I have never seen any scientific studies on any SW fish where a level of chloramine resulted in 90% deaths against a control where the only difference was the chloramine.
Chloramine is relatively cheap (and very toxic, if you ever know why people tell you never use windex with clorax beach), so it should be a easy experiment by pouring it into a saltwater tank and see how much you need to add to kill off 90% of the fish. The level should not be much more than what they add to municipal water supply, maybe to within one order of magnitude. If you have a black molly tank with lots of females, maybe you want to do this since hundreds of fishes are dying in your tank anyway....
Additionally if chloramine totally broke down and the resulting chlorine gas was totally dissapated by simply running the cold water into a container, the ammonia would still remain. And with no bacteria and no plant life could remain in the system indefinately. So the "effects" of chloramine would remain indefinately.
I don't think anybody can keep a SW tank without billions of bacteria in it. They are omnipresence.
Further I have not seen any studies as to what the actual out of the faucet concentration of chloramine actually is.
Don't know about your water company, but over here, they are required by law to mail you a water test result as well as making the result available upon request.
Just as I have not seen to what level and under what conditions dechlorinators bind up oxygen.
It binds up oxygen, among other things, but if you worry about it, you are adding too much.
So I'm just stuck with my experience. My ph did crash after using prime+. It did bind up ammonia.
I hope you have more info by now. Anything that shields the ammonia will affect the pH. Don't know what is in prime+, but the fact that your pH crashed is a good indication that you were doing something too dramatic.
And I have never lost a single fish or seen any signs of distress when using straight untreated tap water from 1/2 dozen cities in many tanks since the late 70's.
Luckily, in the US, the tap water is potable in almost every cities. If you can attribute the lost of fish by using untreated tap water (oxymoron, since all tap water are treated, but we all know what you mean when you say untreated), then there will be a big issue. I don't think anybody is saying that by using tap water will kill fish immediately (it can be easily done, however), but there is negative subsequence if you do it long term, such as build up of certain chemical that plant life/bacteria does not remove. Water change is better option for these issue, and water quality varies greatly from one part of US to another.
That is just my experience and opinion.
Yes, and we respect that. Just that some people may not realize that, and that's why I am concerned.
So what I say is no more dangerous than advising people to reach for a bottle of stuff that binds up oxygen. Or stripping everything out of the water with equipment that can fail. After all calcium, carbonate, magnesium and other trace elements essential to our systems is in the tap water also. And at much higher levels than say copper.
There are always pros and cons, and I try to give both sides when it is necessary. Given the right tool/method, there is always ways to make it not work. When we assume the competence of people, when they use RO/DI, for example, the end result is more predictable than using tap water. This is why suggesting the use of RO/DI is better suggestion than telling people to use straight tap water for topoffs.