Southdown Sand possibly toxic?....

[Riotfishdude]

This post was added on a local board (mops.on.ca) from a guy that claims to be a 28 year marine biologist that moved from California to Toronto recently,thought i would paste it here and at RC for some opinions....

bunk or food for thought?.....Riot.....


"I see the interest in SOUTHDOWN sand is as big in Canada as in the northern United States. Th Eastern States have had access to this type of sand at great prices straight from the quarries for years. I have spent hours reading all the posts on Southdown and recognize the same missed information in all.
In the aquariums in California, we used aragonite sand (same as Southdown) that was shipped in bulk from the quarries. This was very expensive and not feasible for the home reef keeper. The reasons for direct shipping from the quariies was this.

(I'm not going to get into the technical and scientific reasons but going to give a simple explainations of our findings through years of research.)

Fisrt - When companies like Southdown store the sand before processing (in this case only bagging), it is stored in large open yards. The Sand is shipped from the quarries to the yard using commercially tendered trucks. In other words, the trucks are hired dump style trucks, used for shipping other materials in their days work. This could be materials from municipal waste to various aggregates. Do you want to risk getting even one contaminated bag in your tank. Now the chances of getting such contamination is very low, as over 100,000 tons is shipped monthly. Remember that Southdown doesn't disinfect, treat, or wash the sand. It's only bagged.

Second - The sand is in fact sprayed with a oil based liquid to keep the dust down in their yards. This is very common practice with other fine aggregates such as calcite. The oil is non-toxic, and is the same petroleum base as what is used in pesticides and herbicides. IT IS NON TOXIC....to humans, but no research into the affects on marine life.

THE BIG ONE - HEAVY METALS.....as the majority of my research over the past 28 years is in the field of marine life reproduction, the topic of HEAVY METALS is the devil of my work. Fish, and inverts will (in a nut shell) absorb heavy metals from their environment and store it in their fatty tissues, to later be consumed by vital organs. The case of mercury in our freshwater fish is a great example. SOUTHDOWN, is NOT magnetically filtered, screened or tested for these heavy metals. In our tests the level of heavy metals in SOUTHDOWN and similarily supplied aragonite sands was at toxic, and potentially lethal levels. Now, the effects of heavy metal absorption in marine mammals, fish and inverts is slow, and signs of their affects may go unoticed for months, years or never noticed. I WARN YOU ALL....IF YOU DO A BREEDING PROGRAM....DO NOT USE SOUTHDOWN OR SIMILAR ARAGONITE SANDS...USE SANDS PROCESSED FOR AQUARIUM USE. To screen the sands of heavy metals is very intricate process. CARIB SEA are the leaders in this process. At the aquarium in California, the process of removing heavy metals was the largest bugetary concern for the tanks. IT'S THAT IMPORTANT.

My thought is this as a home reef keeper. One of the least expensive costs in the hobby is first, the tank...then the substrate. Is it worth saving a couple hundred dollars and take a chance on your reef that will be worth several thousand? Over time, we all invest alot of money in our tanks, just to have dramatic affects after 4 years of running....Not worth it to me. I will gladly pay the extra money for properly processed sand. Just think of the contraversy we're seeing lately in the amounts of heavy metals in SALT MIXES....the levels in your bag of SOUTHDOWN are roughly 300 to 400 times higher. Up to you...

I just wnated to pass this information along as it's the results of many years of studies which I was personally involved in....Please don't anyone be offended or think of this as putting down the latest interest in SOUTHDOWN....it's experimenting with different things that has evolved this hobby, but the particular area of concern of using SOUTHDOWN is slowly being proven as a disaster to breeders. Remember, it's long term damage and will take 3-4 years to show in most systems or specimens. I AM AN ADVOCATE OF USING SANDS AND SUBSTRATES SPECIFICALLY PROCESSED FOR AQUARIUM USE. Thanks all. "

 

[Anonymous]

I knew that stuff was too good to be true. I'm glad that I couldn't get a hold of any when I was looking for it.

 

[Kabob]

Like most cheap things, there are good experiences and bad experiences. Evidenced by the fact that I still see Yugo's every now and then. :lol:

Jason

 

[Anonymous]

Retired Marine Biologist. I did some searches of this guy and pretty much the only posts I found from him anywhere are identical to what you have above. It sounds promotional for Carib Sea. The only actual statement of interest is:

In our tests the level of heavy metals in SOUTHDOWN and similarily supplied aragonite sands was at toxic, and potentially lethal levels.

but there is no proof of any kind associated with it. Sorry, this one goes in the trash, IMO.

 

[madrefkepr]

I agree with Dan. Where is the scientific data?

 

[Robin Goodfellow]

hi.
(In a white coat, wearing a glasses, with some pens in the packet protector, and some diplomas framed in the back, but too small to see what on them... some colorful liquid in beakers are behind...)

The amount of calcium in a bag of SD sand (50lb) can kill four full grown adults if they ingest it in one setting. Even if they can survive the ordeal, the possibility of kidney stone and digestive problem (carbonate + stomach acid = CO2 gas!) is very dangerous. Now, we human can handle it pretty well already, and so if you subject the same thing to smaller invertibrate, the potential for harm is even more serious.

I'm not going to get into the technical and scientific reasons but we had done years of research. You are too dumb to understand anything, so just take every single word I said 'cause I am a real scientist, and you kiddies are too young and dumb to know what i am talking about...

oh, the oil they spray on the sand is non-toxic, and is the same petroleum base as what is used in pesticides and herbicides. Yeah, you heard me right, pesticides are herbicides' petroleum base is totally non-toxic, and in fact, I have a big beaker of it... (drinking down a green liquid....) and see, I still alive.

I am not going to get into the affect of those petroleum base on marine life, although I work on this very special field for almost 30 yrs. This is because I just came across the idea right after my retirement. If I had think about it just a week earlier, I would be able to get half a dozen peer-reviewed papers published in some of the most prestige periodicals.

In our tests the level of heavy metals in SD and similarily supplied aragonite sands was at toxic, and potentially lethal levels. Now, the effects of heavy metal absorption in marine mammals, fish and inverts is slow, and signs of their affects may go unoticed for months, years or never noticed. I took me almost 30 years to detect the toxicity, and that's why I am the only authority in the world to tell you this. The amount of time invested and the amount of money in these research was so great that I can't really give you the specific information.

To screen the sands of heavy metals is very intricate process, and we hired several thousand workers to check each grain carefully. This why some aragonite sand are so much more expensive than the regular sand.

We used aragonite sand that was shipped in bulk from the quarries. This was very expensive and not feasible for the home reef keeper. We have both time and money, and you should feel inferior just for thinking about using cheap sand... . Oh, did I said something about the process of removing heavy metals was the largest bugetary concern for the tanks? Well, none of you can afford this process and will have no idea what I am talking about.

then, let me statr with smoe mispellingss,a nd best aof all witha om SUTPAID CAPITOA LETTER TO GET YORU ATTTENTIONE BECASUE A i HAVE NO IDAEEAL WHAT i AM TALKDNING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(pooh... the middle-aged man suddenly turned into a 13 years old boy named chris...)

 

[madrefkepr]

:lol:

 

[GSchiemer]

The only thing I will say is that these comments may explain the warning that Southdown puts on every bag of their sand stating that it should not be used in aquariums. This still bugs me. Why would they intentionally cut out this market for their product if they didn't have a real reason for concern? Every company is in business to make money and that's done by opening up new markets for their products to generate increased sales. It doesn't make sense. And please don't start the conspiracy theories about Southdown making a secret deal with Carib-Sea to inflate the price of the product.

On a related note, I don't understand the fascination with this Southdown sand or any of the powder-fine aragonite-based sands. In addition to the clumping issues, that kind of substrate is only found in lagoons and mangrove swamps. If that's what you're trying to replicate, then it's an ideal substrate, but if your goal is to replicate a high-energy reef, it's not the right choice.

I know about the nitrate reduction beliefs, but I think those claims are overblown and unproven, and nitrate reduction can be accomplished in other ways. I know many reef aquariums without nitrate problems and none of them utilize a thick powdery substrate.

Lately I've been recommending that Nature's Ocean live sand. It's reasonably priced, doesn't cloud the water, doesn't clump, is the perfect grain size, and is very consistent bag to bag. Of course, you can always use real live sand, although good live sand can be difficult to find. Fortunately there are still some good local sources of white Florida Keys live sand in the NYC area. Great stuff! You'll never go back to sugar sand after seeing this stuff in a reef aquarium.

Just my two cents.

Greg

 

[Robin Goodfellow]

hi.
The liability issue related to aquarium is probably prompt SD to put the warning label. It does not mean much. I am sure it will put a label on it saying that it is not to be consumed by human, if someone filed a sue when they want to use is a calcium supplement. Go figure.

 

[madrefkepr]

The only thing I will say is that these comments may explain the warning that Southdown puts on every bag of their sand stating that it should not be used in aquariums. This still bugs me. Why would they intentionally cut out this market for their product if they didn't have a real reason for concern? Every company is in business to make money and that's done by opening up new markets for their products to generate increased sales. It doesn't make sense. And please don't start the conspiracy theories about Southdown making a secret deal with Carib-Sea to inflate the price of the product.

Maybe for the same reason manufacturers of silicone label thier products with the same warning. I believe this would be a liability issue they just don't want. That does not mean that the products are not safe. Take GE silicone I for example. If you talk with a sales rep, as I have, in person, the official position is that it is not for aquarium use. However, off the record, the same sales rep told me 100% silicone is 100% silicone. Many people have used silicone I with absolutely no problems, as they have with southdown. But in the overall market, aquarium use would be such a small percentage of sales, it's just not worth the potential for liability.

 

[madrefkepr]

I guess Robin beat me to it. :lol:

 

[GSchiemer]

Maybe for the same reason manufacturers of silicone label thier products with the same warning. I believe this would be a liability issue they just don't want.

I thought the reason for that was because many companies add a mildewcide to their silicone products. There are a few brands of silicone sealant that do say it's safe to use on aquariums, so this isn't universal and may not have to do with liability issues.

Greg

 

[madrefkepr]

Some products, such as GE Silicone II for kitchen and bath do contain a mold/mildew inhibitor, while other products, such as Silicone I, and if I remember correctly, the other silicone II products, do not. I don't know about other companies, but GE does clearly state the use of fungicides on the label when applicable. The official position is still 'not for aquarium use' on the products that do not use a fungicide.

 

[Riotfishdude]

gotta say,you dont get intelligent conversation on threads like this at RC ive noticed,good points have been made above,all ive gotten at RC is "well guess thats why it says so on the bag" and thats it.....

i wondered if this guy was some sort of Carib-Sea salesman,but i do think that the points he has made are valid,who knows what enters the huge piles of this kind of sand while it sits in open yards,i know DR Ron has posted his article on Salt mix toxins as he tries to find a way to reduce heavy metals in his own tank and am sure ive seen him post that he uses Southdown as his substrate (i could be wrong),so who knows?,no tests have been done on this sand that is not made for aquarium use......has there?......Riot.....

 

[Marcosreef]

...who knows what enters the huge piles of this kind of sand while it sits in open yards...

A couple of bags I used had leaves in them.

 

[madrefkepr]

Just spoke with a friend who was also involved with the discussion with the GE sales rep. From what he remembers, the deal with the silicone, he thought, had to do with the solvent used. I kind of remember talking about it, and I think it was said if it was allowed to cure properly, the solvent should not be a factor. Anyway, didn't mean to turn this into a thread about silicone!

I think there is some validity to the possibility of contaminants in southdown. I am not sure about a petroleum based oil being sprayed on it, and I haven't heard of anyone experiencing an oil slick in thier tank, but it's possible. But I am still not about to get all excited about a post on a website (that sells substrates, mind you) until there is some proof that southdown is any worse than any other substrate.

 

[Markymarklar]

shouldn't you be able to get most of the toxic metals and chemicals out? if you set up a tank, cycle the sand, and run the tank water through carbon, wouldn't that remove some of the metals? if you run carbon in your system all the time that might prevent the metals and chemicals from harming your inverts. no expert. don't know how fast chemicals get absobed by carbon, and i certainly don't know how fast metals and chemicals get released from southdown(if they do at all). just thought for all of you that are currently using southdown, you could probably get by by just running carbon in your system. i think most of us already have enough to worry about with our tanks :!:

 

[bowfront]

The official position is still 'not for aquarium use' on the products that do not use a fungicide.

Sorry to sideline this thead but personally I think this is some kind of closed doors agreement made with the aquarium trade. I've used different silicone products on many occasions that specify 100% silicone without any problems in fish and reef tanks.

As far as Southdown somehow being sterile LOL. I live about 50 miles south of a major destribution site for this stuff where you can buy it by the pickup load (you shovel). Lets face it's sand (sand box or aquarium) so its not going to be sterile or necessarily devoid of contaminants.

 

[Robin Goodfellow]

hi.
Unless the bag is certified by FDA or ACS as food-grade, aragonite sand by anybody does not mean that it is better than anybody else even if the bag say safe for aquarium.

Urine, if there is no infection on the tract, is sterile. This does not mean that you can use it instead of RO/DI for top off. Sorry, sound like I may end up Sumping this thread after all... :wink:

 

[Louis Z]

This poster writes that Southdown does not magnetically filter, screen or test for heavy metals. He states that Carib sea is a leader in the process of "to screen the sand of heavy metals is very intricate process". He doesnt state that Caribe sea magnetically filters the sand either. But he sure does make it sound that the caribe sea screening process means filtering ("screen the sand of heavy metals"). How does one screen [Possibly 100,000 tons per month] the sand of heavy metals? I guess if Caribe Sea tested its sand for heavy metals and others suppliers did not then yes they could be classified as the leader. He also asks us to "remember that southdown does not disinfect, treat or wash the sand" but doesnt state whether or not Caribe Sea does. As for a "aquarium in California" which one is it? The aquarium or aquariums must have tested for the source of heavy metal contamination(where are the results?) that caused "the largest budgetary concern". If someone wants to eliminate heavy metal contamination and spend lots of mula I imagine they would look for the source of contamination before they spend money on trying to get rid of it. He doesnt state how or if Caribe Sea covers or trucks their sand. Does he state that Caribe Sea has huge warehouses and their own fleet of trucks to move and store their tons of sand? I see a lot of statements made to imply there is a difference to sway the reader. And he sure must have ties to Caribe Sea to intimately know all of the implied differences.