introduce a mix and match solution. The installers I spoke with (at length) seemed to want to sell their complete solution. Certainly they didn't appear too enthusiastic about me introducing the ChemiGem approach.
Does anyone know if it is typical that you have to go with an installers whole solution or is it easy to find someone to install the groundworks/pool and perhaps someone else to fit your required sanitisation solution?
It seems to me in France that suppliers of most things quote "insurance/guarantees" as a barrier to dividing works. I even came up against this with a stove installer - nobody wanted to fit one if I sourced/supplied it (at a much lower cost) myself.
So, someone to fit the pool/pump/filter, someone else to supply and fit the sanitiser? Possible? Anyone taken this approach with success?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
16/04/2008, 9:53
|
Poolguy
 
Joined on 25/12/2004
Charante Maritime
Posts 782
|
|
|
|
|
There are quit a few methods of sanitising a Swimming pool which are acceptable to the DDASS (Dept of Health). Which include;
( Arrete du 7 Avril 1981)
Chlorine gas
Chlorine liquid
Bromine
Ozone
PHMB
Since then, they have added
Hydrogen peroxide
Ultra violet lamps (with suppliementation)
Now all of these systems have their various advantages and disadvantages. Chlorine Gas for example is highly dangerous and may only be used in certain controlled circumstances. Hydrogen peroxide is very volatile and explosive and will not work with anything else but UV.
So for Hagar's benefit and for others who read these posts regularly, let me reiterate that my position is and always has been, so long as the regime adopted in the pool provides a sterile and safe swimming environment, then I have no issues to raise. However, where I do raise vigorous objection is where there are False Claims made, or there is inadequate sterilisation resulting from the regime adopted. So I stand by my remarks, which are mostly researched and verifiable through conventional science and worldwide best practices. If it seems to readers that I am pushing one particular solution, it’s that it stands out in my assessment, head and shoulders to provide the 'best value for money’ and the easiest and safest solution - nothing more. If there was an alternative that eclipsed the Chlorine direct injection method then I would be the first to investigate and you would find me speaking about it at length here and everywhere. This part of a pool is so important to get right, it’s the bit you are swimming in, and if it isn't adequate, then there a no end to the dangers and drama's which will certainly result.
Hagar has spoken in favour of the Bio UV method and for him it works – Good! But lets be clear-‘ the Revlement’ is Hydrogen peroxide that much I know and he has said so. Hence to be required to put 30 litres of Peroxide in the pool to support the other regime negates its advantages – it is NO WAY a chemical free regime that it claims to be, in fact he is running a Peroxide pool which is assisted by the UV process and not the other way around. Hydrogen peroxide is a VERY efficient killer of bacterium, nearly 10 times more efficient than chlorine, it is so aggressive and residuals are so long lasting that in his pool 30 litres are sufficient compared to nearly 150 litres of chlorine (estimate -PG). It means that by and large once the pool is dosed with peroxide he could turn off the UV process as there is enough sanitization going on already. So I cannot say that it doesn’t work because, with peroxide in the water it clearly does – very clear water, but what I can say and I stand by this, is that the UV lamp by itself will not do the job, for the reasons I have already stated in previous posts. More over, the use of the word ‘Bio’ is a misnomer as it is not ‘Biological’, that is just ‘marketing Speak’. So again I say, if you are happy with it then continue to use it and please do not regards my remarks as essentially knocking this solution – I am merely seeking to explain the truth for other readers.
For MJW, I am not at all surprised that your installers are not wholly enthusiastic about the Chemigem solution of direct injection. For in France generally and the Pool industry particularly, there is a persistent culture of ‘Stick with what your know – regardless!’, and this will cause an implacable barrier to even self-evident changes in practice. I seriously doubt that the installer you have contact knows anything about the system he is condemning, (certainly the statements he has made are wrong), but rather is proposing a salt solution to maximise his own profit. He is not interested in your water quality, just getting the job done with little aggravation – which for him means ‘don’t do anything differently’. If you are committed to this installer or another then I hope that it works for you and that you are satisfied with his solutions to your needs. But if you are not yet committed, then perhaps you would like to contact me and I can offer you another solution for its sure that they cannot match my results in water quality- that is proven any times.
Andrew
www.Poolguy.fr
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
16/04/2008, 15:36
|
Hagar
Joined on 28/10/2004
Posts 281
|
|
|
|
 Poolguy wrote: | |
Hagar has spoken in favour of the Bio UV method and for him it works – Good! But lets be clear-‘ the Revlement’ is Hydrogen peroxide that much I know and he has said so. Hence to be required to put 30 litres of Peroxide in the pool to support the other regime negates its advantages – it is NO WAY a chemical free regime that it claims to be, in fact he is running a Peroxide pool which is assisted by the UV process and not the other way around. Hydrogen peroxide is a VERY efficient killer of bacterium, nearly 10 times more efficient than chlorine, it is so aggressive and residuals are so long lasting that in his pool 30 litres are sufficient compared to nearly 150 litres of chlorine (estimate -PG). It means that by and large once the pool is dosed with peroxide he could turn off the UV process as there is enough sanitization going on already. So I cannot say that it doesn’t work because, with peroxide in the water it clearly does – very clear water, but what I can say and I stand by this, is that the UV lamp by itself will not do the job, for the reasons I have already stated in previous posts. More over, the use of the word ‘Bio’ is a misnomer as it is not ‘Biological’, that is just ‘marketing Speak’. So again I say, if you are happy with it then continue to use it and please do not regards my remarks as essentially knocking this solution – I am merely seeking to explain the truth for other readers.
|
|
I am sorry Andrew – Thought we had let this thread go – You say you are stating the truth but the key points you make above are simply wrong.
- Hydrogen Peroxide is NOT 10 or even 5 times as effective as chlorine – rather the reverse.
- Hydrogen Peroxide does NOT leave residual chemicals in the pool it degrades into water and Oxygen ( H2O2 = H2O + O)
- Hydrogen Peroxide in a swimming pool environment is much less persistent than Chlorine – particularly when the chlorine solution has stabilising agents added such as Cyanuric Acid. Which themselves cause problems with residuals.
- There are serious health issues with chlorinated pools particularly with young people, heavy use AND enclosed environments ( Abris, Pool Covers ???)
If you or anybody else does not believe me then simply google with Hydrogen Peroxide , Chlorine and pools. You will find many commercially motivated articles but some strong scientific references such as –
This from the people who make the stuff – US Peroxide
“By itself, H2O2 is a rather poor microbiocide compared to chlorine, bromine, ozone, and other commonly used disinfectants.”
This from the French Governments national scientific research centre
“The test results confirm the very good killing activity of sodium hypochlorite (chlorine)…….In contrast to that the biocidal effect achieved by the hydrogen peroxide-based products was significantly lower than one log cycle notwithstanding a very high concentration of up to 150 ppm.”
For the health issues with Chlorine check out this site www.coachsci.sdsu.edu/swimming/chlorine/asthma.htm
So – your figures – 30 litres of Remenant – This is at 35% solution – i.e 10 litres of Hydrogen Peroxide – Equal to – 2 litres of chlorine! (estimate -PG)
That is enough in itself to Sanitise a pool of over 100 000 litres capacity with an annual renewal of some 25 000 litres ! – Reallly!
Don’t forget that I don’t actually add any Remenant for 5 months of the year.
You are telling people that the UV treatment is simply not effective – that is NOT the truth. It is in fact the major effective component apart from filtering– The Hydrogen Peroxide is simply an insurance.
And finally – think about this – The more the pool is actually used (unhygienic practices apart) the more effective the UV system is.
Rgds
Hagar
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
16/04/2008, 17:20
|
Hagar
Joined on 28/10/2004
Posts 281
|
|
|
|
| mjw wrote: | | Thanks for the posts John & Hagar - all adding to top up my knowledge on these things. Does anyone know if it is typical that you have to go with an installers whole solution or is it easy to find someone to install the groundworks/pool and perhaps someone else to fit your required sanitisation solution?
So, someone to fit the pool/pump/filter, someone else to supply and fit the sanitiser? Possible? Anyone taken this approach with success? |
|
Hi MJW - hope you don't think I've hijacked your thread with some rather esoteric discussions with Andrew.
When we installed our pool I did something similar to what your proposing. Our basic and prime contract was with the builder who actually constructed the pool - traditional reinforced concrete lined with ceramic tiles.
Through my own research I identified what type of water management system I wished and in conjunction with the builder identified a local supplier. The builder then agreed to sub-contract the pool equipment supplier and take responsibility for providing a pool "pret-a-plonger".
This last step was important as probably the most important thing is to get the sizing right - pump/flow rate, no of inlets/outlets etc , and to have the plumbing correctly sized and run for the system you want to use. Basically the builder and the equipment supplier had to sort that out between them.
Very happy with it - Downside - not the cheapest route by any means - particular when compared to the "kit" style suppliers.
rgds
hagar
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
16/04/2008, 20:51
|
mjw
Joined on 12/04/2008
Posts 4
|
|
|
|
Dear all - many thanks for the lively debate. The thread is by no means hijacked. To the contrary it's all adding to my understanding. If nothing else the sanitisation issue is obviously a complicated one - not helped by suppliers sticking to what they know/think most profitable as Andrew suggests.
I need to go away and do some more thinking - it's important to get this right. Andrew/Hagar I may come back and send you a few questions if that is OK with you both? I really appreciate you having taken the time and trouble to answer my posts.
Speak soon,
kind regards,
Martin.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2 (14 items)
|
< 1 2 |
|
|
|
France Forum » Living » Swimming Pools ... » Re: BIO-UV
|
|
|
|