"I have not seen any negative effects."
- Thread starter Kungpaoshizi
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Can't speak to the fluke tabs as I've never read anything on the subject.
But ya, ha, that's hilarious. Tech M didn't work for me. Only made my critters lethargic and killed my cleaner shrimp. I especially love the one main part of Tech M everyone relays, I'm guessing you'll say it's either copper, or a mystery ingredient that makes it work?
There's an example of what needs to change in the hobby. Yes, I'm completely aware of people suggesting it because it "worked" for them, but I follow the same instructions toned to an average of all of those 'anecdotal observations', heck even TechM makers created an instruction sheet followed with, "we don't suggest this, but......."
I search for days and days on a legitimate explanation for why it worked, I did find one plausible reasoning, perhaps you'll state it.
I don't ever suggest using tech m, because I've seen issues with SPS from elevated mag due to faulty test kits...so I always suggest against it. That was only used as an example as anecdotal evidence, something that has been repeated multiple times with little to know explanation.
I still would like you to give an example of all of these things that need to change.
Your talk about science and anecdotal evidence makes it seem like you value who is saying something rather than what is being said, it should be the other way around. Coming from a person who writes, reads, and uses scientific papers everyday I can tell you that almost every scientific article out there has a substantial amount of errors or incomplete data. I also work hand in hand with several people in industry, and I can tell you the people with the most knowledge on any subject are the people out there doing it everyday, not a person in a lab forcing a desired result through a small bubble of controlled parameters. When I first started grad school and up until just before I graduate I always challenged people for scientific evidence of their claims. Now I know I was naive, and the real knowledge is in industry or the people practicing real world applications everyday. Anecdotal evidence, and knowledge from hobbiest should be taken very seriously as it is real world data.
JSeward
Community Member
That's Richard Ross's tank. Are you familiar with him? He also wrote the article I linked below. It's one that I think you should read.
Skeptical Reefkeeping X – The Power of Anecdote
i'm more appreciative of other's documenting their successes and failures no matter how scientific it is.
we can easily employ different strategies depending on a group of results.
take dinos for instance.
elevated ph, h202, ozone, uv, black out.... etc.
when others chime in on their successes and failures they add just that little bit of "more" to their knowledgable tool chest.
those that it doesnt work for, will state. "hey i tried it and it didnt work for me". or "yeah i tried it, but it killed all my inverts" or something of that nature.
this seems like a thread ranting on "free" information based on our own views. it is just that...free.
we can easily employ different strategies depending on a group of results.
take dinos for instance.
elevated ph, h202, ozone, uv, black out.... etc.
when others chime in on their successes and failures they add just that little bit of "more" to their knowledgable tool chest.
those that it doesnt work for, will state. "hey i tried it and it didnt work for me". or "yeah i tried it, but it killed all my inverts" or something of that nature.
this seems like a thread ranting on "free" information based on our own views. it is just that...free.
Paul B
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
Article Contributor
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
You can siphon the sand or don't, I don't think it matters at all. The Reverse UG filter I run has stood the test of time, lasting long past any other method I know of. Is it the best method? I don't know because no other tanks with different designs are that old. Maybe they will get there we have no way of knowing just yet. But I do know that my RUGF is at least non toxic and "can" last a very long time or even forever, because I feel 44 years is forever with a fish tank. As for scientific research, I to am not to keen on taking that seriously. Scientific research on something lasts a few months or a year until the money runs out or the researcher gets a grant to do something else, perhaps in the fashion industry.
I still have my old books from the 70s and much of the information printed then I dis agreed with and still do. The "facts" about parasitic diseases with that ick life cycle chart is jammed in my brain, but we don't need to know it's life cycle. We need to know how to make our fish immune to it, then we don't have to care if our tanks are taken over by ich, velvet or Godzilla. Lately I have been limiting my time on almost all forums because I don't agree with so much information and being I am getting old, I don't want to argue. I find so much information so wrong that I wouldn't know where to start and due to the lack of fact checkers on the internet, my ideas would just stir up to much criticism. (except for Supermodels as we can all agree with that) For the last few months I have begun to realize that it is bacteria, not us that keep our tanks and fish healthy. We are just here to give the bacteria something to make fun of. 
Cultivating the correct bacteria, especially gut bacteria I feel is the key to this hobby and eventually when we fully grasp it will completely eliminate virtually "all" the disease problems. I myself have found the solution to diseases and if the internet allows us, we will all eventually not have to be concerned with them. Corals are another story, although they also run on bacteria, I am not to sure about other factors in their health. But we will all know eventually. 
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 30,220
- Reaction score
- 24,063
- Location
- tejas
- What state or country do you live in
- Alaska
I liked perusing the rc link. Its fun to watch the inability to link po4 levels and algae since most of the reefing world believes you have to have low po4 to be algae free. RR write up on anecdote was nice read too, good posts.
Mike in CT
Valuable Member
In the 1980's, Doctors thought they knew what caused stomach ulcers and cancer. (Stress) A Dr in Australia figured out it was a bacteria in the gut causing it... nobody believed him and he was ridiculed and forbidden to test his theory on humans. So with no choice, he took some of the bacteria he thought was causing the ulcers himself. In time, he developed ulcers and took the antibiotics he knew would cure him. And it did, and it changed the treatment of ulcers forever. He ended up with a Nobel prize in medicine.
Paul B
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
Article Contributor
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
Galileo, did the same thing with a telescope. It didn't give him ulcers, but it gave them to the Pope
It's seldom that clear cut, yes Helicobacter pylori bacteria does indeed cause about 50% of diagnosed ulcer. NSAF (non steroidal anti-inflammatory, alcohol, drugs, smoking, stress) will cause erosion of the stomach lining, and serious ulceration and perforation of the lining.
Disclaimer: Nurse.
guy fawkes
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2015
- Messages
- 112
- Reaction score
- 38
Paul.
Do you still think the sea hare eating hair algae is a myth? I read that in an old post.
Do you still think the sea hare eating hair algae is a myth? I read that in an old post.
Paul B
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
Article Contributor
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
I think if you have an algae problem no amount of creatures will control it. Unless of course you can train them to poop outside the tank, now that would be a big money maker.
Sea hares eat algae as do urchins, slugs, abalone, tangs, chitins, and manatees.
This guy was about 1,000lbs. If you can get him to put his head in your tank and the rest of him on your living room carpet, that would be a good, but smelly way to eliminate algae.
Sea hares eat algae as do urchins, slugs, abalone, tangs, chitins, and manatees.
This guy was about 1,000lbs. If you can get him to put his head in your tank and the rest of him on your living room carpet, that would be a good, but smelly way to eliminate algae.
I sort of agree with the original poster. Some items people swear by anecdotal evidence.
I will focus on only 1 part of aquariums as an example below.
Lets look at lighting. A lot of people swear by certain lights, more expensive is seen as better. Some even build their own, using theory to create the perfect set of light distribution. Some prefer chinese for price insisting they are just as good... (without posting a testing comparison using a light meter, or taking into account those LED's are decaying faster and have greater variation in PAR, kelvin, lumens ext unit to unit.)
Let me throw this out there. A common experiment in chemistry is reading the type of light produced by various light bulbs. During this experiment students learn the light varies by type, manufacturer, age of bulb, temperature, materials it passes through, gas composition of room, liquid composition, and even electromagnetic interference. Plus other variables.
Please take 5 minutes to look at this study particularly the chart. For some advanced hobbyist you already know this, but for those who don't it is very important to consider when choosing and maintaining your lighting system. This study focuses on lumens, but par kelvin and all other variables change also.
Also look at the checklist on the right hand side, If your spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on a light you should call manufacturer and get all relevant info.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/lifetime_white_leds.pdf
-------------
Now that you did that, know 2 things. It takes 5.7 years to test a 50,000 hour rated light bulb. Double that if it is off half the time. Double again if only on 6 hours a day. No one actually knows how long these lights last, as the technology changes daily and is influenced by environment, usage pattern, and how they are constructed into a fixture. What is more important is while a light may lose only 5% effectiveness in a year, it's par value could have migrated further.
With traditional light sources most older hobbyist I have read know that they need to keep a light bulb changing schedule, and replace bulbs before they ever burn out. But newer hobbyist buying LED technology because it is new, do not often have that option because these are AIO lighting systems. Changing an LED is not an option for most of them. (the ones where it is are the TRULY good ones, everything else is gimmicks)
-------------
This is easy to test. I know for a fact I am right. If you have an expensive LED system that is still for sale new, but is 3-4 years old. Buy another one at the store. Use a light meter to test it's values compared to your current LED values. After you are done return it. Surprise. Makes you reconsider buying AIO systems that do not allow you to swap bulbs right? And keep in mind the rate of decay increases overtime. It also varies wildly based on manufacturer, and usage conditions.
By all means buy LED systems, But plan to test them day 1 and continue testing them. When they stop producing the level of light you need replace them. Or better yet, sell your expensive light system for 20% less used on ebay every year and rebuy it, I am sure more then a few people know to do this.
------------------
Here is another bit of information from DOE, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/weisbuch_droop_tampa2014.pdf
------------------
LED lights are NOT AIO systems that last 50k hours. That doesn't mean they are bad, it just means if your spending huge amounts on lighting go with a manufacturer that has test results, and a warranty for the lifetime of the system.
PS. If your spending over 1k on lighting and didn't buy a light meter for $150... you might be doing it wrong.
I will focus on only 1 part of aquariums as an example below.
Lets look at lighting. A lot of people swear by certain lights, more expensive is seen as better. Some even build their own, using theory to create the perfect set of light distribution. Some prefer chinese for price insisting they are just as good... (without posting a testing comparison using a light meter, or taking into account those LED's are decaying faster and have greater variation in PAR, kelvin, lumens ext unit to unit.)
Let me throw this out there. A common experiment in chemistry is reading the type of light produced by various light bulbs. During this experiment students learn the light varies by type, manufacturer, age of bulb, temperature, materials it passes through, gas composition of room, liquid composition, and even electromagnetic interference. Plus other variables.
Please take 5 minutes to look at this study particularly the chart. For some advanced hobbyist you already know this, but for those who don't it is very important to consider when choosing and maintaining your lighting system. This study focuses on lumens, but par kelvin and all other variables change also.
Also look at the checklist on the right hand side, If your spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on a light you should call manufacturer and get all relevant info.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/lifetime_white_leds.pdf
-------------
Now that you did that, know 2 things. It takes 5.7 years to test a 50,000 hour rated light bulb. Double that if it is off half the time. Double again if only on 6 hours a day. No one actually knows how long these lights last, as the technology changes daily and is influenced by environment, usage pattern, and how they are constructed into a fixture. What is more important is while a light may lose only 5% effectiveness in a year, it's par value could have migrated further.
With traditional light sources most older hobbyist I have read know that they need to keep a light bulb changing schedule, and replace bulbs before they ever burn out. But newer hobbyist buying LED technology because it is new, do not often have that option because these are AIO lighting systems. Changing an LED is not an option for most of them. (the ones where it is are the TRULY good ones, everything else is gimmicks)
-------------
This is easy to test. I know for a fact I am right. If you have an expensive LED system that is still for sale new, but is 3-4 years old. Buy another one at the store. Use a light meter to test it's values compared to your current LED values. After you are done return it. Surprise. Makes you reconsider buying AIO systems that do not allow you to swap bulbs right? And keep in mind the rate of decay increases overtime. It also varies wildly based on manufacturer, and usage conditions.
By all means buy LED systems, But plan to test them day 1 and continue testing them. When they stop producing the level of light you need replace them. Or better yet, sell your expensive light system for 20% less used on ebay every year and rebuy it, I am sure more then a few people know to do this.
------------------
Here is another bit of information from DOE, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/weisbuch_droop_tampa2014.pdf
------------------
LED lights are NOT AIO systems that last 50k hours. That doesn't mean they are bad, it just means if your spending huge amounts on lighting go with a manufacturer that has test results, and a warranty for the lifetime of the system.
PS. If your spending over 1k on lighting and didn't buy a light meter for $150... you might be doing it wrong.
Kungpaoshizi
Valuable Member
Ahh, this where I think we have the dilemma faced by many people. I myself take everyone's stories very seriously, and to heart, as every minute detail can lead to new information all the time. But we should not label things as fact because of a lack of 'negative effects observed'. It really means nothing more than with the poor little meatballs in our face that only see a fraction of the light spectrum along with the crude untuned senses we have, no negative effects have been "observed".
Paul B
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
Article Contributor
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
I am not so sure of the effect of old lights on the growth of algae. I realize the spectrum and lumens fall as the fixture ages, but that's all I am sure of. I now use LEDs in a fixture that I built. I think it is about 4 years old. There is no algae in my tank except where I want it to grow in a refugium type thing. In the 4 decades my tank has experienced huge nuisance algae growths in cycles that always disappeared on their own without me changing lights. The tank was started with regular incandescent lighting, then regular fluorescent, then VHO, then MH and now LED. I have not noticed any more growth when the lights aged, and I let them all age quite well. I know many people feel old lights are a detriment to coral growth, and maybe they are, but I am not sure about changing spectrum affecting algae. It could, but I have been doing this quite a while and have not observed it. I was also an electrician for 40 years and have installed the lighting in Rockefeller Center and other places for plants and they don't change bulbs for the plants even though they have unlimited funds. Like I said, I could be wrong and have been numerous times. It's just an observation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3159950/
It took a while the get through this article, a lot of information to digest. But of the dozen papers I read on the topic it appears to be the most well presented study.
In summary, the reason we get "I observed" effects that may differ from the norm is that each species and each genotype of a species is influenced in different ratios in regards to light supply, food supply, water movement, and DIC.
Also offers explanation why someone may get amazing growth and suddenly start to get bleaching despite water parameters not changing. Or may get amazing color and health, but very little growth. There are two systems competing for resources and fine tuning parameters to encourage growth or stability could be beneficial. As biomass increases it often can give an edge to one system or the other.
What this study doesn't look at is growth in their natural environment. Where sun, flow, food, and DIC are cyclical changes in the environment. Such as species migrations, seasons, ocean currents, temperature, ext. If cyclical changes had an effect would that not change how corals are raised?
So for instance if someone says. "my XYZ levels are low should I add more" and someone else says "I added XYZ and my corals started to grow". We get "XYZ makes corals grow". Perhaps the person who added XYZ already had good growth, and the XYZ is then going to turn into a limiting factor.
-----
In final conclusion: From a newb saltwater Aquarium owners perspective.
It appears raising corals is equal parts science and luck. Trial and error. But even when everything is perfect and stays the same as far as parameters, the corals are changing biomass and thus changing needs on you. Oh you think you figured out the ratio of light, dic, food, and flow? Let me just grow to X size and completely throw off that balance. I suppose the same holds true for all life in your tank. No wonder no one wants to go on vacation in this hobby.
It took a while the get through this article, a lot of information to digest. But of the dozen papers I read on the topic it appears to be the most well presented study.
In summary, the reason we get "I observed" effects that may differ from the norm is that each species and each genotype of a species is influenced in different ratios in regards to light supply, food supply, water movement, and DIC.
Also offers explanation why someone may get amazing growth and suddenly start to get bleaching despite water parameters not changing. Or may get amazing color and health, but very little growth. There are two systems competing for resources and fine tuning parameters to encourage growth or stability could be beneficial. As biomass increases it often can give an edge to one system or the other.
What this study doesn't look at is growth in their natural environment. Where sun, flow, food, and DIC are cyclical changes in the environment. Such as species migrations, seasons, ocean currents, temperature, ext. If cyclical changes had an effect would that not change how corals are raised?
So for instance if someone says. "my XYZ levels are low should I add more" and someone else says "I added XYZ and my corals started to grow". We get "XYZ makes corals grow". Perhaps the person who added XYZ already had good growth, and the XYZ is then going to turn into a limiting factor.
-----
In final conclusion: From a newb saltwater Aquarium owners perspective.
It appears raising corals is equal parts science and luck. Trial and error. But even when everything is perfect and stays the same as far as parameters, the corals are changing biomass and thus changing needs on you. Oh you think you figured out the ratio of light, dic, food, and flow? Let me just grow to X size and completely throw off that balance. I suppose the same holds true for all life in your tank. No wonder no one wants to go on vacation in this hobby.
Paul B
10K Club member
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
Reef Of The Month
Article Contributor
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
I recently took this on one of the outer Islands in Hawaii. Yes it is hair algae and it is quite common. I am not sure if the sun needs to be replaced or if we can borrow a ladder to do it.
I recently took this on one of the outer Islands in Hawaii. Yes it is hair algae and it is quite common. I am not sure if the sun needs to be replaced or if we can borrow a ladder to do it.
mother nature undersized her skimmer or overfed.
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
