It's Still in the Water!

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Also, what organics in our tanks are more toxic than heavy metals?

I'd have to know the tank concentrations of many organics to know the answer to that.

Still, some that are well studied in seawater that are made by algae include methyl iodide. It is very dangerous to people because it methylates DNA. I don't have any idea what it does to corals, but maybe that's where some of the unusual color morphs come from (that's a joke, by the way).

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

No, not exactly, but I do consider that an interesting and potentially useful piece of data as well. What's your beef with it?

No beef at all. It is a 2 x 2 contingency table and the statistics of these are rather well known. Following the formulations in Zar, Biostatistical Analysis, if my math is correct, the calculated chi squared value of such a table is 1.38, which puts the probability of obtaining a table with values such as that drawn randomly from a population as between 25% and 50%. So, there is no statistical difference between the dosing and non-dosing responses.

Do you believe it to be incorrect, and that adding iron has no effect whatsoever on sexual reproduction of caulerpa in reef tanks?

That is exactly what your data show. The adding of iron has absolutely no discernable effect.

As to experiments, maybe you missed that I personally dose iron at hundreds of millions of the NSW level and have seen only good effects.

Where are the data? Did you do anything like take a measurement of Caulerpa growth, time between reproductive events, any data that could be quantified.

Do you have any measurements on the effects of the iron?

Yep. Same as above.

Did you test any hypothesis?

Yep. Same as above.

So... NO DATA. NO HYPOTHESIS TESTING.

No replicates, no controls, no... science. Lotta arm waving though.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

My tank is it's own control (before and after dosing; a well established technique in both biological and medical research).

That statement would certainly get you laughed out of any biology department that I know of. You have an N of 1, and no control. Ridiculous.

How about a table of data? How about one datum?

Not sure what you want.

Oh, something measurable... actually anything measureable. All you have is anecdote.

Some types of data are suited to a table, and some a stastical result. Have you ever seen epidemiological data that gave a table of every response? Of course not. They give a stastical analysis of the data, and set aside the primary data for review off line. The priamry data for my stastical experiment was carried out here at reefcentral, so you can look it up yourself and reanalyze it if you wish.

You have NO experiments, and the data published in your contingency table, which you were apparently unwilling or unable to analyze do not support your conclusions.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley

I'd have to know the tank concentrations of many organics to know the answer to that.

Well.... Duh... My point exactly.

How about taking some measurements?

Then you might have some data instead of supposition.

 

[SDBDRZ]

That statement would certainly get you laughed out of any biology department that I know of. You have an N of 1, and no control. Ridiculous.

Most statisticians probabaly would not think much more of an N of 23.

I really don't mean to distract from you and Randy's entertaining discussion (tomorrow night I think I am gonna pop some popcorn, pull up this thread and sit back and enjoy the show ) I keep bringing sample size up because I do not agree with your definitive findings based on such a small sample. Hey maybe your findings are right but you will have to sample more than 23 tanks to convince me.

 

[EricHugo]

I couldn't bear to read the whole thread, so maybe this has been covered.

I will add my two cents. I sent a small box of papers to Ron, including a text, on Aquatic Toxicology, to add to what he had already unearthed in his own research. Included were what I feel are about the sum total of references on the effects of metals on corals.

I see it being argued that becasue we don't know certain things or the effects on specific animals, as scientists you know that science is a foundation. If a metal is found to be toxic to Hydra, to Drosophila, to C. elegans, then the assumption is that is is toxic to invertebrates and probably highly likely that it is toxic to closely related invertebrates, unless there is something that wouldindicate for a particular species that it is not.

Ron is totally correct about the research on invertebrates, and since sending him the information, I delved here and there and uncovered some other somewhat related and somewhat unrelted material. There is no question that levels above what are found in non-impacted areas are considered pollutants, posions and toxins...there is question and many unanswered questions as to the effects, and this is even more true with marine invertebrates.

There are studies investigating and that have investigated effects of polluted areas - many of the best happen to be in Kaneohe Bay and I happen to share a lab with someone who did their research there. There does indeed seem to be tolernace. There is little question that reproduction is heavily to totally affected by elevated levels of metals. I have listened to my fair share of talks at conferences on thsi very subject, and living in texas where chemical plants and oil industry makes our coastlines look like Miami Beach only with industry, there are no shortage of investigations, especially to the Flower Gardens Banks. Elevated levels of metals, pesticides, PAH's, and undetectable by standard EPA testing were found to affect settlement of coral planulae at levels in the parts per billion. How's that for a number?

Or how bout this regarding settlement studies:

In laboratory tests, planula recruitment bioassays were more sensitive than
standard toxicity tests performed on either adult corals or their larvae. Larval-substratum interactions are highly sensitive to the presence of certain pollutants.

I also see references being thrown around to support various alternative hypotheses - and from what I gleaned, they are algal and cyanobacterial studies....totally irrelevent. I mean, duh! Bacterial and algal uptake of toxins is old old news. In fact, the uptake of such things by algae is being propsed as one of the factors in some phase shifts from coral to algal dominated communities in impacted areas since algae tolerate it and invertebrates do not. Furthermore, metal studies on corals indicate that the zooxanthellae save the animal from much toxicity by taking up such pollutants and binding them. Corals also remove metals quickly from their tissue, releasing them into the water or binding them in the skeleton. In the very few studies on metals and zooxanthellae, elevated metal levels caused reduced mitotic indices and bleaching.

Irrespective of all this, and if corals can survive in the presence of all this garbage, why even postulate on why unless it is an area of research interest? Why even thinkabout adding more? What is this long-stading and bizarre fascination with trace elements and corals? Why do you think there is so little research going forth on effects of molybdenum on coral growth and coloration, as an example? Why, because no one would fund it becasue there is no scientific basis for it, no precedent, and every indication on a scientific foundation would indicate there is no need for it, and is probably toxic. If there is a release of it into the water by accident, be assured research would follow quickly to investiagte the potential harm to the reef community, not the potential benefits. Should it not be evident in the lack of sexual activity in our tanks?

Anyway, one last question - to Randy. Do you publish under the name Randy Holmes-Farley, because I searched PubMed, PubScience, Science Citation Index, WorldCat, Academic Search Premiere, ArticleFirst, MedLine, and SciFinder Scholar, and even my university search engine under pharmacology, and could not find any articles with you as the author or researcher. I would very much like to see what you have published. I like to read the works and interests of peers.

 

[clkohly]

Eric: Well this is about the only part of the thread that I really understand. Common sense would tell me that Randy would probably go by something a little more professional such as Randall. Perhaps if you enter that name into your search Engines you might find something. I sure did.

Chris

 

[Habib]

Eric,

Welcome to the club

If a metal is found to be toxic to Hydra, to Drosophila, to C. elegans, then the assumption is that is is toxic to invertebrates and probably highly likely that it is toxic to closely related invertebrates, unless there is something that wouldindicate for a particular species that it is not.

If e.g. sea urchin larve and Daphnia magna's tolerance to copper is significantly increased if the copper speciation is changed then would it not be unlikely that other invertebrates would show a similar increased tolerance to copper if the speciation is changed?

And is toxicity not proportional to bioavailability?
And does speciation not affect bioavailability?

Also it is well known that to treat fish with copper that the copper "disappears" and loses it's toxicity. The speciation of copper has changed.

Abstract:

Environ Toxicol Chem 2002 Feb;21(2):275-80

Speciation of copper in sewage effluents and its toxicity to Daphnia magna.

van VE, Burton N, Comber S, Gardner M.

Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Ascot, Berkshire, United Kingdom.

Copper complexation capacity was determined in a range of sewage treatment works final effluents and receiving waters, upstream and downstream of the discharge point. Forty-eight-hour immobilization tests on Daphnia magna were used to assess the toxicity of copper in the effluent matrix. Complexation capacities in effluents were typically in the range 50 to 100 microg Cu/L, with higher values being found in the poorer-quality effluents with higher dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations. The tolerance of Daphnia to dissolved copper concentrations was more than quadrupled in a 50% effluent matrix, with the increase in tolerance being related to complexation capacity. Ligand concentrations in effluents were found to correlate strongly with effluent DOC. No such relationship was observed in surface waters. On mixing with river water, sewage-derived ligands behaved conservatively and were relatively stable over time scales of up to 10 d.


Abstract:

Aquat Toxicol 2002 Jul;58(1-2):27-41

Effect of humic acids on speciation and toxicity of copper to Paracentrotus lividus larvae in seawater.

Lorenzo JI, Nieto O, Beiras R.

Departamento de Ecoloxia e Bioloxia Animal, Universidade de Vigo, E-36200, Vigo, Galicia, Spain. lorenzo@uvigo.es

The effects of humic acid (HA) on the toxicity of copper to sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus larvae were studied in chemically defined seawater. Square Wave Anodic Stripping Voltammetry (SWASV) was employed to study the complexation of copper in seawater medium. A simple complexation model assuming one ligand type and a 1:1 reaction stoichiometry successfully explained the inverse titration experiments. A conditional stability constant of 6.53+/-0.05 and a complexating capacity of 230+/-7 micromol Cu/g HA were obtained. Sea urchin bioassay tests with two endpoints, embryogenesis success and larval growth were carried out in order to study the toxicity of dissolved copper in both the presence and absence of HA. The toxicity data obtained fitted well into a logistic model, and the high sensitivity of both endpoints (EC(50) were 41.1 microg Cu/l and 32.9 microg Cu/l, respectively) encourages their use for biomonitoring. The HA had a clearly protective effect, reducing the toxicity of Cu to the sea urchin larvae. The labile copper, rather than the total copper concentrations, explained the toxicity of the Cu-HA solutions, and the Cu-HA complexes appeared as non-toxic forms. These results are in agreement with the Free Ion Activity Model, because the labile Cu concentrations in this buffered and chemically defined medium covary with the free ion activity of the Cu, validating the model to naturally occurring HA in the marine environment.

 

[EricHugo]

Habib:

Thanks for reminding me. Yes, I did mean to comment on that, too, and I do agree that speciation is very important...and also agree with you guys that complexing with organics can make a world of a difference in both biological effects and in testable results. And with Ron, I also agree that no matter how likely or pragmatic the argument, even less information is available and relevant to this subject that with the direct effects of compound x on species y in the marine environment. We are *all* skating on thin ice in such debate, and urge tempering of statements and careful throwing about of quotes and references so as not to appear to be a final word or gospel thats supports our views.

I'll turn to a non-scientific but darn applicable analogy of personal experience for a second. A long time ago, I did something out of desperation and something I repeated not too long ago. Also something I don;t ever want to hear someone else did cause Eric did it and it turned out ok....it is most certainly not something I would want anyone to do. By coincidence, it invovled copper.

I almost left the hobby in the mid 90's because of Aiptasia - I had tried everything and failed. I eventually put all my live rock in a bin and went out and bought several bottles of Copper-safe - a chelated copper treatment....and poured it in the bin. The anemones had turned dark within the day, but very few seemed to die. Knowing how much I had put in, I bought more bottles and added more a bit at a time. After pouring about five bottles over two weeks into about fifty gallons of water, I realized the anemones were not dying, and had even recovered - they seemed tolerant of this product, or the product was not availabel to affect them. I used a copper test kit, and while there was testable copper in the water, it wasn't off the scale as I would have expected.

I then went and bought another copper treatment that was supposedly a free ionic solution of copper. I added the bottle - and the bottle was only about one third the volume - of course, I don't know the concentration of either of the products, can't trust the manufacturer anyway, but the receommended treatment level for fishes, assuming that their recommendations are at all valid, suggested that the free ionic was roughly twice as strong based on dosage level per water volume. Thats a heck of an assumption, but let's go with it for the purposes of this analogy. The anemones started turnig dark again, and this time they died. In fact, bristle worms died like flies, I had peanut worms crawling out of the rock and dying, and the whole water turned blackish brown with decomposition of all the anemones and worms in a few days. It basically killed everything....and I felt I had won - I guess, if you consider mass mortality of all living invertebrates a victory. Now, none of the filamentous algae, coralline algae, or macroalgae on the rock was affected at all - at least visually or long-term in terms of survival and future growth. I then started using water changes and metal sponges to remove the copper, and eventually was able to replace the rock into the tank.

My second experience was similar - I used Copper Safe to try and kill snails in a rfeshwater planted tank. Snails weren't even phased and the plants did fine, too. Total waste of effort.

Now, the two most reasonable explanations for this are that 1) coppersafe is a lame and extraordinarily weak product that can't even kill a two cell layer thick tissue sac like an anemone or that 2) the chelation significantly affects the relative toxicity and/or testable amounts of copper in solution.

But, (and I do ask that you bring me up to speed on this thread if I repeat what's been said, fail to cover issues addressed, miss a point, etc., because as I said, I couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't read it all), and excuse me for being presumptuous, but so what? Chelators themselves may have their own set of effects....as I pointed out in a thread on my forum, the standard method for decalcifying corals for electron microsocopy involves slow chelation with EDTA. It slowly chelates the calcium and dissolves the skeleton. That's just an example. Second, if things are taken up by plants, algae, microbes, coral skeletons, or bound by chelators, or other organics, and they die or are released by other means, we're in a world of trouble. The fact that they exist at levels way in excess of NSW and are likely to have toxic effects in at least one chemcial species, makes me sweat - especially when we are likely manipulating the biological and chemical environment far more in tanks than is done in the wild.

Now, I don't know what was said regarding toxic effects, and believe I tried to temper at least some conclusions in Ron's article when I reviewed it. The information he has discovered - and I might add in a scientific fashion using quality materials and methods, even if not ideal (as can be said for most of thepapers in speer reviewed science, I might add) and being one of the very very few truly available pieces of such information in the entirety of private aquarium science (term used loosely) - is pretty astounding and certainly has the very real potential of needing to taken with as much shock value as is obviously the case by this thread's interest. Debating the fine points and possible alternatives to explain survival in a toxic slurry sort of takes away from the importance of the finding. Believe me, I also know all too well how my friend can get when he gets fired up.

I have also watched many times as scientists I greatly respect begin to take opposite sides of a fence by pushing their own points to their logical extremes and wind up almost diametrically opposed from a fence they once stood nearly upon together. This can be highly counterproductive, too. Another example: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and Clive Wilkinson are two scientists in Australia who agreed on the potential impacts to coral reefs by climate change, the increasing and warnings of mass bleachings, the somewhat dismal future for the world's reefs, etc. One of them sort of felt that corals will not be able to adapt, the other felt they might be able to. The press (lay persons, like most of those reading this thread), came to the conclusion, since both were well respected, that they had diametrically opposed views of the future of coral reefs and mass bleaching events, and so "since no one knew the answer yet" no longer felt either reefs or bleaching were probably an imminently important issue.

So, I would urge those of "well-heeled intellect" in this thread to bear this in mind for the sake of and in consideration of the hobby for whom this thread, board, site, entire world's aquarists, and information are being given.

 

[cfockler]

Irrespective of all this, and if corals can survive in the presence of all this garbage, why even postulate on why unless it is an area of research interest? Why even thinkabout adding more?

Welcome to the show Eric. I'm reading you loud and clear! :wave:

I personally feel all of this energy would be better spent finding ways of getting our tanks closer to natural seawater conditions.

Ron, hows the search for a better salt progressing?

 

[F4]

Eric,

I notice you are quick to discredit your "peers" credentials, but didn't reply when someone suggested you were mistaken.

Was this due to you feeling the poster was incorrect, or do you feel it's acceptible to smear someone and not bother to see if your accusations are correct?

This kind of mud slinging is not helpful, and IMO is more indicative of acting on agendas than on helping the hobby.

I have also watched many times as scientists I greatly respect begin to
take opposite sides of a fence by pushing their own points to their logical
extremes and wind up almost diametrically opposed from a fence they once
stood nearly upon together.

It seems to me a bit of "Kettle, you are black, sincerely, Pot." is going on here.

 

[SDBDRZ]

.

 

[F4]

I wasn't aware there was a post count limit to asking a question. I don't see my post as an attack, unlike Eric's post to Randy, which was most certainly an attack on his credentials.

I do feel that since Eric chose to make an attack on Randy's credentials, he is open to criticism for not responding when a rebuttal is made. Otherwise, it appears that he is ignoring any points that don't fit his agenda.

PS> If you look at my registration date, you'll see that I didn't just sign up today in order to post this message, thanks for the welcome.

 

[SDBDRZ]

There is not and I apologize. I will delete my last post.

Threads like these get a little heated and it is easy to get pulled into the accussation mode, you have my apologies.

 

[EricHugo]

F4, you are totally mistaken. I like Randy's advice and feel he offers a great deal to the aquarium hobby with his knowledge. I have sent Randy, on my dime, hundreds of pages of articles for his columns from my collections when he asked, and I reguarly read and commend his work. It was his post about all his papers that made me go and try to read some of his field of work, and I couldn't find any - which is why I asked. So save your presumptions, ok? Got anything to add to the discussion or are you just going to try and take me on...cause if you are, I'm ready...hope you are!

 

[SciGuy2]

Good to have a peace keeper or two around.

 

[F4]

are you just
going to try and take me on

Unlike some here, I am not posting for any reason other than to clear up one tiny part of this mess. I have no agenda other than to understand whether you are still suggesting that Randy's claims of publication are false. You made what I consider a pretty serious attempt to discredit him, and I think it's important to understand exactly where you stand on the issue when it has been brought up that he DOES in fact use names other than "Randy".

Why is asking Randy for the name that he publishes under an attack?

What other purpose could be assumed by asking someone why you can't find any published works by them? The insinuation is VERY strong that there are none to be found.

Trying to be a peace keeper,

That's great, but I find it interesting that I am attacked for asking why Eric didn't respond to the additional information regarding Randy's name. Especially when it is not even important to the discussion. Eric felt it important enough to bring it up in the first place. I'm just wondering why, if not to attempt to discredit.

Eric, I'm sorry you feel that my wanting to understand your motives isn't productive, but I think it's important.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

No beef at all. It is a 2 x 2 contingency table and the statistics of these are rather well known.

I did a 2 x 2 chi square test and got the result posted. If you don't like the result, then I suggest you run your own survey.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

That statement would certainly get you laughed out of any biology department that I know of.

Ron, I'll go toe to toe with you on scientific credentials any day. Including where you got your biology degree and where I got my biology degree (leaving aside chemistry for a tiny second; Oh, did you not know that I too have a biology degree? It is easy to ridicule people when you know little about them). Still, that isn't the point of science, is it? Is it?

Sure, an N of one requires replication to be generally accepted, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong. That replication involved the tanks of many reefcentral members, including several of the moderators here. Though, they could all be lieing....

If I'd been suggestintg someting odd, I'd expect a bit of skepticism, but since I'm only recommending something that many people have been doing successfully for many years, I'm not sure I understand it, except again that it seems to not fit with your theory that addition of metals is undesirable.

 

[rshimek]

Some points to start with.

F4: Start a new thread some place for your argument with Eric. Better yet take it off line. If it continues in this thread, I will close and delete the thread.

Habib and Eric have both discussed the ability of chelating agents to bind copper. Great.

Now ----

How abundant are these things in our tanks?
How available are they? sometimes? always? And which ones?

More importantly, what happens to them and their bound metallic poisons when they start to accumulate?

If they form any kind of particulate organic material, they will be eaten.

If they are eaten, in the acid or basic phases that virtually all animals have, some or all of the poison (copper, nickel, zinc, vanadium, ad nauseum) will be released.

When I tested aquarium waters, these chemicals were found in the waters in lethal amounts. If they are chelated, fine. They are likely also chelated in the natural systems when the test mortality occurs. It simply doesn't really matter whether they are ionic or chelated; sooner or later unless they are removed, they will be effecting the animals in our systems.

ASW is universally thought to be toxic to invertebrate embryos invertebrate embryologists. If ASW gets detoxified as it is added to our tanks by chelating organic compounds, what about those tanks without the appropriate organisms to produce the appropriate compounds? and what can be done to ensure their productivity?

Etc, etc, etc....

But most importantly of all.....

[size=huge]WHY ARE THE SALT WATER MIXES MADE WITH TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THEM?[/size]

In other words, why are we having this discussion in the first place?