UV sterilizers are not effective and we should all stop using them, Right?

[Gareth elliott]

Few scientific papers are ever peer reviewed especially those that are for such a niche as aquarium care.

For applicable studies you will have to turn to aquaculture of feed species and waste water treatment. They are inherently peer reviewed by the consumer rates of waterborne illnesses.

Only an aquarium uv manufacturer would pay to test their equipment thoroughly enough to get a direct answer for a reef aquarium. No doctoral student is going to waste grant money on something that has so little money attached to it.

 

[Daniel76]

In my cases yes, easily. I would suggest searching around the site more. Without exaggeration I have seen improvement overnight on dinos on multiple systems. This of course depends on the species of dinos as well with species that dissolve into the water column at night being the most easily impacted, but in my time reefing there are few if any things I have observed that made such a fast and obviously change.

The real debate over UV in our systems seems to be over fish parasites and their usefulness in that capacity. Their benifit for clearing some species of dinos has been evidenced dozens of not hundreds of times now. In many cases such as myself, with 0 other treatments done at the same time.

It's lovely to hear you feel better associating one action for another, but this is not a difficult experiment to set up and from what I have heard and researched, it's such a truism that scientists no longer look into this because they can comprehend the answer, but we cannot. And retailers exploit this knowledge gap.

 

[Tamberav]

Works on dinos for me. I have no compelling reason to remove the UV.

 

[Daniel76]

Few scientific papers are ever peer reviewed especially those that are for such a niche as aquarium care.

For applicable studies you will have to turn to aquaculture of feed species and waste water treatment. They are inherently peer reviewed by the consumer rates of waterborne illnesses.

Only an aquarium uv manufacturer would pay to test their equipment thoroughly enough to get a direct answer for a reef aquarium. No doctoral student is going to waste grant money on something that has so little money attached to it.

Hey mate.

True, personally, I only consider a scholarly article to pass the inititial scrutiny test only if they are peer reviewed.

Also, if the only funded research that might exist is funded by UV sterilizer manufacturers, then wouldn't there be an inherent bias towards saying they are effective?

 

[homer1475]

I fought dino's for months, threw everything but the kitchen sink at them, nothing worked. They just got worse and worse to the point of strangling out corals.

Read the Dino thread here, ID them, bought a UV. Overnight the decrease in dinos was very noticable. By the end of the week, they were gone.

Call it anecdotal all you want, but just have a read through the dino thread and all the victories from using UV. Then tell me that UV is useless in defeating dinos.

 

[Daniel76]

I fought dino's for months, threw everything but the kitchen sink at them, nothing worked. They just got worse and worse to the point of strangling out corals.

Read the Dino thread here, ID them, bought a UV. Overnight the decrease in dinos was very noticable. By the end of the week, they were gone.

Call it anecdotal all you want, but just have a read through the dino thread and all the victories from using UV. Then tell me that UV is useless in defeating dinos.

There is no objective evidence that demonstrates that UV sterilizers do what you have stated.

 

[homer1475]

There is no objective evidence that demonstrates that UV sterilizers do what you have stated.

AND YOUR JUST ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING.

Plenty of evidence, just read the thread. You can argue all you want, but those of us that use them, know they work.

 

[Daniel76]

AND YOUR JUST ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING.

Plenty of evidence, just read the thread. You can argue all you want, but those of us that use them, know they work.

That's not evidence.
Link me to a Randy Holmes Farley article that extols their benefit?

 

[ScottR]

AND YOUR JUST ARGUING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING.

Plenty of evidence, just read the thread. You can argue all you want, but those of us that use them, know they work.

+1 I’ve seen UVs work for dinos and bacterial blooms. No denying.

 

[Daniel76]

+1 I’ve seen UVs work for dinos and bacterial blooms. No denying.

"Seen work"?
I know you both consider this style of conversation as argumentative, but without objective reasoning, I consider this a fairy tale.

 

[homer1475]

"Seen work"?
I know you both consider this style of conversation as argumentative, but without objective reasoning, I consider this a fairy tale.

And you will never find this info your looking for as related to the hobby.

Just read the massive thread for all the people who have defeated dino's with only the addition of UV. Plenty of "anecdotal" evidence in there.

If all we have is the experience of others that have used them, wouldn't that be evidence enough that they work?

 

[SamsReef]

This thread so far has discussed only about UV and it’s effectiveness on dinos. I have a mature tank and do not have Dinos but I would like remove use of GAC as it absorbs good stuff along with “clearing” the water.

Would love to hear if Anyone stopped using GAC successfully over extended period due to use of UV, especially for “polishing” the water.

Sam

 

[ScottR]

"Seen work"?
I know you both consider this style of conversation as argumentative, but without objective reasoning, I consider this a fairy tale.

I mix blue with yellow and see green. You say, no it’s not green - it’s red. I know so many people that have successfully beat dinos with UV, myself included. I’m not trying to persuade you. I’m just saying what has worked for me, has worked for others.

 

[Daniel76]

O

And you will never find this info your looking for as related to the hobby.

Just read the massive thread for all the people who have defeated dino's with only the addition of UV. Plenty of "anecdotal" evidence in there.

If all we have is the experience of others that have used them, wouldn't that be evidence enough that they work?

OK, no problem.
Can you please link the thread?

 

[Gareth elliott]

Hey mate.

True, personally, I only consider a scholarly article to pass the inititial scrutiny test only if they are peer reviewed.

Also, if the only funded research that might exist is funded by UV sterilizer manufacturers, then wouldn't there be an inherent bias towards saying they are effective?

Both points have to deal with money sadly. Will use an example work on orphan diseases(those diseases that effect very small portions of the human population). Because there is little money to be made in treating say 1000 people. Any pharmaceutical work on treatments are often fast tracked and paid by governments, and worldwide there may only be 5 scientists studying a particular disease all 5 maybe on the discovery team. A peer review of their work would only be that the team used the scientific method properly, not that they could replicate the results.

Yes, a manufacturer’s study would be inherently biased. In academia this maybe hidden. Dr. Doe wishes to study the effects of chromium in paint. Submits for grants. Who ends up paying the grant. A foundation that is funded by Dupont chemical.
I am not dispelling the work of scientists only that the consumer should always apprehensive to any claim a company makes or articles that list to back their claims. A vacuum cleaner made with “parts from the space shuttle” is still just a vacuum cleaner.

 

[homer1475]

O

OK, no problem.
Can you please link the thread?

No problem, just have to scroll down a bit to the nusiance algae section. Top stickie(and is a top stickie for a reason).
https://www.reef2reef.com/threads/dinoflagellates-–-are-you-tired-of-battling-altogether.293318/

 

[hart24601]

It's lovely to hear you feel better associating one action for another, but this is not a difficult experiment to set up and from what I have heard and researched, it's such a truism that scientists no longer look into this because they can comprehend the answer, but we cannot. And retailers exploit this knowledge gap.

I absolutely and fully support you doing such research. Fwiw I am a microbiologist for the past 15 years - and that doesn't make my observations correct by any means, but I have worked a long time in industry and now big data and it's not wise to ignore so many results. Please link the studies showing UV is not effective for dino control in tanks? Of course there is no research on that either way.

I can tell you my experience. I had a 33g deep blue tank. I confirmed I had dinos, tried raising nutrients however it didn't work. I decided to just let it progress. However after a couple weeks most of my coral started being totally covered in dinos and start dying. I bought a cheap HOB UV filter. The next day 90% of the dinos were gone and in the next 3 days 0 remained. I made no other changes to the tank whatsoever.

2 months later I took that UV off as I was curious what would happen. Again no changes but a month later dinos appeared. I waited until the got quite bad again and put the HOB UV back on. 2 days later it was totally cleaned.

I repeated this one more time for my own 'fun' - removing UV - dino came back until installed it again.

Then on a system of 150g or so I got dinos. Installed UV there as well and the dinos died off however it took about 4 days. I have left the UV in place on that system.

Again I fully support you doing the research - I flat out don't think it's needed for demonstration of UV effectiveness on controlling dinos. The testing of parasites and infections agents on fish is a bit harder since true tank sterilization if perhaps not needed, but a reduction in the absolute counts for fish to build immunity- however this will depend on the species and health of the fish. This traditionally is why many, including myself, have been skeptical of UV in reef tanks for the purpose of fish health.

 

[mrpizzaface]

what if they had used UV to defeat all the dinos in Jurassic Park? Probably wouldn't have done as well at the box office.

 

[Dj City]

Click bait.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I only consider a scholarly article to pass the inititial scrutiny test only if they are peer reviewed.

Peer review means little. Numerous papers pass peer review only to be later retracted, or found to be flawed by further reseasch.