Tap Water

[Anonymous]

vitz:

What do you mean by quoting my entire post and saying "a purely false statement"?

If you disagree with the mixers' claim that mixes are designed for tap water, take it up with them.

If you disagree that most elements in NSW are useful, you'll have to do better than "I believe".

LeoR

i only said that sw mixes contain certain metals that do not match, and are higher than nsw levels-and that some of these are known to be toxic.

please read my posts abit more carefully :wink:

i will also assert that 'i believe' that many of the elemental needs for marine creatures, vis a vis the concentrations needed in the container keeping the animals, to ensure proper uptake rates, and amounts-has not been fully established-

for example-take cobalt, or molybdenum-i have yet to see a study that examines how much of a concentration is needed by volume to ensure that the uptake amounts and rates by the animals are correct-to say nothing about a study determining exactly what those amounts are.

to say that all the material found in a salt mix is necessary, or even valuable, to an animal, because it's in the mix-is a slightly irresponsible statement to make :wink: (imho)

i am not saying-that their addition to a tank is necessarily toxic to the animal-for they may get bound up permanently into rock,sand, etc.

i simply disagree with the particular statement i singled out when i quoted you :wink:

 

[LeoR]

esmithii:

Let's see who is actually misreading, misunderstanding and missing the point.

A poster using tap water asks what problems could come from that.

esmith replied:
>> "Algae is a problem.
Also, other dissolved metals can accumulate in your tank."

But now esmith says:
>> "I never stated that you couldn't use tapwater."

Political spin. No one asked "could I?".
You said in effect "you shouldn't". Also, your advice has been proven false.

And esmith now says:
>> "Quality of tap water varies by region."

That's not something you mentioned before, is it?
You just said "tap water bad, period".

esmith now also says:
>> "The question about using tap water or using RO/DI water has nothing to do with trace elements."

You apparently don't understand that metals you warned against above are trace elements, which you now (erroneously) imply to be equal in RO/DI and tap water.

esmith also claims:
>> "if there are nitrates in your makeup water (what I called contaminants) then they will accumulate in your tank. Period."

Ever heard of nitrifying bacteria? (A better) Period here.

esmith also says:
>> "If there are heavy metals in your water, they too will accumulate in your tank. Where else would they go?"

I'd recommend "Biology 101" for more on requirements and uptake of metals and other trace elements by living creatures.
(Yes, there are organisms that feed even on radioactive substances.)

LeoR

 

[EmilyB]

My Kent Salt clearly states: "It is preferable to use water prepared by deionization, distillation or reverse osmosis, if possible. This will limit the amount of undesirable minerals which could cause excessive algae growths or other problems."

 

[Anonymous]

LeoR:

one thing i don't understand from your contention is -if all of the substances in a sw mix are necessary, and in the correct amounts,-how do you account for the differences in concentrations, and elements found in different salt mixes?

even if only one is absolutely correct-it then follows that all the others are either lacking in, or containing a surplus of, the elements they differ in,no?

just asking :wink:

 

[LeoR]

vitz:

For pretty much every trace element there is a creature which either depends on it or can use it. This includes even radio-active substances.

We do not know exactly how much of what each creature needs or can use (we do have some idea about our own needs/uses, and about toxic levels for some other creatures).

And we do not know which organisms are required to maintain the ecosystem balance, and which ones can be allowed to perish.

Faced with absence of complete evidence, one does not have to resort to superstition. Instead, we can use:
--- Occam's Razor: "It's probably there for a reason"; and
--- Hippocrates axiom: "First, do no harm".

LeoR

 

[LeoR]

EmilyB:

See Randy's post above in re manufacturer's claims.

vitz:

Different salt mixes (and even different batches) do sometimes produce (at least slightly) different results -- e.g: some mixes are known encourage algae growth, some others are supposedly better for inverts, etc.
This tends to prove the importance of all the various elements.

LeoR

 

[Anonymous]

vitz:

For pretty much every trace element there is a creature which either depends on it or can use it. This includes even radio-active substances.

We do not know exactly how much of what each creature needs or can use (we do have some idea about our own needs/uses, and about toxic levels for some other creatures).

And we do not know which organisms are required to maintain the ecosystem balance, and which ones can be allowed to perish.

Faced with absence of complete evidence, one does not have to resort to superstition. Instead, we can use:
--- Occam's Razor: "It's probably there for a reason"; and--- Hippocrates axiom: "First, do no harm".

LeoR

learn occam's razor-the 'least hypothesis' :wink:

all other things being equal-the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one :wink:

you keep on making what are blanket generalizations, and mix apples and oranges,while evading my questions about these dangerous assertions you keep making:

sounds like you're relying on 'superstition' more than i am :wink:

you are saying that just because kent puts something in the salt-it should be there-and the same holds for IO-a logical contradiction :wink:

you also are saying that because some type of bacteria can uptake uranium, that the uranium is necessary for that bacteria, and that it should be present for the salt mix-even if the bacteria isn't present in the tanks.

certain molluscs can absorb many times the found concentrations of heavy metals found in nsw cocncentrations-doesn't mean it's good for them. or necessary. :wink:

it also doesn't mean that other organism's won't be harmed by those same elements.

even in sw aquariums-there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

iodine is an excellent example :wink:

excess algae growth is not, for me, a yardstick by which to measure the value of any element in a sw mix-unless you really want to grow excess algae :wink:

 

[EmilyB]

EmilyB:

See Randy's post above in re manufacturer's claims.


LeoR

That's fine, however it seems to hold true in my case. On the rare occasions I had to use tapwater for waterchanges, I had instant algae blooms (in both tanks, which would seem rather conclusive that my tapwater was to blame.) And in fact, we are actually supposed to have very good tapwater here. :?

Also, since I can't stand the taste of it and refuse to drink it myself, I guess I wouldn't use it on my tanks. I always try to do what I feel is optimum. There are many people here in the city who do use it for their marine tanks. Certainly, it is a matter of opinion and up to the owner of the tank if they choose to do that.

 

[LeoR]

vitz:

Does your name come from german for "joke"?

You seem to be arguing with someone else in your head.
I never made any of the "claims" you claim.

LeoR

 

[LeoR]

EmilyB:

That's the whole point:
Tap water is not necessarily evil and may even be perfectly fine.

(Remind me some day to also tell you about the study which established that tap water in most cities is actually cleaner and better than bottled water.)

LeoR

 

[Anonymous]

vitz:

Does your name come from german for "joke"?

You seem to be arguing with someone else in your head.
I never made any of the "claims" you claim.

LeoR

no. actually, it comes from a shortened form of my last name-which is russian :wink:

and yes you did-i already showed you that.

denial, though seemingly convenient a method for the user-only serves to make that user look slightly foolish to those who see the denial.go back and reread your posts, and mine... :wink:

btw-i'm willing to wager that my comprehension of biology 101 is far greater than your's of occam's razor :wink:

 

[LeoR]

vitz:

No need for bets -- you've already shown your comprehension abilities by translating my statement "trace elements are needed" into "everything in the Kent-Marine salt-mix is great", and with your apparent inability to understand how Occam's Razor works in this case.

Have a nice day.

LeoR

 

[Anonymous]

LeoR wrote:

3. What about consumption/incorporation of trace elements by the tank life -- that's why those elements are there

All the stuff that's in saltwater is there for a reason -- either for chemical properties or to be consumed in some way.

Are you really sure you know what in saltwater is necessary and what is not only unnecessary but is harmful junk?

look at the second and third quotes of yours-first you say everything is there for a reason,either a chemical,or consumptive,one,then you imply that some things are junk.

make up your mind :wink: :roll:

some elements are present simply because geological activity puts them there, :wink:

 

[LeoR]

vitz:

When you take reading comprehension classes you will understand that in the statement #3 I did not claim that something is junk -- it is actually a question to "esmith" asking him whether he knows what is junk.

Also, brush up on biology and logic if you want to join serious debates.
Until then, I rest my case.

LeoR

 

[Anonymous]

Ooooooh Kaaaaaaaay....

I take it no one is using / has used Kold Ster-il then??

FWIW: Ernie, I think your sheets rock, but (for obvious reasons) you can't really account for consumption without performing true lab measurements and detailing the exact parameters thereof. (Same goes for the salt mix bit too..)

If you do though, I suggest that once your done, you remove the corn-cob from your rectum (which might be highly advisable for some others here) and join me and vitz for a beer.

By the way.... HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!

Yeah, I'm still sobering up.. What's it to ya?

 

[Anonymous]

GratefulDiver:

:lol: 8)

 

[SPC]

GratefulDiver

:roll:
Steve

 

[esmithiii]

I don't even know why I am responding but...

Let me again clarify:

My spreadsheet is a simple tool that shows the effects of dilution alone as a waste control mechanism. It makes the following assumptions:

-There is constant production or consumption of the contaminant. In the graph I posted, I set the production/consumption value to zero. In my tank (which by most people's standards is lightly stocked) I have observed a constant nitrate reading of about 5 ppm. In other words, my sand bed and algae is consuming it at the rate I am introducing it to the tank in the form of food. I think for most people's tanks zero is more than conservative.

-The makeup water used to replace evaporation has a fixed amount of contaminant per unit volume. In my example, I used 20ppm.

-The water used to mix salt water has a fixed amount of contaminant per unit volume (same concentration as the makeup water) and there is no additional contaminant in the salt mix.

-Water changes are performed on a periodic basis

I tried to find my water quality report for my water utility district on-line and could not find it. I did find a neighboring district's report: Knoxville Utility Board Water Quality Report 2002

Based on things I have read in the media, and my vague memory of the report I received from my utility company, the tap water at my house is no better than KUB's. Here is a summary:

Barium 28ppb
Copper 16 ppb*
Mercury 0.08 ppb
Flouride 1.3 ppm
Nitrate 2.4ppm
Sodium 13.3ppm
Lead 2.2ppb -Tested at customer locations

*When copper was tested at customer locations it read as high as 211ppb.

My position is that the RO/DI removes 98%+ of these contaminants. I do not consider nitrates, copper and lead to be trace elements that I need to be adding to my tank. I would be adding these in significant quantities if I were to use tap water for make up and for water changes.

Phosphates were not measured in KUB's tests. They are a significant fuel for unwanted algae growth. (see Randy's article) My understanding (from talking with LFSs in the area and my utility company) is that the levels in my water are significant enough to fuel algae blooms.

As for having a corn-cob up my rectum, I am not sure where that came from. :roll:

Tap water varies by region. If you want to know what is in your water, contact you local utility board. If you want to play it safe, get an RO/DI unit.

Ernie