The salient point of the article:
"People should not be afraid of swimming, but we should get more research on whether there are better practices for disinfecting pools," said Manolis Kogevinas, an epidemiologist at the Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona.
****
Of course chlorine is toxic. Of course, that toxicity leads to some increase in risk.
The question is "How big is that increased risk compared with the dramatic health benefits of exercise?" I'm guessing that it is rather small.
The article itself doesn't measure long term healthy risks - it measures chemical properties of the water, and the skin of swimmers, which could lead to risk.
The risk is hypothetical.
If those risks were real and large, there would be studies that show "Swimmers have X amount of risk for Y condition compared with non-swimmers." You haven't seen those studies. If there is such a risk, it is pretty small.
Now, are there better water disinfectants than chlorine? I hope so. I don't like that stuff.
Mick Young
BS Chemistry, MS Public Health Statistics
What I'd like to know is, what is it that prevents most pools from switching to ozone or UV? Is it much more expensive to maintain?
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that for most pools it is not the operating/maintenance costs, but the initial capital costs of changing systems. From what I've heard, a switch to ozone or UV requires a different filtration system, or at least some sort of significant retrofitting. In that case, a pool would either need to do some sort of fundraising or have substantial savings on the new maintenance costs to make the change financially viable.
However, my information is second hand. Does anyone know for sure? What sorts of changes are needed to go from chlorine to ozone or UV or otherwise?
No, it isn't bunk, it isn't even all that controversial. EHP is a perfectly fine scientific journal; I'll look up the articles when I have some more time to see what exactly is new in the studies referenced, but any search for "chlorination disinfection byproducts" will come up with many hits.
I only had time to skim the DiscoveryNews article. The idea that chlorination can cause respiratory problems, especially in sensitive people, shouldn't shock anybody who has spent time at pools. Especially in poorly-ventillated pool areas: because of this, the pools I swim in have gone to a non-chlorinated system (uv for one pool, ozone for the other) specifically because the kids were having such a hard time breathing -- excessive coughing, etc -- when the pools were chlorinated. The problems are gone now.
As far as cancer, the risk needs to be put in perspective compared to other sources (eg, smog, second-hand smoke, natural carcinogens, indoor air pollution). The increased risk may be negligible.
But the risks associated with NOT disinfecting the pool, or doing so poorly, are much higher. And swimming is certainly better than being sedentary; all the article is saying is that if you have a choice of pools, go with the one where breathing seems easier. I love my non-chlorine pools (my eyes never hurt when I do my backstroke sets sans goggles) and do wish there were more of them.
Oh God! :dedhorse: Die already!
You just couldn't wait to use that Smilie, huh? :D
So, what's the verdict on saline pools? Chlorine is still used in saline pools, but much less, thankfully.... The indoor pool I swim in is saline and a LOT more pleasant than a standard chlorine pool. Hopefully, it's healthier, too.
But, doesn't it seem like everything cause cancer these days??? It seems like no matter how hard we try to control our diet, health habits, and environment, cancer finds its way... :badday:
Chlorine is still used in saline pools, but much less, thankfully
I don't think Chlorine is used so much as it is created. Saline pools use NaCl and the Cl part of that compound produces chlorine gas when it's passed through an electric field. I don't know if it's correct to assume that saline pools should be an safer than traditional chlorine pools.
There were a few threads on this topic on this forum in the past, some with good sources. Just search chlorine and cancer.
What I'd like to know is, what is it that prevents most pools from switching to ozone or UV? Is it much more expensive to maintain?
I'd love to see more attention to making disinfecting pools with less toxic methods made more available and more cost effective. It is the end of the outdoor season, and indoor swimming is hard on my breathing. I'm sure we have some scientists here and I hope they can get to work on this issue.
Anything that has chlorine in it will be a possible carcinogen. Drinking water standards are now in effect to limit Disinfection by-products (because of chlorine exposure) because they are known to be carcinogens. Same thing can happen in chlorinated pools.
It is also hard for me to believe that those pools only use uv and ozone as a disinfectant because neither one has any residual effects. That is one of the main reasons for using chlorine so it always stays clean, not just at contact.
But, doesn't it seem like everything cause cancer these days??? It seems like no matter how hard we try to control our diet, health habits, and environment, cancer finds its way... :badday:
My point exactly.
BTW... there's far more people that have cancer that don't swim... Surely there's a link to lack of chlorine exposure. :D
