The Journal of the Swimming Pool and Spa Industry is coming back! JSPSI, a peer-reviewed technical journal, began in 1995 as a subscription-supported print-based publication. It contained articles at a technical level, of interest especially to the more experienced members of the industry. The Journal discontinued publication in 2004, primarily due to the printing, binding and postage costs associated with a print journal.

A technical journal differs from other trade publications in that it contains no advertising, is not for profit, and is peer reviewed, a process where submitted articles are blind reviewed by experts in the specific field, and are selected based on appropriateness and scientific accuracy. Authors range from consultants to chemical manufacturing technical departments, from experienced tradesmen to trade organizations.

All previous articles from the old Volumes 1 through 5 are being prepared and posted to the website.

Que Hales, the Editor, has announced that the Journal will be revived as a free, online publication. JSPSI will still be laid out in a format suitable for printing and binding, but in a pdf format so readers may view articles online or print them for later reference or study.

This first new issue, Volume 6 Number 1, includes articles on chlorine, buffer, and cyanuric acid chemistry, and is available now by going to www.poolhelp.com and clicking JSPSI. Additional issues are expected to appear biannually. New submissions to the Journal may be addressed to que@poolhelp.com.

In Kim’s blog post on plaster mottling, Mitch Brooks, the Executive Director of the National Plasterers Council, made the comment “We solve issues...not point fingers which is what you guys love to do!” For those of you who have been on the short end of the NPC’s collective finger, or specifically the finger pointed by the NPC’s Technical Director, Greg Garrett, that comment by Mr. Brooks sounds pretty incredible. For those of you who are unaware of the type of finger pointing Mr. Garrett engages in, consider the following:

In April of 2001 Greg Garrett associated what he called “spot etching” and “highlighting” with aggressive water chemistry (pool in Phoenix AZ – see oB-00004). He also specified that there was no responsibility on the plasterer involved. The professional laboratory analysis then showed that the real culprit was the plastering company and its workmanship.

In August of 2003 Greg Garrett associated mottled white discoloration of colored plaster with aggressive water chemistry (pool in Tracy CA – see oB-00005D). He also specified that there was no responsibility on the plasterer involved. The professional laboratory analysis then showed that the real culprit was the plastering company and its workmanship.

In August of 2003 Greg Garrett again associated almost total white discoloration with aggressive water chemistry (pool in Livermore CA – see oB-00005E). He also specified that there was no responsibility on the plasterer involved. The professional laboratory analysis then showed that the real culprit was the plastering company and its workmanship.

In August of 2003 Greg Garrett also associated patterned white spotting of colored plaster with aggressive water chemistry (pool in Tracy CA – see oB-00005M). He also specified that there was no responsibility on the plasterer involved. The professional laboratory analysis then showed that the real culprit was the plastering company and its workmanship.

In December of 1994 Greg Garrett associated spot etching with aggressive water chemistry (pool in Phoenix AZ – see oB-00019). He also specified that there was no responsibility on the plasterer involved. The professional laboratory analysis then showed that the real culprit was the plastering company and its workmanship.

In August of 2007 Greg Garrett associated “etching, highlighting, and associated discoloration” with aggressive water chemistry (pool in Highland CA – see oB-00040). He also specified that there was no evidence of improper workmanship on the part of the plasterer involved… even though the plaster had delamination and cracking though which the gunite could be seen beneath, and the plaster subsequently began to literally fall of the side of the pool! The professional laboratory analysis showed that there was no evidence of any etching. Of course the real problem – massive delamination – was indeed a result of substandard workmanship on the part of the plastering company.

In September of 2009 Greg Garrett associated mottling discoloration with aggressive water chemistry (pool in Tarzana CA – see oB-00044). He also specified that there was no responsibility on the plasterer involved. The professional laboratory analysis then showed that the real culprit was the plastering company and its workmanship.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I have only included examples of pools where I have both written evidence of Mr. Garrett’s statements and a professional failure analysis lab making a determination on the same pool. But Mr. Garrett is making a cottage industry of visiting pools and blaming water chemistry when the actual causes are known mixing, placement and curing defects documented in conventional cement/concrete science. I have read many, many more reports written by Mr. Garrett that are along the same lines.

In many of these cases, Mr. Garrett was involved specifically on the recommendation of the National Plasterers Council. He is, after all, their Technical Director. But keep in mind that this isn’t just a pattern of making incorrect assessments – these are real pools where real pool owners and/or service techs were put at risk for replastering pools when the fault lay with the plastering contractor.

Now, I understand that Mr. Garrett, as well as onBalance partners, specifically visit pools where the whole point is to make a determination as to causation and responsibility. But it has always been our understanding that such determinations should be based on fact and science, rather than apologetics.

Feel free to click on the links in this blog and see the comparison between onBalance determinations and Mr. Garrett’s. I hope these examples illustrate the absurdity of Mr. Brooks’ claim that it is onBalance that is “pointing fingers.”