Yeah, I tried searching but since thread titles are rarely aptly named, I came up with nothing.
So I currently use ClO2 and have never had a contamination or infection issue. But I notice that a lot of others use peracetic. It would be nice to have a one-step, vs two, santizer mixing procedure. Other than that, the only negatives I've heard about ClO2 are completely unfounded in my opinion...ie the chlorine is dangerous(only if you mix it improperly), chlorine damages metal(only if you mix it improperly), the chlorine blah blah....
Safety wise, I know that peracetic in its undiluted form is nasty and very dangerous stuff, whereas stabilized ClO2 is completely harmless.
The biggest issue I have with ClO2 is the cost. It's not cheap. So tell me...which do you think is better and why?
Cheers,
Jud
So I currently use ClO2 and have never had a contamination or infection issue. But I notice that a lot of others use peracetic. It would be nice to have a one-step, vs two, santizer mixing procedure. Other than that, the only negatives I've heard about ClO2 are completely unfounded in my opinion...ie the chlorine is dangerous(only if you mix it improperly), chlorine damages metal(only if you mix it improperly), the chlorine blah blah....
Safety wise, I know that peracetic in its undiluted form is nasty and very dangerous stuff, whereas stabilized ClO2 is completely harmless.
The biggest issue I have with ClO2 is the cost. It's not cheap. So tell me...which do you think is better and why?
Cheers,
Jud
Comment