Poolguy Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Here is atopic which might raise some eyebrows, but it’s a timely warning for those whohave swimming pools. Inparticular those who own or are contemplating ownership of a pool with asalt/chlorination system. As many ofyou who have read my previous posts know, I have been suggesting for some timethat these systems are not environmentally sound. Its now come to a head with apiece of legislation which I understand is being drafted at the moment for theconsideration of the French Parliament. It stemsfrom a Directive which was passed in the European Parliament some years ago,which prohibits the discharge of polluted water by domestic as well asindustrial and commercial consumers. Now the French Government, who areenthusiastic protagonists of Europe are drafting the legislation to bring theinitiative into law in France. Although Ido not have a copy of the draft to readand analyze as yet, I have been told through a reliable source that the thrustof it will impact heavily on domestic pool owners. Of particular concern willbe those who are discharging salinated water into the storm water systemsthrough backwashing and annual water changes. This is because this salinatedwater ends up in most cases in the fresh water streams and rivers and is creatinghavoc with the inland ecosystems by raising salt level. The habitof regular doses of 150 kg of salt will soon be a thing of the past as aconsequence. As it is not possible to run a swimming pool without using anddischarging water, and to de-salinate is so costly that it would beimpractical, so there is nowhere for the owner to turn but to discharge in aclandestine manner, in breach of this law at least once every week. What willbe the consequences and how will it be controlled. I don’t know that at thistime, but I am sure that those who are drafting this law will also includemeasures to deal with those issues. Particularly in the light of the lackluster response by pool owners in France to the security laws, due to becomelaw on Jan 1, 2006. I defendthis measure and call it, long overdue. Responsibility for the environment issomething we must all share, and this industry will have to change itspractices to fall in line. We cannot continue to consume at the rate of thepasts generations with no thought for the consequences and hope to enjoy anyquality of life. Where there is no responsibility shown by consumers in theface of the facts, then legislation must step in. So I sayfor those who are contemplating the purchase of a swimming pool, thinkcarefully about what sort of sanitization system you buy. Do not accept theshrug, or the ‘beouf’ from your Piscinier, or your French neighbor, as if hedoes not know about the approach of this law then he should. Choose well forthe future otherwise you might have to change later and the costs will mountonce more. I willmonitor the progress of this legislation and bring chapter and verse when itbecomes available. As always,if anyone want more information then PM me. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirpy Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Not another law to screw the poor pool owners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!First we buy a pool and within a year find out new laws will take affect within another 2 years to make the covers,fencing etc redundant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!We now buy the compliant alarms or new covers etc. In another 2-3 years we drain our salt pool and throw away our chlorinaters etc.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1We all believe the advice when we first buy the pool but now it is becoming a financial nightmare.!!!!!!!!!WHEN ARE THE POOL INSTALLERS GOING TO TRY AND PROTECT THE CURRENT OWNERS AFTER THEY HAVE ENJOYED GOOD PROFITS FROM US?????????????????RETROACTIVE PUNISHMENT WENT OUT IN THE LAST CENTURY OR SO I THOUGHT.WHEN I WAS WORKING IN U.K. I SOLD PAINT BUT SAT ON COMMITTEES TRYING TO PREVENT UNFAIR CHANGES TO STANDARDS .SUELY THERE IS A POOL INSTALLERS ASSOCIATION WHOSE VOICE SHOULD BE HEARD OR AM I BEING TOO OPTIMISTIC.-----------SUELY EXISTING POOLS COULD BE EXEMPTED FROM HAVING O CHANGE TO SALT FREE SYSTEMS.IT IS LIKE BEING TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS BY SOME FINANCIAL COMPANIES -AS SOON AS YOUR SIGNATURE IS ON THEIR PAPERS TO BUY AN INVESTMENT THEY DISAPPEAR INTO THE NIGHT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 The first line of your response says it all in most many people's eyes. Poor and pool owners just don't go together[ip]. Benjamin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apero Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 We own a pool and in no way would I be rich. People are free to spend there own money on whatever please's them. Some buy large luxury cars, holiday in expensive locations, drink, camble....could go on....some even have been know to buy a property in France.Ab was contributing to a post regarding the unexpected change in pool regulations and the impact of these additional costs of implementing new regulations to pool owners, not bragging that he had one. From a viewing point your post looks like sour grapes, or are you a pool owner with a dry scense of humor. Pun intended.[:|]Ab I have been looking for info re this and shall pm you when found.Regards to all admin and mods on this informative forum.Best wishes at Christmas and a prosperous New Year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 AbPlease accept my abject apology for denigrating your posting . Of course I chose to interpret your use of the word poor in a monetary sense and not in the sense of unfortunate as you intended. This was due to my quirky sense of humour which I know some people find difficult to follow.It's good to know however that you've got a p c rottweiler looking after your interests. Benjaminp s I do have a pool, 3,5 metre diam, blow up, and a Lambo, scalextrix of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poolguy Posted December 22, 2005 Author Share Posted December 22, 2005 AbI sympathise with your frustration which is clearly put. I share thatfrustration for as I tour around the Pisciniers in France, I find that there islittle or no understand of the principals of pools in residence. Moreover thereis little or no inclination to become informed. It seems to be an industrylargely unregulated in this otherwise over-regulated society. There is next tono expertise in evidence wherever I go, it seems to be regarded as ‘easymoney’, after all it’s a hole in the ground with water in itCustomers are regarded as 'onetime sales', and hence there is little or noattention paid to clients after the final cheque has been cashed. This would beunacceptable in other countries but it seems to be the norm in France. As Ihave mentioned on previous threads over half of my business is cleaning up themistakes, shoddy work, and down right bad advice from Pisciniers..What is needed is an 'artisan' status for Piscinier and an Association toratify their standards, these are very active and very effective in othercountries. With such a united voice, there is some chance to lobby governmentfor change for the better. Without such an Association there is no chance whatever as the industry is too small for the government to get excited about itsconcerns.Whereas, notwithstanding the above paragraph, you were reacting to theintroduction of a law to prohibit the discharge of polluted water andcomplaining that the 'industry' should have lobbied to prevent it. Well I haveto point out that even with the most veracious unionised, well organisedpressure group there would not be a hope of diverting this one. Its a Europeandirective, which is as much to do with the getting manufacturing industry andpower generation to clean up its act as it is for everything else. It just sohappens that swimming pool owners are contributing to the problem and thereforeare now under the same microscope. That being the case it is inconsistent withthe process of draft legislation for one area, group or interest, to beexcluded from a general principle of law. So where the goose and gander get itin the neck the same way so to will swimming pool owners have to face the 'hit'if it can be shown that any individual was a 'polluter'- and salt is aparticularly nasty pollutant, it makes lush countrysides into deserts.Also I would not expect this to be a mere slap on the wrist, with a wink and a'mind yourself now' at the end. It will be savage for those who flout the lawto the cost of the environment and collective enjoyment of the rivers and lakesin good condition. So I would be advising people to be very cautious with saltsystems and to think of how they might be able to manage outage water withoutintroduction to storm water or water courses.Of course one alternative is to switch to chlorine direct injection which isenvironmentally acceptable.Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirpy Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 Can chlorine direct injection be put into a salt pool without draining it and refilling?What is ballpark cost? without advertising in case admin. stops reply.In my case I had a pool where water had to be brought in from a mile away taking a week to fill - I hired two plastic pools as I only had a well supply which could not fill pool quickly when liner installed.Most pool owners are not rich but decide to have the benefit of a pool for family visits as I am retired here without any home in u.k. and have small pension.In hindsight I would not have installed a pool if I knew the problems it was to give me .-e.g.-pool cost =34000 euro.covers =4600eurobubble cover =640 euro total =39240 euro(£27000.!!!)and within 3 years all covers are obsolete=5240 euro(£3600 down the drain!!!!!!!!!!)PERHAPS IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO ROUND UP THE GOOD GUYS WHO INSTALL POOLS AND SEE IF YOU CAN GET ADVANCE NOTICE HOW DO WE ESTABLISH WHETHER THE SMALL AMOUNT OF SALT WATER PUMPED OUT A FEW TIMES A YEAR IS POLLUTING OUR OWN LAND OR ENTERING GROUND BEDS TO EFFECT A NOTICEABLE CHANGE TO THE WATER..PERHAPS THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICITY BY NUCLEAR MEANS IS A FAR GREATER THREAT IN FRANCE BEING THE MAIN PRODUCTION METHOD AND WILL HAVE A GREATER AFFECT ON THE LIVING AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apero Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 [quote user="Benjamin"]Ab Please accept my abject apology for denigrating your posting . Of course I chose to interpret your use of the word poor in a monetary sense and not in the sense of unfortunate as you intended. This was due to my quirky sense of humour which I know some people find difficult to follow.[/quote] http://www.albion.com/netiquette/corerules.htmlBenjaminYou may or may not find the above site useful.[^o)]PoolguyThanks for the post. Appreciate you taking the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suze01 Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 I flunked chemistry at school so I may be wrong....Salt is a natural product, albeit not found in freshwater rivers, but chlorine is a manmade compound AFAIK not found naturally. If 'they' are worried about salt being discharged into the environment then what about all the chemicals from traditionally chlorinated pools? Surely they've got it the wrong way around or am I having one of those blonde moments [*-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirpy Posted December 22, 2005 Share Posted December 22, 2005 thankyou ASPERO-I also have a strange sense of humour -it is never understood at home .perhaps i will have a water-free pool which will need no maintenance,no laws to meet,until the rain fills it up again and i go round the merrygoround again.CATCH 22 PERHAPS IF I BURY IT I WILL HAVE NO MORE PROBLEMS.MAKE A GOOD LEEK GARDEN OR PRIVATE CEMETARY.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!bloody clever pool regulations -they have you by the xmas b**** -best form of french taxation and keeping some people employed..--just like speed cameras.now that's a touchy subjectWELL MERRY XMAS TO ALL YOU READERS AND SUBSCRIBERS -.-HOPE NOBODY GIVES YOU A XMAS BOX LIKE A CEMENT ONE --------------- IN OTHERWORDS A POOL.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AU-REVOIR OFF TO DROWN (NOPUN INTENDED) MY SORROWS IN A FEW XMAS DRINKS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted December 24, 2005 Share Posted December 24, 2005 I mentined this topic to a friend of mine who has just had a pool installed this year. He said that he already knew and was told that this is actual law that was already in effect and that he could not put water from the pool in to the mains sewage (drains). Ironically enough the installers created a soak-away behind the pool shed, or whatever it's called and thats where it goes. Won't be an issue for me as I have no intention (being poor [joke couldn't resist - sorry]) of having a pool, to much work for such little fun. My hot tub is all I need. It will be installed in a tub room in my woods, I can open my tub house windows, watch the birds eat from the feeders suspended from the roof, a nice book and my G&T with I&L and NO CHILDREN OR WOMEN ALLOWED. I've told 'her' that she can use it between 02:00 and 04:00 in any month with only 26 days, she's still trying to work that one out. Mind you she still can't find the month with a Z in it and thats when I do the housework.I shall go back upstairs for a refill now and see if the TV is still broadcasting cr@p, Christmas eve and look at the TV programs, rubbish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poolguy Posted December 26, 2005 Author Share Posted December 26, 2005 AbThe answerto your question is that; Yes you can choose what ever sanitisationsystem youwant at any time -the only difference is the cost. In your case wherethere iswater in the pool and equipment already commissioned then it will be ajob of work to do the change to install a pool controller which willrun your sanitisation on directinjection Chlorine and pH. You will have to change the entire poolwater and flush the salt - where I don;t know. However the goodnews is that the cost is actually cheaper toinstall and operate Chlorine direct system than with a salt system byabouthalf for equivalent technology.Adding tothe benefits I have posted before such as Automation, constant monitoring andmanagement, Minimum and constant attention to chlorine & pH levels nomatter the load, and so forth, you can now add the advantage of avoiding anyrepercussions from the law which will effectively prevent others fromdischarging salty, backwash water.Those who own saltpools that are worried that theyare being penalised for using what they call a ‘natural product’(salt).Can Ijust explain this a little more so that its clear as I don’t think thattherehas been a lot of honesty in the Pool industry where these systems aresold at a high price without much in the way of explaination orbackup service. Some are being sold without a pH controller which Ihave to say is quite rediculous as, the first requisit in anypool is to have the correct pH at 7.2 or there abouts at alltimes.Yes Salt isnaturally occurring, our bodies are 3% salt- we cannot live without it; and ¾of the earths surface is covered with salt water at a concentration level of35,000ppm and higher, roughly 2.6% by weight. Whereas a salt pool is not near this in its concentration, it variesbetween 3,500 – 6,000ppm or 0.3% by weight. Nevertheless, in the naturalenvironment 10 litres of waist pool water will do the same harm as 1 litre ofsea water. Now, as any gardener will verify, you will soon preside over adesert if you commence irrigating your garden with sea water. It’s the sameresult exactly with pool water from a salt system, but it takes a littlelonger. It is also the same for a fresh water stream where an introduction ofsalt will steadily build up and eventually, it will become an aquatic desertwhere none but salt tolerant algae can live in what might have been a lushfresh water stream teaming with fish and aquatic plants. Its a high price topay for a few people’s pleasure, especially where there is an alternative whichis not only acceptable environmentally but also offers substantial advantagesand is cheaper to run.If you aretrying to avoid the problem of discharging salt by using a soak away as hasbeen suggested, this will avoid the rath of the law, but your property willbear the brunt of the concentration of salt within the ground., which will killevery living thing as it gets high enough. That area of garden will be unableto support anything but the most vigorous salt tolerant plant of which thereare few. The only solution I can suggest which overcomes these problems is anevaporation pond, where waist water is deposited and the sun evaporates off thewater leaving the salt as a crystalline deposit. This you might be able torecoup and dispose of in some other way. Perhaps it could be sent back to thesea where it originated. So long as it is kept away from the fresh waterenvironmentThe larger thrustof this argument is that less than one percent of the water on the planet isavailable for drinking. It behoves us all of use to, first recognise the issueand then to do what we can to avoid making inroads into that number by turning50-100,000 litres and more of fresh water into unusable, undrinkable saltwater. On the scale of France that equals a possible total of 120,000 (mega)hectare litres which in thesetimes of water shortage is too much to loose. Not wanting to be too dramatic, but I can foresee that in the not toodistant future, wars will be fought not about oil as they are today but aboutwater- Israel v Palestine to start with.Now alittle about the alternative. Sodium Hypochloride (chlorine- made from salt)hasbeen known and used for cleaning for more than 2 centuries. It’s the samerefined substance used to sanitise pool water in Salt systems and Chlorinedirect systems. So if someone claims to be sensitive to chlorine, then choosinga salt system is not any different end point and will not provide any advantageor relief whatsoever. What is different about ‘chlorine direct’ systems is thatthe concentration of 1.5 ppm (as opposed to 3,5000ppm salt) of solids in thewater is so low that there is no possibility that any organism bigger than amicrobe which will be effected. Moreover, Chlorine is very unstable and willdenature in about 2 days unless it is ‘stabilised’ with cyanuric acid. This substanceis present in the gallets and granules you buy from the supermarket but it isnot present and is unnecessary in ‘chlorine direct’ systems. This cynuric acid is anotherpollutant which can be avoided, as is flocculent, hivernage, and antialgae asnone of these additives are necessary if your santisation system is effectiveand operating properly. Hence with none of these extras and such a lowconcentration, the discharge from a ‘chlorine direct’ system will be completelybenign to the environment; such that 1 litre of seawater equals 10 litres ofSalt system backwash water equals 23,000 litres of ‘chlorine direct’ water. Putanother way, there will be roughly the same environmentally harmful, suspendedsolids in 3 litres of sea water than your entire pool with ‘chlorine direct’system. Moreover,with a good filtration medium which extracts impurities down to one micron, therequirements for chlorine can be further reduced and so the water in yourswimming pool approaches a point which is as close as you can get to‘absolutely pure’. I am not talking about the level of distilled water as thatis unrealistic but as it comes from thetap. With this regime, those who are sensitive for some reason will beguaranteed of no more irritation in the pool, than they get in their shower.Children will not get sick or sore eyes from pH out of balance and commercialpool operators can be sure that there will be no claims from clients whocontract infections, as it can be shown that the pool or spa (for once) cannotbe the culprit. It is not only approved by DDASS (Dept of Health) but its arequirement for use in commercial pools. I hope thatthis has been helpful. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Witt Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I do have reservations about salt water chlorination but pumping out afew hundred litres of back wash water onto a lawn for instance isnot one of them - having said that no pool backwash water should beallowed to get into water-courses for obvious reasons.The salt concentration in salt water chlorination is about one tenthof sea-water and there are places in the world where crops areregularly irrigated by waste water that has higher levels of salinitythan this. The point is that all plants and crops vary in theirresistance to salinity. In France where we have a quite high rainfallthe salinity also gets washed away every times that it rains and sothere is a constant natural dilution process at work. So if you pumpyour backwash water out onto your lawn your grass may go a bit brownfor a while but you will not create a desert in your back garden!!!Whatis the advantage of salt water chlorination - In saltwater pools thereis 0.5 to 1.0 ppm chlorine and in traditional pools there is 3.0 - 10.0ppm chlorine - if someone is very sensitive to chlorine then this couldmake a big difference to their enjoyment of their swimming pool.What are the disadvantages? It is more expensive to install - but cheaper to run In hard water areas like Charente-Maritime and the Dordogne the veryhard water causes scale deposits to form on the electrodes. The cellthen needs to be taken apart and the electrodes cleaned off with anappropriate acidic cleaner. This can even happen every month or so ifthe pH control is not rigorous.If you want to read more about salt water chlorination please look atmy blog of December 30th here http://www.bluepools.typepad.com/bluepools/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poolguy Posted January 23, 2006 Author Share Posted January 23, 2006 WillAs anotherPool professional I welcome your input to this debate. However, Iam puzzled by some of your assertions though, whereas you agree that swimmingpool waste water in general is harmful for the environment but you are notconvinced that there is sufficient harm to avoid using it on your garden. Whynot can I ask? Also yousay that ‘there are places in the world which water their crops regularly withwaste water which is saltier that pool water’; well can I ask do their cropflourish or struggle, where are these places. I only ask as I cannot think ofany so I had to ask around. I asked an Academic from the University of theNegev in Israel, Yossi Ben Dov and he was sure that plants (not crops) could begrown under salted water irrigation but that the necessity for fresh water‘wash down’ was mandatory after each ‘dose’ of salted water. Yossi is aninternationally recognise expert on salt water irrigation, my brother visitedhim whilst on a tour of significant sites for His masters in LandscapeArchitecture thesis on Dry lands botanic gardens. My Brother is also clear thatwhilst some species do tolerate salt more than others, the ones which do arenot very attractive, nor very nutritious and would certainly not be native ofFrance, especially common grasses. Of those which do, I understand that stockwill not graze the course grasses which will grow in sand dunes for example. I see thatyou are resident in Charante Martime where this year a drought has limitedwatering of gardens with the hose to a minimum if not nil. I really can’t seethen how there can be any ‘washing away’ as you put of salts deposited from aswimming pool outwash. Moreover, I am reliable informed by Ben-Dov et. al. thatsalts do not wash away but rather decent into the ground water or, failing thatdescend to a point and from there build up to again reach the surface. This isthe primary cause of the desert advancing at more than 1 km per year inAustralia- I am sure that you would find no support for your ideas in thatcountry. As for spreading salt water onto to lawn – I think the expressionaccords with the acronym NIMBY. Yet still, Icannot fathom you last paragraph as Salt/chlorine pools require the exact samechlorine levels as Chorine Direct Pools to do the same work. I would havethought 1ppm up to 2ppm would be a good average. I do not know of anyone in theindustry to operates or recommends that pool owners maintain levels of up to10ppm of Chorine. As anything more than 4ppm would be regarded as Choc treatmentwhich is only used (rarely) when serious contamination strikes but is certainlynot the norm and absolutely not for swimming. These figures are fromrecommendations from the DDASS(dept Health) and are in use in Commercial anddomestic pools throughout most of France. I find thatI agree with you that salt chlorinators are more expensive to install but areonly cheaper in comparison to manual dosing which is an unfair comparison, aswith that method the pool owner is nearly 4000 euro better off not buying asalt chlorinator which pays a lot of manual doses. Chlorine direct I thinkyou’ll find is the same or a bit cheaper to run per year at about 80euros andabout half the cost to install. If I havemisinterpreted you comments then I should be pleased to reconsider them underyour illumination but at the moment I can find little to support at this time. Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poolguy Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 WillWe not heard from you on this issue.I was hopping that there would be something more you could add to clarify yourposition.Certainly after reading your Blog we have a lot to discuss. Particularly yourposition with respect to double bubble pools, as I think you have been vastly misinformedabout their construction, their advantages and the use to which the many ownersavail of this type of pool.Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I generally agree with quite a lot of what you post, particularlyregarding pool safety. However, having read through your posts on this subject, there are a few things I would take issue with."The larger thrustof this argument is that less than one percent of the water on the planet isavailable for drinking. It behoves us all of use to, first recognise the issueand then to do what we can to avoid making inroads into that number by turning50-100,000 litres and more of fresh water into unusable, undrinkable saltwater. On the scale of France that equals a possible total of 120,000 (mega)hectare litres which in thesetimes of water shortage is too much to loose."This is frankly an erroroneous assertation."Fresh" water naturally has a salt (as sodium chloride) content ofbetween 0 (rain water, for example) and 600ppm, so simply adding saltdoes not automatically render water unusable. Compared to the amount ofsalt spread on the roads in France each winter (hundreds of thousandsof tonnes: which ends up in water courses, remember), the amountdischarged from pools is unlikely to have a significant impact onoverall water quality. "Now, as any gardener will verify, you will soon preside over adesert if you commence irrigating your garden with sea water It’s the sameresult exactly with pool water from a salt system, but it takes a littlelonger."But you wouldn't be watering with seawater. Pool water is an order of magnitude less saline. While I wouldnot advocate watering the lawn with saline pool water, thisis not a fair comparison. Most food plants will tolerate over 1000 ppmsalt in soil and some (tomatoes and potatoes, for example) willtolerate over 6000 ppm. Not that levels often get that high."It is also the same for a fresh water stream where an introduction ofsalt will steadily build up and eventually, it will become an aquatic desertwhere none but salt tolerant algae can live in what might have been a lushfresh water stream teaming with fish and aquatic plants"Salt is souble. It wouldn't build up in asteam. It would be washed away. This is how salt (from mineral depositsand other sources - like road salting) gets into the sea in the firstplace."If you aretrying to avoid the problem of discharging salt by using a soak away as hasbeen suggested, this will avoid the rath of the law, but your property willbear the brunt of the concentration of salt within the ground., which will killevery living thing as it gets high enough."Actually, a properly constructed soak awayis an ideal way of disposing of water from saline pools. It placessalty water well away from plant roots where it could arguably dodamage and it will not build up: it will be washed away by the passageof rain waters, along with all the our salt that re-enters theenvironment from human activity: urination, for example, contributesabout 3.5 kg per person, per year, or 210,000 tonnes for France as awhole. "Now alittle about the alternative. Sodium Hypochloride (chlorine - made from salt)hasbeen known and used for cleaning for more than 2 centuries. It’s the samerefined substance used to sanitise pool water in Salt systems and Chlorinedirect systems."Sodium hypochlorite isnot some benign organic extract: it is bleach. Household bleach is onething, but in the concentrations in which it is supplied for chlorinedirect systems , and speaking as a chemist, I would frankly be unhappyto see it stored anywhere that was not displaying a "hazchem" notice.This is a nasty chemical. The production of hypochlorite from salt isvia a process that uses large quantities of mercury. Though the idea isthat none of this unspeakably vile metal should be lost, the factremains that hypochlorite production is not inherently anenvironmentally desirable activity."So if someone claims to be sensitive to chlorine, then choosinga salt system is not any different end point and will not provide any advantageor relief whatsoever. What is different about ‘chlorine direct’ systems is thatthe concentration of 1.5 ppm (as opposed to 3,5000ppm salt) of solids in thewater is so low that there is no possibility that any organism bigger than amicrobe which will be effected."The amount of activechlorine in salt systems is pretty much the same as this - a few ppm.The mention of 3500 ppm salt is irrelevent. "Moreover, Chlorine is very unstable and willdenature in about 2 days unless it is ‘stabilised’ with cyanuric acid. This substanceis present in the gallets and granules you buy from the supermarket but it isnot present and is unnecessary in ‘chlorine direct’ systems."Nor is it used in saline systems, which produce a constant supply of chlorine via electrolysis.Arguing the case forchlorine direct systems on the basis of cost and convenience is onething, but extending the arguement to include environmental benefit isnot, as I see it, justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Witt Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I think the post by jond neatly sums up the situation - and we onlycharge 1000 - 2000 euros for salt water chlorination systems in a newpool - certainly not 4000! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poolguy Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 Jond Thank youfor your considered contribution to this topic. Your professional expertise iswelcome as it was last time we dealt with this topic last year. We still seemto be viewing the topic from different sides of the chasm however. This timethere is a specific reason for the post rather than just an exploration of therichness of the topic – that is, that the law will now prohibit the ‘dumping’of ‘polluted’ water. Now, I am sayingthat this has impacts for swimming pool owners, I am not able to deal with thebroader concepts of salt on the roads or salt content in urine entering thesewage system. That is too broad for this thread, this law does not deal withsalt parse but is confined to water. I guess that the thrust of this law istrying to limit the impact on the streams and rivers from the introduction ofsalt as a pollutant in large quantities. The law may be extended to include theother areas where salt exists but that is up to our legislators in Europe andRegional governments. This law I am saying should be of specific concern forpeople who are purchasing swimming pools to be advised, be prepared and beinformed of their options. Presently,I have been advised by several Pool owners that Prefectures were insisting onseparate Fosse and evaporation pits for swimming pool backwash for new poolinstallations. This is a sign of things to come, I believe and is starktestament to the topic no matter whether it bears comparative investigationwith other issues. Clearly, pool owners will pay a higher price for salt water,chlorination systems; higher price in terms of the purchase cost for bothequipment and installations, and higher maintenance cost as the environmentalrestriction grow more harsh. This year,like the last will see ‘Red’ water restrictions over most of Western andSouthern France by all indications. The Regions have enforcement strategies inplace from last year and will no doubt be looking to increasing their effectivenessthis year. This is bad new for Farmers and could start to impact on privatewater users, particularly pool owners who are particularly high users. It meansthat the levels of water in streams, dams, lakes and the water table in generalis dangerously low and the Government is moving to protect the integrity ofsupplies against contamination. Hence the fuss about not dumping pollutedwater. Your advisethat most all domestic water supplies contain a level of ‘salts’ has beenconfirmed by official sources but not in the concentration you mention.Domestic water in Israel for example would contain no more than 400ppm andFrance half that according to Professor Silburbeush, Dean of the Department ofWater Resources in University of Negev. The Professor goes on to say that anyamount of salt in the soil is not a problem as such. It is only toxic to plantsonce it goes into solution and is absorbed by the roots. In his opinionsensitive plants could only tolerate about 1200 ppm, moderate plants includingthose consumed by humans and bovines about double that- above these level wouldbe considered to be toxic to plants. He is certainly interested in yourassertions that there is successful cropping where regimes of 6000ppm areextant as he does not know of any and they have been trying to achieve this for25 years. Could you be kind enough to be specific as to where these trials aregoing on. SodiumHypochloride is Bleach – well yes, everybody knows that. Its called Eau deJavel in France, everybody knows that too. Its been known for more than 150years, as has its effects and its usefulness. Its used in countless industriesand is far less harmful broadly speaking than many other more modern chemicalssuch as Hydrogen Peroxide known in the swimming pool market as ‘Oxygen active’,much more aggressive and even explosive as evidenced that (I understand) it wasthe major component in the London underground bombings. I cannot fathom youroutrage over the use of chlorine in a swimming pool. Its available on the supermarketshelves in concentrations of between 2.5% up to 9.6% for use in the home –every housewife would be used to using it and the precautions for doing so. Itsthe same 9.6% that is used in a swimming pool, chlorine direct method producing1.5 ppm in the water its is harmless to any organism bigger than a bug. Itsalso negates the need to use much harsher chemicals as Anitalgea (some of whichcontains copper, which causes damage to brain and nervous systems), Winterisingsolution -Benzilammoniate (not in my pool), flocculent and cyanuric acid. Youare aware that EVERY container which contains any sanitisation solution forwater is emblazed with logos citing ‘Hazardous to the Environment’, ‘Poison’,which it is in its concentrated form. This is normal and I cannot wonder whyit’s a new issue worthy of comment. I know that you will argue that a bag ofsalt does not have this labling, but the subject of this thread is interestedin the consequences further down the line. Havingchecked with my supplier of Javel, he confirms that his (patented) fabricationmethod contains NO mercury – its forbidden in Europe since before 2005 to sellany product with any mercury content. I can see no evidence from your post that theuse of 100 liters of Javel in a pool per year (at a cost of about €80) is inany way worse than dumping 400-600 kg of salt, at least 50% of which will endup being dumped into the storm water system or the subsoil. I am still of theopinion that the former method is a order of magnitude better both from thepoint of view of pool maintenance and from the point of care for theenvironment. I am sure that the law as it is being frame at present will soonmake it necessary to choose very carefully between these options. Andrew WillIn mycatalogue of leading brand of equipments. A Salt chlorinator producing anaverage 20 mlg per hour will cost €1650 HT, add to that a pH controller at€1200 HT with installation is €3700TTC.A chlorine direct system is still half of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 I've found this thread very interesting and informative, and thanks to you all for your comments and for the valuable information provided. I'm very curious about one thing: Having had a pool with a salt water chlorination system for around 3 years (installed from new) I don't think, other than at commissioning, we've ever had to add more than a couple of bags of salt per year. The pool's fine, pH levels perfectly OK and, apart from being in C-M where the water itself remains a problem, it's been no trouble and practically maintenance-free. So I am confused and a bit surprised to read that I'm supposed to be "dumping" 4-600Kg of salt into my pool on an annual basis. How? When? Why? [8-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poolguy Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 CroixblanchesThanks for the post on this subject Perhaps you have shown in this sentencewhere I am guilty of being a flippant on that subject. To be more precise the amount of salt you should add to your pool on a yearlybasis depends on many things. Firstly the volume of water in the pool is themost obvious, the larger the pool the more salt. Secondly, All electrolysersare not the same, some look for 3,500 ppm and some up to 6000ppm, it depends ontheir output. Some produce barely 10mlgms of chlorine per hour others willproduce 20, 30 or even 50 mlgrms/hour. They all have their own specificationwhich you will find in your manual and can only be determined by testing thesalt levels with a strip tester or the like.So my line to 'dump 4-600kg of salt in per year' is a bit flippant I mustadmit, but (in my defence) it was crafted in the heady atmosphere of not quite adversarialdebate. The correct figure for this sentence is unknown I suspect, as I cannotfind a methodology to determine what might be the specification of an 'average'salt pool. Certainly, the most popular electrolyser seems to yield about 15mlgms/ hr but even that might be subject to variation regionally and bears noclue to the volume of pool it will service.So my apologies for over stepping the boundaries of verifiable disclosure. Ishall certainly be more careful as we move forward and explore this topicvariously.Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Well, to say I'm relieved is an understatement!! Must admit, though, it puts a very different complexion on the relative "toxicity" of the water in question as I, for one, would be horrified to think of water (and our pool's not THAT big) containing such a huge volume of salt being dumped out and polluting the environment, whereas I'm having a lot more trouble understanding how the small amounts we're using can have a detrimental effect.Anyway Andrew, thanks for "owning up"[;)] - it's put my mind at rest over one thing, even though maybe not over the whole question. Pity, really, as we're more than happy with our system and, expense aside, would be loathe to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickp Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catherined Posted April 30, 2006 Share Posted April 30, 2006 I'll introduce myself before I jump in here.We bough a property in teh Dordogne 3 years ago, and to afford it we let it out in Summer. We installed a salt pool and an automatic ph etc to make it easy to handle for tenants and for whoever is looking after the pool for us.After a few problems last year I was doing some research on the web and found the followinghttp://www.cleanerpools.net/slimebag.html (Mods this is not advertising- I have tried to buy one of these on line but you have to jump through so many hoops to get it sent to Europe that I gave up!)It seems to be a solution to sending disposing of backwash water (although we have a cartridge filter and I was looking at it more as a way of improving the quality of the water and increasing the life of my filter.)I'd value your opinion and if you think it's a good idea I might try harder to get hold of one. (or maybe some enterprising pool supplier in Europe will look for a dealership in them!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnb Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 All this is very interesting, as we are having a salt pool installed as I write and no, we haven't been warned of any impending legislation either by the installer or our local mairie. It raises all sorts of questions: for example, there is little if any trace of damage from the extensive use of rock salt on roads. Is this to be banned also? We then have, Europe-wide, water softeners, dish-washers etc. Are these to be banned also? Most houses in France, including ours, have a dish-washer, used daily, and I'm fairly sure they and I will deposit a lot more salt via dish-washers than I and others will with a pool. Most houses (flats?) in France still don't have a pool, and most never will.Has there been any discussion on 'watering' gardens with bleach water, vis-a-vis those on watering with salt water posted earlier?Are we into more ill-thought-out knee-jerk legislation similar to pool security, which has attracted more ridicule than respect?JohnB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnandCaroline Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Hello Pool Guy,My wife and I are hoping to move to France as soon as we can sell up in England. We may need to install a pool as we wish to run either a gite complex or a chambre d'hote.I have been reading up about pool treatment methods and the environmental impact of the salt/chlorine systems. I have also been reading American and Australian sites which appear to be offering natural water pools without salt or chlorine. These seem to offer a far better solution but I have read a couple of threads suggesting that these are not acceptable to the French health authorities, and I haven't seen any such systems on French web sites. Perhaps you would no if there is any likelihood of some changes in this direction.Also I am trying to put together some budgets for a swimming pool say 15 x 10 with adequate security and wonder what sort of ball park figure I need to provide. I know its a bit of how long is a piece of string, but I don't want the finest pool in France neither do I want the cheapest rubbish on the market that will give endless problems.Any advice would be welcome.We are currently favouring the northern Medoc region but things can change.John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.