- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 5,071
- Reaction score
- 8,108
Nobody said that, Brandon.-Vibrant already failed before any chem testing was done-
...for sure that implies to readers that it didn't work, bc I just thought that as well.
I was debating that part.
None of that matters. The label was required to disclose the algaecide. It didn't and they lied about it. PERIOD.It's merits, what it did in challenge tanks, was my accepted place for vibrant. Not on the trash heap, it's important to consider it's positives just the same.
Your are conflating all kinds of other marketing and business ethics issues. They are not related. This is about labeling compliance in context to algaecides, herbicides, pesticides and similar chemicals design to kill living things using certain classes of chemicals or biological agents.I think it's important readers don't get confused thinking vibrant failed something that's more serious than red seas fails daily, and the coming months or seachems fails on the label. Vibrant wasn't killing tanks and causing thousands of dollars in flooring losses in pattern for three years
I would argue differently. I don't give a hoot about how effective the product is. They lied about the safety of the product in context to aquatic life in and out of aquariums and in context to human and other animal safety. I would certainly award them the crowned prince of bad reefing title. Dirtbags that cared more about money than your safety or that of your reef or anything else and perpetuated lies to avoid being caught.UWC is not the crowned prince of bad reefing, he is just positioned that way here as the initial thread direction.
Last edited: