A real "LED X halide" thread, scientifically. LOL!

[Sixdinnersquid]

Probly gonna get a lot of eye rolls haha. But how bout this one from the past.

Wow, that softie tank is gorgeous. Thanks for posting it!

 

[MoshJosh]

Got it. The thread has run its course.

Thanks!

Did it ever have a course? Yes, MH can grow coral? So? Why are we comparing them to LEDs? (at least that what this thread seems to have turned into)

My impression from the this thread is. . . if you want to use MH for the "look", or the alleged "benefits", or because you have a really specific case, then great go ahead.

If you are everyone else, LED's generally make more sense. . . and because LEDs make more sense, there is more demand for them. . . less demand for MH. . . and therefore less production of MH.

Also I wonder if the increase in nano tanks has something to do with it.

I don't think LED users (or the companies that make them) are "out to get" MH. . . (again that's what seems to be being insinuated in this thread)

 

[A. grandis]

Got it. The thread has run its course.

Thanks!

No, it is what it is. Preferences and respect to either sides, if you will.
I think we all would like to know who you are. It could be anyone here with that avatar. I hope I'm talking to either Rich or Ben. If not, please let us know.

 

[Thales]

No, it is what it is. Preferences and respect to either sides, if you will.
I think we all would like to know who you are. It could be anyone here with that avatar. I hope I'm talking to either Rich or Ben. If not, please let us know.

I don't see what random tanks with one light or the other adds to the discussion besides some weird flex.
If you look in my sig, it is super easy to know who I am. Who are you?

 

[A. grandis]

I don't see what random tanks with one light or the other adds to the discussion besides some weird flex.
If you look in my sig, it is super easy to know who I am. Who are you?

Thanks, Ben. We never know who may use any avatars nowadays.
My name is Alex. I'm just a hobbyist.
In regards to the tanks posted, I believe they reflect the personal preferences of each person.

 

[areefer01]

Did it ever have a course?

It did. It was originally a discussion around the video content.

Why are we comparing them to LEDs? (at least that what this thread seems to have turned into)

The wheel turns, wind blows, and leaves tumble gently down the beaten path. Who is to say why it turns but if I had to fathom a guess it is because we are human and have opinions. And some are not willing to accept that hobbyist have choices and choose something different than what they believe is best for them.

To be perfectly blunt with no bed side manners unless we are paying a lighting stipend to our fellow hobbyist we have no say in the matter thereby only wishing them success.

 

[Oldreefer44]

Thanks, Ben. We never know who may use any avatars nowadays.
My name is Alex. I'm just a hobbyist.
In regards to the tanks posted, I believe they reflect the personal preferences of each person.

This same post appears about once a quarter Rich. It always amazes me how much controversy exists over lighting (at least to some people) when water quality etc is a much more indicative of success. By the way. Love Reef Beef!

 

[Thales]

This same post appears about once a quarter Rich. It always amazes me how much controversy exists over lighting (at least to some people) when water quality etc is a much more indicative of success. By the way. Love Reef Beef!

Gotcha, and thanks so much!

 

[A. grandis]

It has been a very healthy thread and with lot of insights until now.
Main thing is that we all know that comes down to personal preferences in many ways.
I am still looking to those who would question more and perhaps could bring some scientific papers to add to the discussion about ultra violet utilization by corals.
We know there are "millions" of papers showing UV damages to shallow reefs, so those studies won't matter much. We need to find those papers that actually will help us understand if there is any utilization or "absorption" of UVA or UVB by the coral and what pathways it will follow, besides photosynthesis.
Perhaps Tullio from @Reefbrite would chime in and enrich with his information.
We tend to trust more the papers to apply to our explanations.
Maybe Dr. @sanjay would also find some time to come here? I would love to have him publishing some of those papers showing the absorption of the full spectrum.
Of course nothing would be complete if we didn't have the honor to have our @Dana Riddle too.
Nothing better than listen from those friends.
Then, we would be starting this thread for real.
This is a family and I hop calling those people we can reach a higher level of understanding those aspects presented in the video.
Now we just need to wit for the guests of honor.
Much respect to them.

 

[Sisterlimonpot]

Nothing better than listen from those friends.

I think there's something to extrapolate from them NOT chiming it.

And if Tullio could back up his position, he would've done it in the video.

We know there are "millions" of papers showing UV damages to shallow reefs, so those studies won't matter much.

Ruling out papers that say UV is damaging to corals is a classic case of dismissing science to support an unfounded position. If there's an expectation that uv is better for corals further down in the water column, one must consider the fact that uv is filter out rather quickly and never reach corals beyond a certain depth.

That's just me thinking out loud...

 

[happyhourhero]

No lights can match the reliability of yet another MH is the best thing ever thread by OP. Across decades and forums - over and over.

 

[A. grandis]

I think there's something to extrapolate from them NOT chiming it.

And if Tullio could back up his position, he would've done it in the video.



Ruling out papers that say UV is damaging to corals is a classic case of dismissing science to support an unfounded position. If there's an expectation that uv is better for corals further down in the water column, one must consider the fact that uv is filter out rather quickly and never reach corals beyond a certain depth.

That's just me thinking out loud...

The reason why I think we should rule out those papers showing reef damage by UV is simply because any metal halides, T5 or LED in a proper set up and with the right application shouldn't damage any coral in terms of UV.
We need to know what are the benefits.

 

[A. grandis]

No lights can match the reliability of yet another MH is the best thing ever thread by OP. Across decades and forums - over and over.

For what I'm looking for, yup. It's my first preference, then T5s. My kids have only LED over their freshwater planted tanks at home. I'm not against it. Most of my friends have LEDs.
I understand today that it comes down to personal preferences.
I started hard on it long ago just like LED manufacturers started hard too! People came against me! No one could even talk or ask any questions about halides back then. No rights? Things changed and I'm more than happy.
They did that first. This is just to clarify my position at the moment.
I was actually a peaceful T5 guy... until I saw some posts bombarding halide users. LOL!
Anyways, we don't need to bring too much of the past here and get excited talking about that. It is all published already and to the past. Let's see if we can bring this to a higher level somehow. I think the mods should be proud of me right now.
Great to see that you are here. Thanks for posting.

 

[A. grandis]

I hope we will become a big family one way or the other.
And yes, you guys can post dog pictures while we wait for those stars. LOL
I really wish they would come here. I believe they will run the show and we could just watch. It would once for all bring some bright light to this forum (pun kinda intended). No one could say I didn't try my best.

 

[oreo54]

We know there are "millions" of papers showing UV damages to shallow reefs, so those studies won't matter much. We need to find those papers that actually will help us understand if there is any utilization or "absorption" of UVA or UVB by the coral and what pathways it will follow, besides photosynthesis.

Actually here I am throwing you a bone from 2002 but FIRST I want to explain my opinion which you can verify from my past postings..
1) There is the question of "need" vs want. Whatever UV is used for, or affects, based on success and admissions by your gurus, that it appears there isn't a necessity.
I'll remind you t5's have very little UV-A and no UV-B AFAICT. There are specialty reptile bulbs (go ahead give em a shot) that are the exception.

Dragon - Arcadia Reptile

D3+ Dragon High 14% UV-B content to support desert reptile species synthesis of vitamin D3 The Arcadia Reptile 14% UV-B ‘DragonLamp’ is our most powerful HO-T5 reptile lamp. Made in Germany by experts to provide not only high quantities of UV-B radiation but to also provide this energy without...

www.arcadiareptile.com

2) Vibrio seems to be, like Columnaris in the fw world, an opportunistic disease. IF everything is healthy no issues..

3) Again balance the good with the bad. Even if UV is in some regards helpful one needs to discuss the other possible effects on other things.

From cholera to corals: Viruses as drivers of virulence in a major coral bacterial pathogen - Scientific Reports

Disease is an increasing threat to reef-building corals. One of the few identified pathogens of coral disease is the bacterium Vibrio coralliilyticus. In Vibrio cholerae, infection by a bacterial virus (bacteriophage) results in the conversion of non-pathogenic strains to pathogenic strains and...

www.nature.com

The reason why I think we should rule out those papers showing reef damage by UV is simply because any metal halides, T5 or LED in a proper set up and with the right application shouldn't damage any coral in terms of UV.

No you shouldn't rule them out. Actually if you look at this Dana points out the UV emitted can exceed "normal" background levels without even trying.

Playing With Poison – Ultraviolet Radiation

This article documents the results of an experiment designed to examine the effects of artificially-produced UVR on symbiotic zooxanthellae. We'll also examine inexpensive ways to test your system and, if necessary, corrective measures one can take.

reefs.com

many lamps produce sizeable areas of high-intensity UVR, sometimes more intense than natural sunlight!

Besides if your levels are WAY below sunlight your biological effects will also way below.

Anyways here points and counter-points:

 

[oreo54]

the sheer complexity of what's "inside"

 

[A. grandis]

I will appreciate very much if they find time to come here.

 

[Eric R.]

I will appreciate very much if they find time to come here.

Alex, someone presents you in the post above with a bunch of resources, including a paper on UV-A and UV-B in corals, written by someone you want to chime in here. Why would Dana say anything other than what he already said 20 years ago? Dana did an experiment and wrote a paper, Tullio made a video and made speculations. One is science, the other is not.

I agree with Rich at this point, I feel like this conversation has run its course. I did appreciate the largely polite discussion, but I feel like this conversation took a weird turn some posts back.

 

[Eric R.]

"There are a couple of possibilities as to why UVR inhibited photosynthesis. The zooxanthellae in this coral may have the ability to absorb UV-A, and use it in photochemistry. This should be an area of concern, especially with high output lighting systems. The thought is a little frightening that UV radiation (that is invisible to the human eye and expensive to quantify) could promote saturation, and ultimately photoinhibition, of photosynthesis. It is possible that the zooxanthellae may have been damaged by exposure to UV-B (see Gleason, 1993, and comments below), or that the combined effects of UV-A and UV-B are responsible. In any case, UVR seems to cause the chronic photoinhibition, and we see this evidenced as very slow recovery of photosynthetic yield.

Whether it is UV-A or UV-B is a moot point. UVR certainly seems responsible for this case of photoinhibition."

-Dana Riddle, https://reefs.com/magazine/playing-with-poison-ultraviolet-radiation/

 

[A. grandis]

It always ends like this. Until next thread then, right? I hope not anymore.
People say what they think and those who are involved aren't able to speak for themselves. It's weird that we can't ever hear from them all in one spot.
I called them so they actually see what we are talking about here, to be fair with them.
I respect them too much, and many here already know most of those papers in that post.
It is what it is and everyone with their personal preferences.
It was great to end the thread like this. I'm getting better and better.
Love you all.
God bless all participants.