Nice!
The hard part is, most people are not familiar with the finer areas of science. Most look at the hobby like a simple scenario. I add food, it produces waste, I add something else to deal with that, and it's done. But like the article points out, it's actually, I add food, a ton of stuff happens, it produces waste, tons of other stuff happens, I add something else to deal with the waste, a ton of other stuff happens, and it's done. But just because we don't see things, aren't aware of them, or haven't given them thought, doesn't mean we're correct in our assumptions.
The same goes for compounds being utilized in our tanks. In the past I've heard, 'carbon dosing is a sham', 'carbon dosing isn't natural', 'those elements are not naturally in saltwater', 'those compounds aren't used by corals', 'those bacteria aren't naturally in a marine environment'... etc... The list could go on forever about what people think, but those people haven't even given thought to the cascades of other effects in the water. Heck, just look at all the people who use Bayer as a dip, or even use certain things in their tank that have never been used before. The only thing they pay attention to? Whether or not they 'see negative effects'. That's another thing I think is laughable, the argument of 'I've seen no ill effects!'. Oh, do you mean with your limited vision? Most of these people have not even considered what they don't know.
It's a tough hobby when it comes down to proving things especially when humankind has not even learned something yet. And that's even aside from the emotionally fueled responses by those who ARE professionals in a scientific field. Somehow they believe because they've mastered one, they're master of all. But the truth is, even masters in the marine sciences don't know everything. To ignore that fact is to invite mistakes in all sciences.
