Electrobes
Valuable Member
GainesvilleReef: Richard has kept this conversation civil, but I feel some of your remarks are straying from that civility.
I want this conversation to continue, so let's keep it respectful.
Reefs dot com article on triton testing
- Thread starter hart24601
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I want this conversation to continue, so let's keep it respectful.
GainesvilleReef
Active Member
I think I made it clear in my post that I have total respect and appreciation for Richard as I do with the others involved. They have all contributed to my addiction to this hobby. If I was too frank with my thoughts, I apologize.:smile:
Sangheili
Well-Known Member
With reluctance, I will say I agree quite a lot with GainsvilleReef's "feeling" of the article. I say reluctance because I would hate to derail this thread away from the technical discussions which are fantastic.
The most upsetting to me was the fact that no where (correct me if I missed it) in the article did it address the fact that most of the farthest deviating test results came from elements in the sample that were NOT certified by the laboratory. I feel that many people who will quickly skim the article will see lots of -100 to 500% "off" results in the table and come to the quick conclusion that the Triton test results are wildly inaccurate. While I assume this was completely unintentional by the authors, it is still a glaring issue and quite unfair in my eyes.
The most upsetting to me was the fact that no where (correct me if I missed it) in the article did it address the fact that most of the farthest deviating test results came from elements in the sample that were NOT certified by the laboratory. I feel that many people who will quickly skim the article will see lots of -100 to 500% "off" results in the table and come to the quick conclusion that the Triton test results are wildly inaccurate. While I assume this was completely unintentional by the authors, it is still a glaring issue and quite unfair in my eyes.
I really didn't find the article bad for Triton at all, to be honest, but I really think it's important to clearly divulge what is being done and why and thus I find it great that it sparked this discussion. Saying that standard procedures aren't followed because the proprietary method is better is different from saying that some shortcuts have to be made to keep testing affordable while still fit for our purpose. Both are ok in my opinion, but I would want to know.
One big problem I have with this kind of testing in general is that there is such a great time difference between taking the sample and getting the results. This is of course the same or even worse with other tests done by labs, but I really think that 99% of the time someone will be better off using test kits to get an approximate result now rather than getting a more precise one later in our very dynamic systems. Even in the 1% case, where some trace element is highly elevated one could get by without the test. How does one see that a magnet started rusting: well, by inspecting all the gear. How does one go about toxins in the water - by water changes. Waiting 10+ days for a test result might not be the wisest way to go about things when you suspect something toxic in the water.
BTW I am usually on another forum and just registered here to contribute to this discussion here, so please excuse my post count... Though now that I am a member that might change.
One big problem I have with this kind of testing in general is that there is such a great time difference between taking the sample and getting the results. This is of course the same or even worse with other tests done by labs, but I really think that 99% of the time someone will be better off using test kits to get an approximate result now rather than getting a more precise one later in our very dynamic systems. Even in the 1% case, where some trace element is highly elevated one could get by without the test. How does one see that a magnet started rusting: well, by inspecting all the gear. How does one go about toxins in the water - by water changes. Waiting 10+ days for a test result might not be the wisest way to go about things when you suspect something toxic in the water.
BTW I am usually on another forum and just registered here to contribute to this discussion here, so please excuse my post count... Though now that I am a member that might change.
UK_Pete
Active Member
I've got to say I agree that it would be better if everyone makes a big effort to remain completely civil and polite, this is a technical discussion really and its quite easy for these forum threads to become quite heated. When that happens any chance of decent technical discussion goes out of the window - its hard to be scientific if someone is being strongly critical of you IMO. Since we have Richard and Ehsan, Randy and Craig involved we don't want to waste the chance for good technical discussion between these guys to get a positive conclusion to the discussion.
Anyway I don't want to contribute too much to the noise on the thread so will try to keep my comments small. Ehsan, thanks for your offer to go and visit you in your lab, I would certainly like to take you up on that sometime I am next in the area, I travel in your general area from time to time so will try to factor that into my next trip. Of course that would only be for interest rather than in any way to 'check up' on trition, I don't think I could do anything of much use in that way, but it would be very interesting from a personal perspective to see your tank and lab. I am certainly convinced that triton testing is of great use even without the visit though, and I hope I have not made you think I am criticising triton.
BTW sorry for complicated english, I always write too many words
I now understand that knowing and explaining the limitations of testing will be quite difficult, as you explained, but I think it will be a good thing to work towards. IE it is worth working on a comprehensive document which explains limitations so that no one is surprised if an article like Richards shows some elements slightly incorrect. That will also be useful for people like me and others who want to know exact element quantities. We will know error margins that way which is good. You could start slowly and just add information as you find it.
As far as the hamburger thing, I understand you are saying 'triton works because here is a successful tank run with triton testing'. Thats true, but some people might be interested in using triton testing to observe other things. Maybe someone has a screw plated with cadmium in the water for instance. In your tank you don't have any cadmium plated things so cadmium is not important to you, but to someone else it might be important. So thats why I think knowing exactly what triton will report is important, rather than just knowing some tanks do well with triton. Maybe this is not tritons intention, to help with this kind of thing, IE maybe triton is only selling their service for the use of triton method tanks, but many of us are not running triton systems but still using triton testing to discover element concentrations.
Regarding certification/accreditation, I doubt its worth the extra expense if it would put the price of triton testing up. I think the service is fine as it is, but with a bit of independent testing by third parties like Richard, that will help to keep triton 'on their toes' as we say. IE it will keep triton quality high. In the same way that we like to see people testing salt mixes with triton, or rock samples with triton etc. We also like to see people testing triton themselves. Its just good practice, nothing against triton themselves.
Regarding acidification of samples, as I said in a previous comment, I personally would very much like to see triton accepting acidified samples. If its not possible then thats OK but I would prefer to acidify my samples if it will gain me greater accuracy and I imagine quite a few others would do this too, since 68% nitric acid is not essential (lower concentration could be used if the dilution was labelled and triton could adjust numbers based on sample dilution).
As Richard said, the results are not bad for triton, they seem pretty good, and they have certainly helped me trust triton results more than before the article came out. I think the best response from triton would be that the errors are in fact small, but that they will do their best to document when these type of errors creep in, and also ideally that they start accepting acidified samples, labelled if necessary.
Anyway I don't want to contribute too much to the noise on the thread so will try to keep my comments small. Ehsan, thanks for your offer to go and visit you in your lab, I would certainly like to take you up on that sometime I am next in the area, I travel in your general area from time to time so will try to factor that into my next trip. Of course that would only be for interest rather than in any way to 'check up' on trition, I don't think I could do anything of much use in that way, but it would be very interesting from a personal perspective to see your tank and lab. I am certainly convinced that triton testing is of great use even without the visit though, and I hope I have not made you think I am criticising triton.
BTW sorry for complicated english, I always write too many words
I now understand that knowing and explaining the limitations of testing will be quite difficult, as you explained, but I think it will be a good thing to work towards. IE it is worth working on a comprehensive document which explains limitations so that no one is surprised if an article like Richards shows some elements slightly incorrect. That will also be useful for people like me and others who want to know exact element quantities. We will know error margins that way which is good. You could start slowly and just add information as you find it.
As far as the hamburger thing, I understand you are saying 'triton works because here is a successful tank run with triton testing'. Thats true, but some people might be interested in using triton testing to observe other things. Maybe someone has a screw plated with cadmium in the water for instance. In your tank you don't have any cadmium plated things so cadmium is not important to you, but to someone else it might be important. So thats why I think knowing exactly what triton will report is important, rather than just knowing some tanks do well with triton. Maybe this is not tritons intention, to help with this kind of thing, IE maybe triton is only selling their service for the use of triton method tanks, but many of us are not running triton systems but still using triton testing to discover element concentrations.
Regarding certification/accreditation, I doubt its worth the extra expense if it would put the price of triton testing up. I think the service is fine as it is, but with a bit of independent testing by third parties like Richard, that will help to keep triton 'on their toes' as we say. IE it will keep triton quality high. In the same way that we like to see people testing salt mixes with triton, or rock samples with triton etc. We also like to see people testing triton themselves. Its just good practice, nothing against triton themselves.
Regarding acidification of samples, as I said in a previous comment, I personally would very much like to see triton accepting acidified samples. If its not possible then thats OK but I would prefer to acidify my samples if it will gain me greater accuracy and I imagine quite a few others would do this too, since 68% nitric acid is not essential (lower concentration could be used if the dilution was labelled and triton could adjust numbers based on sample dilution).
As Richard said, the results are not bad for triton, they seem pretty good, and they have certainly helped me trust triton results more than before the article came out. I think the best response from triton would be that the errors are in fact small, but that they will do their best to document when these type of errors creep in, and also ideally that they start accepting acidified samples, labelled if necessary.
Last edited:
andy01748
New Member
As a relatively new saltwater hobbyist, I tend not to postmuch but use these forums as a valuable resource as I learn about thehobby. However, as I’ve followed thistopic, I feel my experience and expertise can contribute to the discussion.
First, at the price point Triton is offering this analysis,I’m not sure what people expect. For allI know, it may be a loss-leader to promote their Triton method, but that anddiscussions on utility of the data can be discussed separately. IN my opinion, it’s a Catch-22, in that Triton can’t affordthe overhead of running a full blown quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) programwithout significantly increasing the overall cost. At this price, I believe you have nooption but to place ‘trust’ in the analyst(s) generating the results. However, lack of a formal QA/QC program doesnot necessarily mean ‘quality’ data is not being generated, it just means supportingdata is not available to the end user to verify the ‘quality’ of the data. You have to rely (trust) that the analysis isproviding quality data.
This could be a very lengthy post, but at this time I’d liketo share my opinion on the discussion about use of nitric acid.
1. First off, there were discussions on the safetyof the reference sample preserved in 2% nitric acid. The fact is that at this concentration, forshipping purposes, it comes under the regulations as a hazardous material (classifiedas a corrosive), and is subject to the shipping requirements for hazardousmaterials. The upper limit on usingnitric acid to preserve samples is 0.28 weight percent before a sample becomessubject to the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
2. Not to defend Triton, but the article makes thepoint that the nitric acid in the reference material should not impact theresults. However, the references citedare not from tests using a saltwater or equivalent matrix. In fact the Sivakumar paper states “Weobserved a considerable change in the recovery of cadmium and chromium in thepresence of varying concentrations of sodium.” The second reference is for ‘surface water’, which is not what is beingtested, so is not necessarily applicable to saltwater. The paper also states that “the matrix effectdue to changes in acid concentration was very significant for cadmium and leadin nitric acid.” When I see suchstatements by the authors of the paper, I’m not sure why the interpretation isthat the acid should have no effect? Inaddition, the upper concentration tested was 1,000 ppm sodium. Seawater contains orders of magnitude higherconcentrations of sodium, so the impact of nitric acid with the levels of sodium in thesamples we are interested in being tested was not evaluated.
3. Saltwater is a difficult matrix to analyze byICP-OES (and also ICP-MS) for trace elements because of the presence of highconcentrations of what are referred to as the cations (sodium, magnesium, calcium,and potassium) that cause interference. Infact, laboratories with a full QA/QC program typically will run internalquality control samples called “Interference Check Standards’ to evaluate thisinterference. Most instrument datasystems have software processing called ‘interelement correction factors’ thattry to account for this interference. Idon’t think we know if the presence of nitric acid impacts these calculated correctionfactors.
4. Triton has stated that they don’t use acidpreserved standards. Therefore, thereference samples were likely the first samples containing acid introduced intothe instrument after many analyses of non-acidified samples. Just like we use acid (vinegar) to cleandeposits in pumps and on other equipment, how do we know these samples didn’thave the same impact on the instrument’s sample introduction system (i.e.dissolving deposits from previous samples)? This could skew the results.
First, at the price point Triton is offering this analysis,I’m not sure what people expect. For allI know, it may be a loss-leader to promote their Triton method, but that anddiscussions on utility of the data can be discussed separately. IN my opinion, it’s a Catch-22, in that Triton can’t affordthe overhead of running a full blown quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) programwithout significantly increasing the overall cost. At this price, I believe you have nooption but to place ‘trust’ in the analyst(s) generating the results. However, lack of a formal QA/QC program doesnot necessarily mean ‘quality’ data is not being generated, it just means supportingdata is not available to the end user to verify the ‘quality’ of the data. You have to rely (trust) that the analysis isproviding quality data.
This could be a very lengthy post, but at this time I’d liketo share my opinion on the discussion about use of nitric acid.
1. First off, there were discussions on the safetyof the reference sample preserved in 2% nitric acid. The fact is that at this concentration, forshipping purposes, it comes under the regulations as a hazardous material (classifiedas a corrosive), and is subject to the shipping requirements for hazardousmaterials. The upper limit on usingnitric acid to preserve samples is 0.28 weight percent before a sample becomessubject to the Hazardous Materials Regulations.
2. Not to defend Triton, but the article makes thepoint that the nitric acid in the reference material should not impact theresults. However, the references citedare not from tests using a saltwater or equivalent matrix. In fact the Sivakumar paper states “Weobserved a considerable change in the recovery of cadmium and chromium in thepresence of varying concentrations of sodium.” The second reference is for ‘surface water’, which is not what is beingtested, so is not necessarily applicable to saltwater. The paper also states that “the matrix effectdue to changes in acid concentration was very significant for cadmium and leadin nitric acid.” When I see suchstatements by the authors of the paper, I’m not sure why the interpretation isthat the acid should have no effect? Inaddition, the upper concentration tested was 1,000 ppm sodium. Seawater contains orders of magnitude higherconcentrations of sodium, so the impact of nitric acid with the levels of sodium in thesamples we are interested in being tested was not evaluated.
3. Saltwater is a difficult matrix to analyze byICP-OES (and also ICP-MS) for trace elements because of the presence of highconcentrations of what are referred to as the cations (sodium, magnesium, calcium,and potassium) that cause interference. Infact, laboratories with a full QA/QC program typically will run internalquality control samples called “Interference Check Standards’ to evaluate thisinterference. Most instrument datasystems have software processing called ‘interelement correction factors’ thattry to account for this interference. Idon’t think we know if the presence of nitric acid impacts these calculated correctionfactors.
4. Triton has stated that they don’t use acidpreserved standards. Therefore, thereference samples were likely the first samples containing acid introduced intothe instrument after many analyses of non-acidified samples. Just like we use acid (vinegar) to cleandeposits in pumps and on other equipment, how do we know these samples didn’thave the same impact on the instrument’s sample introduction system (i.e.dissolving deposits from previous samples)? This could skew the results.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2014
- Messages
- 777
- Reaction score
- 580
Something important that I haven’t seen mentioned yet is a focus on the difference between how European and American companies develop, view and market their products. Many of the great products to hit our reef community have been developed in Europe. When you look at various popular methods, brands and companies like Jaubert, Berlin style, Zeovit, Dutch Synthetic Method, Giesemann, Panta Rhei, Tropic Marin, the Balling Method, Tunze, to name a few, it is hard to argue that we don’t hold these in high regard. All of these names seem to be built with quality and passion that arguably could be hard to find in other markets.
What I see in the American market is people less reluctant to really make decisions for themselves. People have stated that they want independent reviews of products like Triton and that they turn to professional aquarists like Richard for guidance on such topics. This is probably a good thing. I feel however that this is largely an American sentiment that doesn’t necessarily translate well to the other side of the pond. I have travelled to Europe and seen, spoken with and done business with many of the European manufacturers and they all scratch their head at the American market. To them, if someone wants to test a product, they should buy it and see if it works for them. They seem to realize from the start that if a product does not live up to its claims, it will be short-lived and doomed regardless of whatever celebrity uses/supports it or not. The manufacturers seem to be on another level there where passion and results is the driving force- not hype and marketing of which is so prevalent in our American society. European-made means something to them. The factories and offices I have been to have all been insanely impressive to say the least. Please keep an open mind folks, I’m not a Euro product fan guy, I simply want to people to view this topic in a wider context.
What brought me to share these points with you is the hamburger comment. I think the comments made surrounding it seem to hit this topic square on the head. I know what Ehsan meant by it, and it wasn’t a “poor english” thing. It struck to a much deeper viewpoint on the subject. We have gotten so accustomed to people looking out for our interests, telling us what to buy, where to shop, what is good, what is bad, that trying things out for our own needs seems to be a relic of the past. I am not immune to this “condition” either. Whenever I choose a movie at Redbox I have to check the viewer rating on IMDB, whenever I am finding a place to eat in a new town, I have to check the star rating on Yelp. What Ehsan meant by the hamburger comment and by other “just try it” phrases is to see if the test product is fit for your needs. The thought of the test not being accurate enough for people to gain usable insight into their aquarium is not even a question in his mind - thousands of people have tested his test in their own way, shape or form for the last 7 years with the clearly stated goal of becoming a better reefer. Making a product which possibly doesn’t work well for what has become his life work and family business is almost inconceivable to him.
What I find fascinating is that the goal of Richard’s and Chris’s article is in fact to get people to think on their own, to use critical thinking when making decisions, to really think for themselves before believing what you hear, but what has happened- and I can attest to this being on the receiving end of the phone line at Triton-US, is that far too many people have placed ALL of their trust and decision making skills in the hands of these authors based on the result of one simple set of blind tests. This power they possess needs to be yielded responsibly and carefully. The word fallacious also means “deceptive and misleading” and although the author’s may have meant to use the word to mean “logically unsound”, to many people reading it, the former definition will be the tone they get from the article.
That being said, I am not suggesting by any means that people stop asking questions and fall victim to marketing and “trust me” campaigns, I am merely injecting a little wider thought into an American way of thinking.
What I see in the American market is people less reluctant to really make decisions for themselves. People have stated that they want independent reviews of products like Triton and that they turn to professional aquarists like Richard for guidance on such topics. This is probably a good thing. I feel however that this is largely an American sentiment that doesn’t necessarily translate well to the other side of the pond. I have travelled to Europe and seen, spoken with and done business with many of the European manufacturers and they all scratch their head at the American market. To them, if someone wants to test a product, they should buy it and see if it works for them. They seem to realize from the start that if a product does not live up to its claims, it will be short-lived and doomed regardless of whatever celebrity uses/supports it or not. The manufacturers seem to be on another level there where passion and results is the driving force- not hype and marketing of which is so prevalent in our American society. European-made means something to them. The factories and offices I have been to have all been insanely impressive to say the least. Please keep an open mind folks, I’m not a Euro product fan guy, I simply want to people to view this topic in a wider context.
What brought me to share these points with you is the hamburger comment. I think the comments made surrounding it seem to hit this topic square on the head. I know what Ehsan meant by it, and it wasn’t a “poor english” thing. It struck to a much deeper viewpoint on the subject. We have gotten so accustomed to people looking out for our interests, telling us what to buy, where to shop, what is good, what is bad, that trying things out for our own needs seems to be a relic of the past. I am not immune to this “condition” either. Whenever I choose a movie at Redbox I have to check the viewer rating on IMDB, whenever I am finding a place to eat in a new town, I have to check the star rating on Yelp. What Ehsan meant by the hamburger comment and by other “just try it” phrases is to see if the test product is fit for your needs. The thought of the test not being accurate enough for people to gain usable insight into their aquarium is not even a question in his mind - thousands of people have tested his test in their own way, shape or form for the last 7 years with the clearly stated goal of becoming a better reefer. Making a product which possibly doesn’t work well for what has become his life work and family business is almost inconceivable to him.
What I find fascinating is that the goal of Richard’s and Chris’s article is in fact to get people to think on their own, to use critical thinking when making decisions, to really think for themselves before believing what you hear, but what has happened- and I can attest to this being on the receiving end of the phone line at Triton-US, is that far too many people have placed ALL of their trust and decision making skills in the hands of these authors based on the result of one simple set of blind tests. This power they possess needs to be yielded responsibly and carefully. The word fallacious also means “deceptive and misleading” and although the author’s may have meant to use the word to mean “logically unsound”, to many people reading it, the former definition will be the tone they get from the article.
That being said, I am not suggesting by any means that people stop asking questions and fall victim to marketing and “trust me” campaigns, I am merely injecting a little wider thought into an American way of thinking.
OP
OP
I also, with reluctance, agree with the overall "feeling" of the article being negative. I didn't want to post this and detract from the science, but considering the target audience is reef keepers and not scientists, I felt it may be appropriate to say I interpreted the tone as being negative. I only am posting this because if the author wanted to appear neutral, at least for a few of us, it didn't appear that way.
Thales
Valuable Member
I am also always amazed at that phenomenon, and have found that no amount of explanation or any disclaimer seems to have an effect in the short term. During a talk once I was saying that there is no 'best' salt, and went on to discuss why and what one might be looking for in a salt and how the idea of 'best' is illusory. During the Q and A, I was seriously asked by two different people what is the 'best' salt. I thought they were joking, but they weren't.
UKrimless
New Member
I feel it's appropriate for me to pop in to this thread and say Hi, I am 100% biased in favour of Triton lab being a fantastic product, but I would be as I am lucky enough to be the UK wholesaler.
I'm not here to fight any ones corner, but simply to share some of the experiences from some of our Uk customers.
Well as far as Burgers go, the UK is eating them up left right and centre, with hobbyist of all levels turning to see the benefits of Triton and the lab services.
General consensus is that the Burgers taste great and reef tanks are flourishing.
The greatest gain I have seen, is the labs ability to show up an issue in a reef, when the customer has exhausted his experience to find what is causing a problem with his corals, this has been the case for a hobbyist with a 1000l reef, through to public aquaria having issues that they would otherwise not be able to pinpoint.
I can give an example of a public aquaria that tested for levels of tin in their reef display, they were aware of the exhibits corals looking sick and with the help of the ICP, they were able to pinpoint the issue down to a solenoid valve corroding, the valve was located on a auto top of for RO water, tests were taken either side of the valve and from the main display, so it was without any doubt that the cause was located, once the solenoid was removed, the elevated levels were able to be dealt with and levels after that point remained undetectable on the lab. The most important thing to this, was that soon after the corals showed vast improvements in health.
This is just one example, we see this day in day out with different elements.
There have also been times when the test shows close to perfect and yet corals look sick, through experience and tasting the burger, you are then able to look outside the initial chemistry of the tank and search for other irritants such as parasites or lighting conditions, if you are unable to have some trust in your water conditions, previously we would have been running for other chemical solutions in the hope that they would pull our corals back to health, when in fact they may well be adding to an overdose in the aquarium adding another stress factor to the corals.
The benefits are clear to the UK market, as they have used the lab and seen the difference directly in their own aquariums, problems have been found and solved. This was not easy to do prior to the lab service and I am sure you will see the same benefits in time and practice.
Thanks
Vince
I'm not here to fight any ones corner, but simply to share some of the experiences from some of our Uk customers.
Well as far as Burgers go, the UK is eating them up left right and centre, with hobbyist of all levels turning to see the benefits of Triton and the lab services.
General consensus is that the Burgers taste great and reef tanks are flourishing.
The greatest gain I have seen, is the labs ability to show up an issue in a reef, when the customer has exhausted his experience to find what is causing a problem with his corals, this has been the case for a hobbyist with a 1000l reef, through to public aquaria having issues that they would otherwise not be able to pinpoint.
I can give an example of a public aquaria that tested for levels of tin in their reef display, they were aware of the exhibits corals looking sick and with the help of the ICP, they were able to pinpoint the issue down to a solenoid valve corroding, the valve was located on a auto top of for RO water, tests were taken either side of the valve and from the main display, so it was without any doubt that the cause was located, once the solenoid was removed, the elevated levels were able to be dealt with and levels after that point remained undetectable on the lab. The most important thing to this, was that soon after the corals showed vast improvements in health.
This is just one example, we see this day in day out with different elements.
There have also been times when the test shows close to perfect and yet corals look sick, through experience and tasting the burger, you are then able to look outside the initial chemistry of the tank and search for other irritants such as parasites or lighting conditions, if you are unable to have some trust in your water conditions, previously we would have been running for other chemical solutions in the hope that they would pull our corals back to health, when in fact they may well be adding to an overdose in the aquarium adding another stress factor to the corals.
The benefits are clear to the UK market, as they have used the lab and seen the difference directly in their own aquariums, problems have been found and solved. This was not easy to do prior to the lab service and I am sure you will see the same benefits in time and practice.
Thanks
Vince
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
GainesvilleReef
Active Member
It's the quick answer googling mentality. Nobody wants to take the time to understand the context or reason a statement is made. They want quick answers and don't want to have to read further than the subject line or title. The internet is fantastic in that someone like me as access to someone like you. But it is also dangerous because many won't put the effort in to understand what your saying.
I agree that that's a problem but it's understandable because the systems we deal with are really terribly complex and there is still a lot we don't understand. Not many people have had the opportunity to obtain the skills needed to read and comprehend scientific papers or concepts, so they need experts to translate them into practical approaches for them. They prefer a recipe they can adhere to with only a basic understanding of the underlying processes, and if it helps them keep their animals better and to avoid mistakes that's a fine thing.
And then there's the people that read articles, consider themselves skeptical aquarists, try to understand the systems they deal with on another level and hang out in these kinds of threads, and that's a fine thing too.
GainesvilleReef
Active Member
I agree that that's a problem but it's understandable because the systems we deal with are really terribly complex and there is still a lot we don't understand. Not many people have had the opportunity to obtain the skills needed to read and comprehend scientific papers or concepts, so they need experts to translate them into practical approaches for them. They prefer a recipe they can adhere to with only a basic understanding of the underlying processes, and if it helps them keep their animals better and to avoid mistakes that's a fine thing.
And then there's the people that read articles, consider themselves skeptical aquarists, try to understand the systems they deal with on another level and hang out in these kinds of threads, and that's a fine thing too.
Well said.
Thank You Joe. I have been in the hobby For a very long time and Have been reading German and English forums since the internet started. Always could not wait the get the latest info on chemistry for German forums. They are way more progressive and indepth with their information. Some of the things that are said about German ways of Reefing just is so backwards. Hope we can bring more forward thinking to American Hobbyist.
Electrobes
Valuable Member
Oi... this is starting to turn sour, pointing this thread in the wrong direction. Everyone has an opinion about something but statements like the above (Everyone is guilty of this at some point, even me... I know, crazy, right?) will only serve to inflame this thread as opposed to progressing it. Let's try to keep this on the technical aspects of what's actually being discussed instead of just saying one is better than another, one is wrong while the other isn't, dogs are better than cats, it's half empty vs. half full, etc..
Thanks! :lalala:
Randy Holmes-Farley
Reef Chemist
Staff member
Super Moderator
Excellence Award
Expert Contributor
Article Contributor
R2R Research
My Tank Thread
Electrobes
Valuable Member
Uh, I didn't know anyone disputed that.
:lol:
craigbingman
Community Member
I'm glad you are in a better place about this now. I won't say anything more than this: the invocation of lawyer review had a chilling effect on what should have been a purely scientific discussion. That chilling effect will take quite a while to relax to baseline noise.
I would really like to have a scientific discussion with you and Eshan and am ready for that to start any time.
I've asked previously for published references indicating that stored, unacidified seawater-like samples give acceptable results for trace metal analysis. I just haven't seen those. There has been reference to internal, unpublished studies that Triton has conducted in the process of developing whatever method it is that you use. Are the samples filtered and acidified prior to analysis? We don't know. Eshan repeatedly tells us not to just trust him, and I think the scope of that statement is about some general rules regarding depletion rates that might apply across systems. But we are asked to put an enormous amount of faith in his ability to do what no chemical oceanographer has been capable of doing for the last 200 years of effort, and that is getting solid analytical results out of unstabilized saltwater samples.
I wouldn't have to have any blind faith in Eshan if I could send stabilized reference samples. But they aren't stable in the absence of acid, as was clear from your conversation with the vendor supplying the reference material used in the article from Rich and Chris.
So I'm in a cognitive bind here. You guys are telling me "don't just trust me" and you are telling me that I have no mechanism for verifying performance, so I have to just trust you.
Other people in the thread: I have a completely realistic idea of the prices for ICP analysis. I am a frequent consumer of ICP analysis and submit samples for metal analysis of purified recombinant proteins on a regular basis. I'm not asking anyone to deliver anything at an unreasonable price. I don't have unreasonable expectations for what the error bars are going to look like for the Triton analysis.
craigbingman
Community Member
I'm glad you are in a better place about this now. I won't say anything more than this: the invocation of lawyer review had a chilling effect on what should have been a purely scientific discussion. That chilling effect will take quite a while to relax to baseline noise.
I would really like to have a scientific discussion with you and Eshan and am ready for that to start any time.
I've asked previously for published references indicating that stored, unacidified seawater-like samples give acceptable results for trace metal analysis. I just haven't seen those. There has been reference to internal, unpublished studies that Triton has conducted in the process of developing whatever method it is that you use. Are the samples filtered and acidified prior to analysis? We don't know. Eshan repeatedly tells us not to just trust him, and I think the scope of that statement is about some general rules regarding depletion rates that might apply across systems. But we are asked to put an enormous amount of faith in his ability to do what no chemical oceanographer has been capable of doing for the last 200 years of effort, and that is getting solid analytical results out of unstabilized saltwater samples.
I wouldn't be required to have any blind faith in Eshan if I could send stabilized reference samples. But they aren't stable in the absence of acid, as was clear from your conversation with the vendor supplying the reference material used in the article from Rich and Chris.
So I'm in a cognitive bind here. You guys are telling me "don't just trust me" and you are telling me that I have no mechanism for verifying performance, so I have to just trust you.
I'm not trying to pick on anyone, but I am pointing out the fact that there is an unresolvable dilemma here.
I doubt that ENC *requires* you to send acidified samples. They are going to run whatever you send. Their presumption is that you know what you are doing. In academics, there aren't the equivalent of seatbelt laws to protect people from themselves. It is more like "free rope: hang yourself if you want."
