Pee, Not Chlorine, Causes Red Eyes from Swimming Pools: CDC (2015)

Post by 0xdeadb00f » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:22 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #182

xiii1408 wrote: post #21

This has been well-known by swimmers for a long time: chlorine itself is pretty much fine for you. It's the chemical reaction of chlorine with waste products, including human waste, that produces toxic byproducts and the concomitant "pool smell." If you swim in a well-maintained pool (e.g. one of my university's competition swimming pools), there's no "pool smell."

> chlorine itself is pretty much fine for you It's difficult to imagine a context that would make this sentence reasonable. Chlorine is a light halogen. It's fine if it's bound to something stable, like in salt. It certainly isn't fine by itself. It's literally one step up from fluorine, the most horrifying substance known to man. The safety diamond for chlorine rates it a 4 for health: "Very short exposure could cau…

Post by Pristina » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:26 AM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #329

frandroid wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that good air ventilation close to the pool's surface has the side effect of accelerating evaporation and thus cooling the water, requiring more energy to keep the temperature up...

Putting the exhaust air through a heat exchange unit or dehumidifier can collect most of the evaporated water and lost heat.

Post by angry_octet » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:50 AM UTC

mchannon wrote: post #291

angry_octet wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pool shock (a spike in active chlorine) will react with amines and oxidise them -- saying they don't work is bizarre. It is painful to do manually though. A UV filtration system is far easier, but also far more expensive. Dumping water isn't practical as many places have water restrictions. Chlorine gas is produced in vast quantities industrially, then compounds like calcium chloride, sodium hypochlorite and sodium d…

"saying they don't work is bizarre"- that it doesn't work is pretty much exactly what the article says, and it's true, as long as "work" is defined as not turning your eyes red. Shock is useful for raising the total chlorine concentration in the pool, which is useful for discouraging bacteria, but it'll boil off in a day. If you have more amines to tie up chlorine than you add chlorine, bacteria and algae grow becaus…

Post by bryanrasmussen » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 11:50 AM UTC

Pristina wrote: post #332

xiii1408 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Unfortunately, one of the rats accidentally drowned during swimming training; therefore, the final animal number of the [experimental group] was 17." Damn, poor guy. > "When training, a screw nut approximately 3% of their mean body weight was tied to the top end of the tail of each rat, and all rats were kept in the special pools with water of 60 cm depth (water temperature 25–30°C, pH 6.5–7.0) until fatigued (sub…

This gives me an idea of an online gambling site where people bet crypto on which rat will drown first. I will call it thunderpool. 2 rats enter, 1 rat leaves.

Post by black-tea » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 1:15 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #182

xiii1408 wrote: post #21

This has been well-known by swimmers for a long time: chlorine itself is pretty much fine for you. It's the chemical reaction of chlorine with waste products, including human waste, that produces toxic byproducts and the concomitant "pool smell." If you swim in a well-maintained pool (e.g. one of my university's competition swimming pools), there's no "pool smell."

> chlorine itself is pretty much fine for you It's difficult to imagine a context that would make this sentence reasonable. Chlorine is a light halogen. It's fine if it's bound to something stable, like in salt. It certainly isn't fine by itself. It's literally one step up from fluorine, the most horrifying substance known to man. The safety diamond for chlorine rates it a 4 for health: "Very short exposure could cau…