tank over 4 years - tear it down

[matt_rogers]

Heh. Heh. That happens on boards a lot.

Here is another colorful quote, something Dr. Bingman said about that S-15 report: There is a lame-assed score that was constructed to favor the salt being advertized.

That is exactly how I felt after I read it and realized the salt they recommended was their own.

 

[rshimek]

Hi,

Basically, I think the tests probably had some merit at the time the analyses were done. However, they are so out-of-date that they are now simply irrelevent.

The Atkinson and Bingman series of tests is likewise becoming dated, and needs validation to see if any of the manufacturers have changed formulation.

In my tank water study, done last summer, the Instant Ocean results agreed closely with the A & B study. However, I couldn't afford to test any other salts, so I don't know if they have changed.

 

[Chargerfan]

Until a new recipe for home made salt is available, or until a commercially available alternative is available, we should filter our mix with carbon before doing a water change? I thought that the ph had to be low for the toxic metals to become soluable. Any advice? Thanks!!!

 

[rshimek]

Hi,

There are a lot of metals in the salt as it is mixed. They are definitely soluble there. Filtering the salts would help remove as much of them as is possible.

Precipitated metals and adsorbed metals may become soluble with the lowering of pH.

 

[G-money]

Perhaps this post is a bit "late" and non-scientific, but I have some time ...

Judging from the success of so many tanks on this and other boards, my biggest suprise in this matter is the statement that folks are actually losing "significant" amounts of livestock. Yes, I know that corals are virtually immortal in the wild (although I have read that is more applicable to the colony and not the individual polyp per se), but there are limits to how "natural" one can be using a synthetic medium and a set of synthetic processes.

Allow me to digress a bit.... This is especially true in the aquatic realm because that is an environment we do not share. Is it not logical (albeit elementary) to argue that it is easier to provide for air-breathing organisms because we share their critical environment and continuously monitor many facets of it ourselves, proportionately less easy to keep plants because they share our environment, but also exist in the soil medium which we do not share, and finally aquatic organisms because we do not share their environment in the least and need to absolutely provide it and can only monitor it to variously inadequate degrees? Maybe I'm cracked, but it seems logical. Point being that perhaps it's just inherent in our hobby that replication of nature (or even closer approximation) is not going to happen. Of course striving for that is what the hobby is all about (although a skimmer, light bulbs, etc are hardly natural) and helps its longevity, but a certain amount of reason may alleviate the new-found agony of seemingly sentencing our animals to death upon purchase - and the associated guilt.

I guess it can be attributed to people's lack of desire to declare their failures, but I definitely don't gather a lot of examples of experienced hobbyists losing proportionately more animals over time. In fact, my personal experience (and conjecture) would lead me to believe the opposite is more prominent; that being that animals do quite well once they are beyond that initial month or so of acclimation. In the case of mortality soon after purchase (arguably when most animals are lost), it can hardly be a matter of "captive" metal poisoning. Cyanide maybe, rough transport, poor acclimation for sure, ignorant husbandry, but not heavy metal buildup.

Another factor may well be that most tanks don't get to the 4-5 year mark without some sort of (voluntary) overhaul/upgrade, etc. as has been stated.

The way I see it and judging that Dr. Shimek's hypothesis is accurate, sure we can start with a "cleaner" salt, but the metals will accumulate anyway. It seems to me that energy would be better spent developing a method of continuous removal/filtration or even better, biological sequestering much akin to nutrient exports. Nutrients are easy to test for hobbyists (though precision lacks), but even assuming we can find a way to remove and control levels of various metals and compounds, the worst thing is that maintenance of near NSW levels of elements is impossible without maniacal testing of the water. This is simply not possible for most all hobbyists and likely won't be in the near future.

Therefore, I find that this concern, while unquestionably important, is just not feasible now or in the near future for all but the most resourceful hobbyist. It is more a fancy for the scientist or engineer and his lab. Good to know, but out of our hands (albeit with a quickly ripening marketing future, I'm sure)...

Sorry for the ramble.

 

[pnosko]

Maybe I'm cracked, but it seems logical.

You are cracked, but it still seems logical.

On a related (unscientific) observation, how is it that huge ships made of presumably toxic metals, when sunk to become an artificial reef, can become one? They do get overgrown with corals, no?

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by pnosko

On a related (unscientific) observation, how is it that huge ships made of presumably toxic metals, when sunk to become an artificial reef, can become one? They do get overgrown with corals, no?

Many of them don't. It depends on the ship and the coral. Iron hulled ships often do become covered with life; but coral diversity on them is generally far lower than in the surrounding reef areas.

Some of the ships in Truk lagoon, for example are close to being very pristine, even though they are at good coral depth.

Others are covered in corals, but these are mostly soft corals and these are generally of only a few species.

Much of the life on an artifical reef bears little resemblance to the life on real ones.

 

[pcmankey]

On a related (unscientific) observation, how is it that huge ships made of presumably toxic metals, when sunk to become an artificial reef, can become one? They do get overgrown with corals, no?

Many of them don't. It depends on the ship and the coral. Iron hulled ships often do become covered with life; but coral diversity on them is generally far lower than in the surrounding reef areas.

Some of the ships in Truk lagoon, for example are close to being very pristine, even though they are at good coral depth.

Others are covered in corals, but these are mostly soft corals and these are generally of only a few species.

Much of the life on an artifical reef bears little resemblance to the life on real ones.

I don't see any surprise here--all the life would have to get there first. A new island born from volcanic activity doesn't become a paradise in 50 years.

 

[pnosko]

But the question (relative to this thread) was could it become a "real" reel, not would it eventually.

 

[pcmankey]

I don't understand. The life is not going to spontaneously appear in any case. A new "real" reef still needs existing life from other reefs, and all life from one reef is not going to magically appear all at the same time and instantly establish a full blown reef.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by pcmankey

Hi,

I don't see any surprise here--all the life would have to get there first. A new island born from volcanic activity doesn't become a paradise in 50 years.

In point of fact, they often do. The craters of H-bomb tests on Enewetak are full of rubble (acres of good rich live rock!!!), but the areas adjacent to them are essentially indistinguishable now from what they were orginally. The old Atomic Energy Commission used to maintain a lab on Enewetak to track the effects of the H-Bomb blasts on the fauna. The lab was closed in the early 1980's, about 30 years after the blasts, with the rationale the reef had essentially recovered. And in point of fact for usage, the last decade or so the lab was in operation people used it to study normal reefs as it was a great site to do this as it had been protected from fishing, diving, etc. After all, it had only had several megatons of thermonuclear explosives detonated on it... Sunken ships in the Enewetak lagoon are still not resembling a real reef.

Colonization of cool, but new lava flows around Hawaii is quite rapid and the communities on 50 year old flows are often quite rich.

Natural (and some unnatural disasters recover quite rapidly). Ships leach poisons, from the hull, the cargo, the fuel for decades.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by pnosko

Hi,

But the question (relative to this thread) was could it become a "real" reel, not would it eventually.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust... eventually, yes. But the time for metal hulled ships is likely to be measured in multiples of centuries. Wooden ships go pretty fast - the wood is a food source for many organisms, so they are often gone in less than a century.

From archaeological studies of galleons, etc., on coral reefs the iron or brass of cannons eventually gets coated with something... any kind of coating will do. Once that occurs, it "seals" and slows the dissolution of the metal. Once that occurs, corals can establish themselves. So, yes it can occur, but over very long time intervals, indeed. The Truk lagoon wrecks will be perfectly diveable tourist attractions when Jean Luc Picard takes off on the Enterprise E in the 24th century. And there likely won't be a lot of coral on them.

 

[pcmankey]

Dr. Shimek, this is a completely different question but do you know about any research or speculation into the effects of the Ice Ages on reefs? The last Ice Age was not that long ago in Geological time. The reason I ask is because of all the speculation that global warming is going to ruin the reefs and they'll be gone forever--if that is true how did they recover after an Ice Age where surely the average temperature of the oceans went down.

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by pcmankey

Hi

Dr. Shimek, this is a completely different question but do you know about any research or speculation into the effects of the Ice Ages on reefs?

There are literally thousands of papers on this. Contact Eric B., I think he will probably have some of these at his fingertips in his data base. I really don't.

The last Ice Age was not that long ago in Geological time. The reason I ask is because of all the speculation that global warming is going to ruin the reefs and they'll be gone forever--if that is true how did they recover after an Ice Age where surely the average temperature of the oceans went down.

Yes, and the recovery of the reefs after the last Ice Age has been used as a model for what might happen to coral reefs in the future. Go to a library and get the August, 1999, issue of the journal "American Zoologist." There are many papers in that issue that discuss just this scenario.

 

[pcmankey]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

:smokin:

 

[G-money]

The toxicity of the water is not in question. Tests have been done showing that sea water with concentrations of copper, nickel, vanadium, zinc, etc., lower than what we have in our tanks kills some corals, snails, and other animals. We know from basic physiology that those animals that are not killed are stressed and prone to death from other factors.

I am not trying to be argumentative or "difficult" and I know that you have explored this in unfathomably more depth than I so forgive my possible ignorance. I am also not trying to beat a horse....

How do you KNOW this is due to the metals? It appears that there are so many possible variables....basically it seems to lack a good control (without seeing the actual papers you mention). Only time will tell, but then there will be no control group there either as you will only have your one tank. You could compare it to your current tank, but all variables are not known. It seems it's just too hard to get a good experimental grasp on it because the hobby is not structured as such. Comparing twenty some tanks based on chosen variables and ignoring countless other variables is not very convincing to me, though I am sure you care little what I think . Also, to my knowledge, the status, health and overall condition of the tested tanks was not discussed at all as relating to the levels tested.

 

[G-money]

Dr. Ron,

Perhaps I need to rephrase my question in a more effective manner? BTW, I did read your article 3 times.

I know that toxic concentrations of heavy metals are known. They are an absolute value derived from (I assume) valid experimentation. I am not doubting that. When you say "Tests have been done showing that sea water with concentrations of copper, nickel, vanadium, zinc, etc., lower than what we have in our tanks kills some corals, snails, and other animals", are these concentrations still above the known "lethal" concentration? If not, doesn't your statement require that a control be in place to ascertain that it WAS in fact the metals?

Throughout this group of experiments, I haven't been able to figure out what the control group is (barring, known lethal concentrations), If you could enlighten me, it would make things more clear.

Also, how broad can one generalize that specific toxic levels of metals result in the same physiological "consequences"? To genus? Family? unknown? It seems that it's not beyond debate...

Thank you.

 

[africangrey]

Dr Ron, I was wondering since EDTA is major chelator used in enzymology lab, can I add a small amount of it say 10mM to take out the ionic form of heavy metal? I guess my question is would adding EDTA to my tank kill the inhibitant.
-A

 

[rshimek]

Originally posted by Graham

Graham,

I know that toxic concentrations of heavy metals are known. They are an absolute value derived from (I assume) valid experimentation. I am not doubting that. When you say "Tests have been done showing that sea water with concentrations of copper, nickel, vanadium, zinc, etc., lower than what we have in our tanks kills some corals, snails, and other animals", are these concentrations still above the known "lethal" concentration?

No. What I am saying is that that tests have been conducted that show that for several species of corals, snails, and other animals that the known, experimentally determined and tested lethal concentrations of the these several metals are at concentrations or levels well below what are found in reef tanks. In other words, the water in our tanks contains far more than enough of these materials to kill some animals.

If not, doesn't your statement require that a control be in place to ascertain that it WAS in fact the metals?

The tests had controls.

Throughout this group of experiments, I haven't been able to figure out what the control group is (barring, known lethal concentrations), If you could enlighten me, it would make things more clear.

There is no experimentation here. This is simply the gathering of data and an attempt to explain the consequences of the results shown by the data.

Also, how broad can one generalize that specific toxic levels of metals result in the same physiological "consequences"? To genus? Family? unknown? It seems that it's not beyond debate...

Of course, it is not, the very fact of differences of tolerance is the basis for "pollution tolerant" organisms. One can, however, reasonably expect that levels of toxic pollutants that cause problems in some animals in a group, will cause problems with most animals in the group.

The whole idea of bioassays (where the toxic levels were determined) is to provide a series of concentration limits that specify where the animals may be stressed to death.

 

[Jimbo]

Hi Dr. Ron,
I'm very much looking forward to hearing either about this new salt product, or your recipe. Maybe you could make a sticky post of it in the main Reef Discussion forum when you're ready.
cheers
Jim