This old TV show my mum and I used to love is still entertaining, with its dramatic music and zooms on ridiculously gross houses. Kim and Aggie are the best, they're knowledgeable and I've picked up heaps of useful cleaning tips from watching them. Seeing the transformation of these houses and the effort that goes into it makes my own household chores seem a breeze.
But I was watching an episode last night and came across something that really got to me - they bought a bag of fish just for the camera, then put them next to an old aquarium that clearly wasn't being used, and left them there while she sprayed a pretty harsh chemical inside the tank. I'm worried it could leave toxic residue behind. I hope no one tries that at home.
If you want to see the aquarium bit, skip to 16:35.
What do you guys think?
Does this residue pose a poison risk to fish?
Re: Does this residue pose a poison risk to fish?
Kettle descalers generally contain acid, like phosphoric or mild hydrochloric acid, which effectively dissolves organic material and calcium, but leaves glass and silicon unaffected. Given the nature of acids, they're easily washed away with water and can be neutralized by mixing tap water with a couple of tablespoons of sodium bicarbonate.
Provided the product doesn't contain any unusual additives, it's unlikely to leave a residue behind.
Provided the product doesn't contain any unusual additives, it's unlikely to leave a residue behind.
Re: Does this residue pose a poison risk to fish?
I'm not entirely convinced it's that bad, but I do see why you'd be concerned. When I think about it, descalers are basically just acids that break down limescale buildup. The product she used is meant for kettles, so it's designed to be safe around food and drink. The reaction creates soluble calcium salts that can be washed away with water. I think it's relatively safe to use on a tank, as long as you rinse it thoroughly afterwards - just like coltin mentioned, you've got to watch out for any additives. For my part, I'd still rather use vinegar - it's milder, cheaper, and just as effective, as long as you rinse the tank properly. The bag of feeder goldfish, on the other hand, was just ridiculous - I mean, come on, they clearly weren't his fish.
Re: Does this residue pose a poison risk to fish?
I can breathe a sigh of relief now that my domestic goddess hasn't let me down. It's good to know the descaler she used wasn't as toxic as I initially thought, and I can continue watching old episodes without a twinge of guilt.
I have to admit, I was a bit concerned when I saw her wearing a mask and warning about the toxicity, but it seems I overreacted. My own approach to dealing with limescale has always been a bit more low-key - I just soak some paper towels in vinegar, stick them to the worst-affected areas, and then use a carefully angled Stanley blade to scrape off the residue. It's worked a treat on my second-hand tanks in a hard water area, and regular scrubbing of the waterline during water changes has kept the limescale under control.
I completely agree with you about the feeder goldfish, though - it was completely unnecessary to buy live animals and treat them like that just for the sake of a TV show. But I suppose that's the kind of thing you can expect from TV producers, who often seem to be more concerned with ratings than with animal welfare. Still, I won't hold it against Kim and Aggie - they're just doing their job, after all.
I have to admit, I was a bit concerned when I saw her wearing a mask and warning about the toxicity, but it seems I overreacted. My own approach to dealing with limescale has always been a bit more low-key - I just soak some paper towels in vinegar, stick them to the worst-affected areas, and then use a carefully angled Stanley blade to scrape off the residue. It's worked a treat on my second-hand tanks in a hard water area, and regular scrubbing of the waterline during water changes has kept the limescale under control.
I completely agree with you about the feeder goldfish, though - it was completely unnecessary to buy live animals and treat them like that just for the sake of a TV show. But I suppose that's the kind of thing you can expect from TV producers, who often seem to be more concerned with ratings than with animal welfare. Still, I won't hold it against Kim and Aggie - they're just doing their job, after all.
Re: Does this residue pose a poison risk to fish?
I continued watching the rest of the episode, and the big reveal at the end showed the tank set up in the living room. I was a bit disheartened to see the water was cloudy from new gravel and just being filled, which is to be expected.
Initially, I didn't see any movement from the fish, so I was hoping they'd just bought them for the shot and then sent them back. Maybe they'd just set it up to look nice for the final reveal and not actually intended to keep the fish in there.
However, towards the end, they showed the fish from the bag in the tank, along with some others. I can only imagine how long those poor fish were stuck in that bag while they cleaned the tank, set it up, and did all the fake decor. They must have just filled the tank and thrown them in. It's really quite disturbing.
Initially, I didn't see any movement from the fish, so I was hoping they'd just bought them for the shot and then sent them back. Maybe they'd just set it up to look nice for the final reveal and not actually intended to keep the fish in there.
However, towards the end, they showed the fish from the bag in the tank, along with some others. I can only imagine how long those poor fish were stuck in that bag while they cleaned the tank, set it up, and did all the fake decor. They must have just filled the tank and thrown them in. It's really quite disturbing.
Re: Does this residue pose a poison risk to fish?
I just looked up the fish in the bag and they're actually gold rosy barbs, a yellow variation of the normal rosy barb.