# GE Silicone II* Window and Door with BioSeal*



## Hthundar (Apr 10, 2009)

I see that GE silicone I is recommended along with DAP, but why is the GE Silicone II* Window and Door with BioSeal* not? I have looked at other post, but no one really seams to provide a decent answer.

Thanks.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

it contains chemicals known to harm aquatic life.


----------



## parkayandbutter (Jan 15, 2008)

Fact or Myth? Yet your just being a speculator aren't you!? And you don't list them specifically because?.... So it's just an assumption then. 
How can you possible link one ingredient and not the other 1000 things that could be a contributing factor? Moderator if your going to post something like that BACK YOUR reasoning with proof.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*parkayandbutter*
The chemicals used in the "bioseal" are known to harm aquatic life, and so the product is not recommended. Note: I did not make any assumptions beyond the facts... I did not say that the product will harm aquatic life, nor did I claim anything bad will happen. I actually don't think the cured stuff will do squat, but I've got no proof so I don't offer that.

I stuck to the pure and simple facts.

Do I have to go and find the list of chemicals in the bioseal and link to the studies that showed they are harmful and then prove that the chemicals will leach out in enough volume to harm the fish? NO because I never posted anything about the product nor made any claims... sometimes a short answer is the right answer.


----------



## RyanR (Apr 29, 2008)

parkayandbutter said:


> Fact or Myth? Yet your just being a speculator aren't you!? And you don't list them specifically because?.... So it's just an assumption then.
> How can you possible link one ingredient and not the other 1000 things that could be a contributing factor? Moderator if your going to post something like that BACK YOUR reasoning with proof.


Ummm... BioSeal is *designed* to inhibit the growth of biological organisms. If given the choice between a product with no additives, and another with poisons deliberately added, you've got to be a fool to choose the latter over the former.

All of the evidence in the world doesn't offset simple logic, especially when we're dealing with variables that you can't measure in an aquarium. You can't measure the health of an organism, especially with the small sample size in home aquariums.

-Ryan


----------



## Mcdaphnia (Dec 16, 2003)

If the only "decent" answer that you want to hear is one exonorating Silicone II, you will not hear one from a cichlid hobbyist who knows what they are doing. But this is the Internet, so someone without a clue will gladly make up some story for you.

The toxicity has already been mentioned, but there are two other problems with using Silicone II.

As it cures, it gives off ammonia. If you have aquariums in the same building, the ammonia will travel through the air and be absorbed by the aquarium water. potentially killing your fish, just as using ammonia window cleaner will do, only a LOT more ammonia is produced and for a LOT longer time.

The other problem is that Silicone II does not stick as strongly to glass as Silicone I does. This can greatly reduce the safety margin of your project, and the seams can leak or simply open up either right away or some time later when it is especially inconvenient.


----------



## Hthundar (Apr 10, 2009)

Mcdaphnia said:


> If the only "decent" answer that you want to hear is one exonorating Silicone II, you will not hear one from a cichlid hobbyist who knows what they are doing. But this is the Internet, so someone without a clue will gladly make up some story for you.
> 
> The toxicity has already been mentioned, but there are two other problems with using Silicone II.
> 
> ...


Thank you for being the first and only one to give a reasonable answer to my question. :thumb:

Thanks again!


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Hthundar said:


> Thank you for being the first and *only one* to give a reasonable answer to my question.


Wow... will keep that response in mind.

McDaphnia... 
"But this is the Internet, so someone without a clue will gladly make up some story for you. "

:thumb: very funny and true... opcorn:


----------



## Hthundar (Apr 10, 2009)

> Wow... will keep that response in mind.
> 
> McDaphnia...
> "But this is the Internet, so someone without a clue will gladly make up some story for you. "
> ...


I'm not quiet sure what was ment by this statement.


----------



## kjhydock (Apr 28, 2009)

Hthundar said:


> > Wow... will keep that response in mind.
> >
> > McDaphnia...
> > "But this is the Internet, so someone without a clue will gladly make up some story for you. "
> ...


His very similar, but more simplified response was not only completely overlooked, but also insulted.

OT, Mcdaphnia is absolutely correct in what he says. The useful tidbit about it not adhering to glass as well as GE I new information to me as well though.


----------



## Mcdaphnia (Dec 16, 2003)

Hthundar said:


> > Wow... will keep that response in mind.
> >
> > McDaphnia...
> > "But this is the Internet, so someone without a clue will gladly make up some story for you. "
> ...


It means that if you ask, "Can I keep neon tetras with my breeding pair of oscars?", you will get various (and correct) versions of "No" from most people. But eventually someone will respond with go for it. If that's what you want to hear, you will ignore all the correct answers.

In this thread I'm not sure what evaluation process was going on. Everyone seemed pretty much on the same page with their replies. But some people want more talking to talk them out of a bad idea than others, so it is nothing personal.


----------



## werbs (May 11, 2009)

parkayandbutter said:


> Fact or Myth? Yet your just being a speculator aren't you!? And you don't list them specifically because?.... So it's just an assumption then.
> How can you possible link one ingredient and not the other 1000 things that could be a contributing factor? Moderator if your going to post something like that BACK YOUR reasoning with proof.


Who cares what the reason is, they are like the same price anyways. If someone showed you two pens both the same color, the same size, same type, same price, but they said, "One has really strong vapors that cause dizziness" would you ask them, "Are you sure? what is the actual chemical compound that creates the odors? do you have proof? cause I really want to buy that particular pen!"

NO! you would just buy the other pen.


----------



## Hthundar (Apr 10, 2009)

Yes I would ask them. How do you know if that person actually knows what they are talking about. I like facts. Not just some rumor that has started and no one actually has any clue about it.


----------



## Mcdaphnia (Dec 16, 2003)

Hthundar said:


> Yes I would ask them. How do you know if that person actually knows what they are talking about. I like facts. Not just some rumor that has started and no one actually has any clue about it.


 Due to the nature of the World Wide Web, this is a venue of ideas, not of facts. Those ideas have to be matched up with the facts, verified elsewhere, in the real world one might say.

The problem with rumors and mythology is that they sound good. They have a factual "feel" to them that disguises their real content, and they invade our mind the same way viruses invade our bodies with an outer disguise to avoid our defenses.

Even in printed media and in scientific studies, it is possible for mythology to creep in. For years many aquarium books incorrectly advised the use of uniodized salt when iodized table salt is actually better for our fish. Even if the salt is questionable as a benefit, the iodine is an essential nutrient that is rapidly depleted in a closed aquarium system and not supplied in many kinds of prepared fish foods. The uniodized salt myth started about the same time as one of the first conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theorists then were sure that the "Government" was adding iodine to salt in order to kill off the elderly and avoid paying them Social Security, so a lot of literature and word of mouth passed on the rumor that something was wrong with iodized salt.

You cannot count on shaking down contributors on a thread here, to test their reliability. It can't produce facts. Some journalists have gotten into trouble by using the internet as a sole source of information. Whatever ideas you find here or anywhere from the media, have to be rechecked in the real world. Read the labels. Test items yourself before committing a large project to them.


----------



## bell (Dec 12, 2005)

Your response was a lot more polite then what I almost posted.......
I saw some feathers getting ruffled.....

If ever in doubt call the manufacturer of the product for the facts.......
The wealth of knowledge on this bbs is invaluable and one of the best web resources.

Cheers


----------



## kornphlake (Feb 12, 2004)

Lately the internet and it's myths have consumed this and most other hobbies. I don't know where to turn for reliable information on topics such as the above because the editors of magazines and authors of books are reading the same information we are posting on the internet. These classically reliable sources are now strongly biased because they are taking their research from what I consider an unreliable source.

My biggest gripe is that chatter on the internet quickly dismisses the professionals in the field and creates arbitrary standards in a competition to be the Jones' everyone wants to keep up with. Why would Marineland, Eheim, Fluval or other manufacturers of filtration equipment lie, why would they rate their equipment for a certain size tank if it was not in fact able to filter a tank of that size? If the hobbyist can not turn to equipment manufacturers as professionals who then can be considered a reputable expert in the hobby? So many now consider themselves experts and have gained the respect of thousands of other hobbyists because their post count is formidable. Repeating what one has read but never confirmed and representing it as fact or personal experiance is not only unethical and childish, it is hurting the hobby. We need more inquisition, more trial and error, more professionals by accomplishment rather than professionals by post count.

I've been reading through some articles our fish club had stored in the closet from the early '80s. Guess what I've found, some of the newest ideas to surface on the internet were actually suggested by enthusiasts over 20 years ago when they tested the methods in their own tanks and wrote actual articles describing their methods and conclusions. There are no "me too" articles where the author simply repeated whatever the rest of the hobbists were already doing, it was a time of individual research and genuine contribution to the hobby. Regretfully the means of distributing those articles was limited to snail mail correspondance with fish clubs to print the articles in thier club newsletters. Many of the articles have been lost or overlooked, the few that still exist are not available to the majority of the hobby. We as a hobby need to go back to the basics and test the theories that have emerged on keeping fish and record the results carefully so that it can be considered research to be shared on the internet as reliable information. I see very little of the information on this site as being reliable, rather I read it for entertainment only.


----------



## werbs (May 11, 2009)

> Why would Marineland, Eheim, Fluval or other manufacturers of filtration equipment lie, why would they rate their equipment for a certain size tank if it was not in fact able to filter a tank of that size?


sales



> Repeating what one has read but never confirmed and representing it as fact or personal experiance is not only unethical and childish, it is hurting the hobby. We need more inquisition, more trial and error, more professionals by accomplishment rather than professionals by post count.


Your right, nobody has ever tried Silicone with bioseal and had adverse effects. That would just be to hard for someone to do. So im sure this information is just made up.



> We as a hobby need to go back to the basics and test the theories that have emerged on keeping fish and record the results carefully so that it can be considered research to be shared on the internet as reliable information.


Right again! nobody on here actually has real experience. Or even someone with a degree? boy would that be obsured to find on a cichlid forum. We might as well just shut down these concocted and fallacious forums that people use to share their knowledge and "experince"...


----------

