What's the best SALT?

[Peter Pan]

I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
over.( the process should take several months.

My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant Ocean.
What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a better
product for my tank?

Thanks

[Pszemol]

"Peter Pan" > wrote in message . ..
> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal.
> FOWLR tank in 2002 and never had a problem.

So what would be the reason for you to change salt
when everything is working fine with no problems ?
If it ain't broken DO NOT FIX IT!

[Wayne Sallee]

Your LFS is lying to you. Kent is Instant Ocean in a Kent Bag.

The idea of not using different salts, is a scare tactic
to keep people from swiching salts.

The bit of trugh that lies in that statement is that some
salt manufactures have used in the past, or currently use
(I have not found anyone yet that does)EDTA (artificial
clarifier). If your salts do not, then there is no problem
with mixing.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
> salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
> mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
> over.( the process should take several months.
>
> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant Ocean.
> What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a better
> product for my tank?
>
> Thanks
>
>

[Billy]

"Peter Pan" > wrote in message
. ..
> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank
> in 2002 and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a
> good idea to change salt, but if you were to change it, it was a
> very lengthy process with mixing your current salt with the new
> stuff until your completly changed over.( the process should take
> several months.
>
> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using
> Instant Ocean. What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits
> or is it really a better product for my tank?

He's trying to make money. With few exceptions, one salt is as good
as the next. If the salt you are using is giving you the results you
want, stick with it. I have seen many cases where people ran into
troubles mixing brands. I've been using Oceanic since it came out,
and it's doing fine for me.

[Roy]

Come on Wayne why would Kent salt be the same as IO? Its contrary to
what lab results have shown on the various breakdowns of synthetic sea
salts commonly available. Its not even close to being Instant
Ocean.........

http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/seasaltmixes/l/aa090503b.htmY'all
check it out and see what lab tests have shown....


Instant Ocean is a great salt so is Oceanic, and so is any other brand
that works for you..........If I was to guess since I do not really
know, the LFS is making more profit from Kent in more ways than one,
not only from the standpoint of margin of profit it costs them as
compared to I/O but probably as a way to be able to sell more of the
numerous KENT line of products to sup0plement what other salts already
have sufficiient quanities of.......Yea its a numbers game and a
marketing game, but Kent leaves a lot to be desired in lots of their
products........

Salt water is salt water if its got the same degree of salt content
generally speaking and is totally interchangeable with any
other......all thats going to vary for the most part which should not
create problems is trace minerals.........But like another posted
already " If it ain't broke why fix it?"

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:45:49 GMT, Wayne Sallee >
wrote:
>><>Your LFS is lying to you. Kent is Instant Ocean in a Kent Bag.
>><>
>><>The idea of not using different salts, is a scare tactic
>><>to keep people from swiching salts.
>><>
>><>The bit of trugh that lies in that statement is that some
>><>salt manufactures have used in the past, or currently use
>><>(I have not found anyone yet that does)EDTA (artificial
>><>clarifier). If your salts do not, then there is no problem
>><> with mixing.
>><>
>><>Wayne Sallee
>><>Wayne's Pets

>><>
>><>
>><>Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
>><>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
>><>> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
>><>> salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
>><>> mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
>><>> over.( the process should take several months.
>><>>
>><>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant Ocean.
>><>> What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a better
>><>> product for my tank?
>><>>
>><>> Thanks
>><>>
>><>>

--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------


oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

[TheRock]

When I do water changes I save my dirty water and evaporate it.
Then I scrape out the left over salt and add it back to the system later.
I've bought one bag of salt in the last 3 years !!!




(just kidding)


"Peter Pan" > wrote in message
. ..
> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to
> change salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process
> with mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly
> changed over.( the process should take several months.
>
> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant
> Ocean. What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really
> a better product for my tank?
>
> Thanks
>

[Wayne Sallee]

Well belive it or not, Kent is just instant ocean salt. If
you don't belive me you can go around asking your LFS.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Roy wrote on 1/21/2006 4:49 PM:
> Come on Wayne why would Kent salt be the same as IO? Its contrary to
> what lab results have shown on the various breakdowns of synthetic sea
> salts commonly available. Its not even close to being Instant
> Ocean.........
>
> http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/seasaltmixes/l/aa090503b.htmY'all
> check it out and see what lab tests have shown....
>
>
> Instant Ocean is a great salt so is Oceanic, and so is any other brand
> that works for you..........If I was to guess since I do not really
> know, the LFS is making more profit from Kent in more ways than one,
> not only from the standpoint of margin of profit it costs them as
> compared to I/O but probably as a way to be able to sell more of the
> numerous KENT line of products to sup0plement what other salts already
> have sufficiient quanities of.......Yea its a numbers game and a
> marketing game, but Kent leaves a lot to be desired in lots of their
> products........
>
> Salt water is salt water if its got the same degree of salt content
> generally speaking and is totally interchangeable with any
> other......all thats going to vary for the most part which should not
> create problems is trace minerals.........But like another posted
> already " If it ain't broke why fix it?"
>
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:45:49 GMT, Wayne Sallee >
> wrote:
>
>>><>Your LFS is lying to you. Kent is Instant Ocean in a Kent Bag.
>>><>
>>><>The idea of not using different salts, is a scare tactic
>>><>to keep people from swiching salts.
>>><>
>>><>The bit of trugh that lies in that statement is that some
>>><>salt manufactures have used in the past, or currently use
>>><>(I have not found anyone yet that does)EDTA (artificial
>>><>clarifier). If your salts do not, then there is no problem
>>><> with mixing.
>>><>
>>><>Wayne Sallee
>>><>Wayne's Pets

>>><>
>>><>
>>><>Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
>>><>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
>>><>> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
>>><>> salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
>>><>> mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
>>><>> over.( the process should take several months.
>>><>>
>>><>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant Ocean.
>>><>> What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a better
>>><>> product for my tank?
>>><>>
>>><>> Thanks
>>><>>
>>><>>
>
>

[Wayne Sallee]

And Instant Ocean is the best salt.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Wayne Sallee wrote on 1/21/2006 5:56 PM:
> Well belive it or not, Kent is just instant ocean salt. If you don't
> belive me you can go around asking your LFS.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> Roy wrote on 1/21/2006 4:49 PM:
>
>> Come on Wayne why would Kent salt be the same as IO? Its contrary to
>> what lab results have shown on the various breakdowns of synthetic sea
>> salts commonly available. Its not even close to being Instant
>> Ocean.........
>>
>> http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/seasaltmixes/l/aa090503b.htmY'all
>> check it out and see what lab tests have shown....
>>
>>
>> Instant Ocean is a great salt so is Oceanic, and so is any other brand
>> that works for you..........If I was to guess since I do not really
>> know, the LFS is making more profit from Kent in more ways than one,
>> not only from the standpoint of margin of profit it costs them as
>> compared to I/O but probably as a way to be able to sell more of the
>> numerous KENT line of products to sup0plement what other salts already
>> have sufficiient quanities of.......Yea its a numbers game and a
>> marketing game, but Kent leaves a lot to be desired in lots of their
>> products........
>>
>> Salt water is salt water if its got the same degree of salt content
>> generally speaking and is totally interchangeable with any
>> other......all thats going to vary for the most part which should not
>> create problems is trace minerals.........But like another posted
>> already " If it ain't broke why fix it?"
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:45:49 GMT, Wayne Sallee >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> <>Your LFS is lying to you. Kent is Instant Ocean in a Kent Bag.
>>>> <>
>>>> <>The idea of not using different salts, is a scare tactic <>to keep
>>>> people from swiching salts.
>>>> <>
>>>> <>The bit of trugh that lies in that statement is that some <>salt
>>>> manufactures have used in the past, or currently use <>(I have not
>>>> found anyone yet that does)EDTA (artificial <>clarifier). If your
>>>> salts do not, then there is no problem <> with mixing.
>>>> <>
>>>> <>Wayne Sallee
>>>> <>Wayne's Pets
>>>>
>>>> <>
>>>> <>
>>>> <>Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
>>>> <>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR
>>>> tank in 2002 <>> and never had a problem. I've read that its not
>>>> really a good idea to change <>> salt, but if you were to change it,
>>>> it was a very lengthy process with <>> mixing your current salt with
>>>> the new stuff until your completly changed <>> over.( the process
>>>> should take several months.
>>>> <>> <>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then
>>>> using Instant Ocean. <>> What im wondering is; Is it better for his
>>>> profits or is it really a better <>> product for my tank?
>>>> <>> <>> Thanks <>> <>>
>>
>>
>>

[Roy]

Ah come on admit its true, trust me no one is gonna laugh. .....come
on now admit its ture...thats got to be the best frugal thing i have
heard in a long long time.......

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:33:09 GMT, "TheRock" > wrote:
>><>When I do water changes I save my dirty water and evaporate it.
>><>Then I scrape out the left over salt and add it back to the system later.
>><>I've bought one bag of salt in the last 3 years !!!
>><>
>><>
>><>
>><>
>><>(just kidding)
>><>
>><>
>><>"Peter Pan" > wrote in message
. ..
>><>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
>><>> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to
>><>> change salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process
>><>> with mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly
>><>> changed over.( the process should take several months.
>><>>
>><>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant
>><>> Ocean. What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really
>><>> a better product for my tank?
>><>>
>><>> Thanks
>><>>
>><>

--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------


oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

[Billy]

"Roy" > wrote in message
...
> Ah come on admit its true, trust me no one is gonna laugh.
> .....come
> on now admit its ture...thats got to be the best frugal thing i
> have
> heard in a long long time.......


Doesn't sound like that great an idea to me. The critters in the tank
USE the trace minerals in the salt mix. It would get so depleted
after time, I would think critters would begin to suffer.

[Jaime R-S]

lol
You are not just adding salts back, you are adding all the toxins in that
water. The only thing that evaporates is H20, the rest: PO4, NH3, NH2,
etc... you are just feeding it back to the tank...

jrs
"TheRock" > wrote in message
news:FEyAf.505$Jn1.152@trndny01...
> When I do water changes I save my dirty water and evaporate it.
> Then I scrape out the left over salt and add it back to the system later.
> I've bought one bag of salt in the last 3 years !!!
>
>
>
>
> (just kidding)
>
>
> "Peter Pan" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in
>> 2002 and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea
>> to change salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy
>> process with mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your
>> completly changed over.( the process should take several months.
>>
>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant
>> Ocean. What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really
>> a better product for my tank?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
>

[Jaime R-S]

LFSs like you? please!

jrs
"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
> Well belive it or not, Kent is just instant ocean salt. If you don't
> belive me you can go around asking your LFS.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> Roy wrote on 1/21/2006 4:49 PM:
>> Come on Wayne why would Kent salt be the same as IO? Its contrary to
>> what lab results have shown on the various breakdowns of synthetic sea
>> salts commonly available. Its not even close to being Instant
>> Ocean.........
>>
>> http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/seasaltmixes/l/aa090503b.htmY'all
>> check it out and see what lab tests have shown....
>>
>>
>> Instant Ocean is a great salt so is Oceanic, and so is any other brand
>> that works for you..........If I was to guess since I do not really
>> know, the LFS is making more profit from Kent in more ways than one,
>> not only from the standpoint of margin of profit it costs them as
>> compared to I/O but probably as a way to be able to sell more of the
>> numerous KENT line of products to sup0plement what other salts already
>> have sufficiient quanities of.......Yea its a numbers game and a
>> marketing game, but Kent leaves a lot to be desired in lots of their
>> products........
>>
>> Salt water is salt water if its got the same degree of salt content
>> generally speaking and is totally interchangeable with any
>> other......all thats going to vary for the most part which should not
>> create problems is trace minerals.........But like another posted
>> already " If it ain't broke why fix it?"
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:45:49 GMT, Wayne Sallee >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>><>Your LFS is lying to you. Kent is Instant Ocean in a Kent Bag.
>>>><>
>>>><>The idea of not using different salts, is a scare tactic <>to keep
>>>>people from swiching salts.
>>>><>
>>>><>The bit of trugh that lies in that statement is that some <>salt
>>>>manufactures have used in the past, or currently use <>(I have not found
>>>>anyone yet that does)EDTA (artificial <>clarifier). If your salts do
>>>>not, then there is no problem <> with mixing.
>>>><>
>>>><>Wayne Sallee
>>>><>Wayne's Pets

>>>><>
>>>><>
>>>><>Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
>>>><>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank
>>>>in 2002 <>> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a
>>>>good idea to change <>> salt, but if you were to change it, it was a
>>>>very lengthy process with <>> mixing your current salt with the new
>>>>stuff until your completly changed <>> over.( the process should take
>>>>several months.
>>>><>> <>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using
>>>>Instant Ocean. <>> What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or
>>>>is it really a better <>> product for my tank?
>>>><>> <>> Thanks <>> <>>
>>

[Jaime R-S]

lol
I didn´t read the last, (just kidding) I fell for it!

jrs
"Roy" > wrote in message
...
> Ah come on admit its true, trust me no one is gonna laugh. .....come
> on now admit its ture...thats got to be the best frugal thing i have
> heard in a long long time.......
>
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 22:33:09 GMT, "TheRock" > wrote:
>>><>When I do water changes I save my dirty water and evaporate it.
>>><>Then I scrape out the left over salt and add it back to the system
>>>later.
>>><>I've bought one bag of salt in the last 3 years !!!
>>><>
>>><>
>>><>
>>><>
>>><>(just kidding)
>>><>
>>><>
>>><>"Peter Pan" > wrote in message
. ..
>>><>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in
>>>2002
>>><>> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to
>>><>> change salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy
>>>process
>>><>> with mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly
>>><>> changed over.( the process should take several months.
>>><>>
>>><>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant
>>><>> Ocean. What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it
>>>really
>>><>> a better product for my tank?
>>><>>
>>><>> Thanks
>>><>>
>>><>
>
> --
> \\\|///
> ( @ @ )
> -----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------
>
>
> oooO
> ---------( )----Oooo----------------
> \ ( ( )
> \_) ) /
> (_/
> The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

[Jaime R-S]

Those "trace minerals" as you call them, are in every food or living
organism that you feed to your fish. Don't worry about your trace minerals,
worry more about that PO4 that feeds the algae and spoils your tank

jrs
"Billy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ah come on admit its true, trust me no one is gonna laugh. .....come
>> on now admit its ture...thats got to be the best frugal thing i have
>> heard in a long long time.......
>
>
> Doesn't sound like that great an idea to me. The critters in the tank USE
> the trace minerals in the salt mix. It would get so depleted after time, I
> would think critters would begin to suffer.
>

[Billy]

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
> Those "trace minerals" as you call them, are in every food or
> living organism that you feed to your fish. Don't worry about your
> trace minerals, worry more about that PO4 that feeds the algae and
> spoils your tank
>


Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting here. Why don't drop by reef
central or GARF sometime and tell people that have been caring for
reef tanks all thier lives to "not worry about trace minerals".

[Tidepool Geek]

Hi Wayne,

The assertion that Instant Ocean is the best salt seems to run contrary
to a study published in the March, 2003 issue of Reefkeeping. Here's a
link to that article:
http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/feature/index.php

The article describes a bio-assay experiment comparing several
different salt mixes (unfortunately Kent wasn't among them) to natural
salt water by comparing the development of sea urchin larvae in each.
The article goes into great detail about the methodology, a statistical
analysis of the results, and certain inferences drawn from a chemical
analysis of the commercial products.

The bottom line of the testing was that Instant Ocean and Coralife came
out looking pretty bad, both in terms of urchin development and of the
levels of undesirable metals in the products.

Of the salts tested, the winner by a pretty fair margin seems to be
Crystal Seas Marinemix - Bioassay Formula made by Marine Enterprises
International, Inc. This product's make-up was the closest to NSW and
it actually had a slightly better urchin development result than did
NSW.


Brackishly yours,

Alex

[Captain Feedback]

Tidepool Geek wrote:

> Of the salts tested, the winner by a pretty fair margin seems to be
> Crystal Seas Marinemix - Bioassay Formula made by Marine Enterprises
> International, Inc. This product's make-up was the closest to NSW and
> it actually had a slightly better urchin development result than did
> NSW.

Just did a quick search and found this on Reef Central ...

Crystal Seas Marinemix causes bleaching?

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1179412#post1179412

Opinions?

[Pszemol]

"Tidepool Geek" > wrote in message oups.com...
> The assertion that Instant Ocean is the best salt seems to run contrary
> to a study published in the March, 2003 issue of Reefkeeping. Here's a
> link to that article:
> http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/feature/index.php
>
> The article describes a bio-assay experiment comparing several
> different salt mixes (unfortunately Kent wasn't among them) to natural
> salt water by comparing the development of sea urchin larvae in each.
> The article goes into great detail about the methodology, a statistical
> analysis of the results, and certain inferences drawn from a chemical
> analysis of the commercial products.
>
> The bottom line of the testing was that Instant Ocean and Coralife came
> out looking pretty bad, both in terms of urchin development and of the
> levels of undesirable metals in the products.
>
> Of the salts tested, the winner by a pretty fair margin seems to be
> Crystal Seas Marinemix - Bioassay Formula made by Marine Enterprises
> International, Inc. This product's make-up was the closest to NSW and
> it actually had a slightly better urchin development result than did
> NSW.

I wonder why then so many marine zoology labolatories and
commercial aquariums like Chciago Oceanarium are using
the same salf which is so bad... What would be the purpose
of studying a marine animal development in a salt mix causing
damage and negatively influencing development ?

Have you got the chance to hear the opinion of salt manufacturer ?
Have you tried to find a different explanations for the test results ?

[Pszemol]

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message ...
> Those "trace minerals" as you call them, are in every food or living
> organism that you feed to your fish. Don't worry about your trace minerals,
> worry more about that PO4 that feeds the algae and spoils your tank

Not only PO4 but whole list of other minerals and organic polutants
you want to get rid of by doing the water change...

[Roy]

The new Aquarium in ATlanta has gone with Instant Ocean salt.....I
seen pics of the truck load of salt they got in during the filling of
the thing.....Now if memory serves me right, Kent is based out of
Georgia, and not too fara form ATlanta region, so if Kent salt was
nothing more than IO in a Kent bag, why did they not save bunches of
money and get it directly from Kent right down the road instead of
paying shipping costs to have it sent in from IO.......Perhaps Wayne
can tellus....
--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------


oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

[Pszemol]

"Roy" > wrote in message ...
> The new Aquarium in ATlanta has gone with Instant Ocean salt.....I
> seen pics of the truck load of salt they got in during the filling of
> the thing.....Now if memory serves me right, Kent is based out of
> Georgia, and not too fara form ATlanta region, so if Kent salt was
> nothing more than IO in a Kent bag, why did they not save bunches of
> money and get it directly from Kent right down the road instead of
> paying shipping costs to have it sent in from IO.......Perhaps Wayne
> can tellus....

Easy explanation would be that KENT is targeting retail market,
with this repacking IO salt for hobbists, not big commercial institutions.
In other words - it prooves nothing.

[TheRock]

1-800-822-1100
Call Aquarium System tech support and find out.

I doubt Kent and IO is the same


"Roy" > wrote in message
...
> The new Aquarium in ATlanta has gone with Instant Ocean salt.....I
> seen pics of the truck load of salt they got in during the filling of
> the thing.....Now if memory serves me right, Kent is based out of
> Georgia, and not too fara form ATlanta region, so if Kent salt was
> nothing more than IO in a Kent bag, why did they not save bunches of
> money and get it directly from Kent right down the road instead of
> paying shipping costs to have it sent in from IO.......Perhaps Wayne
> can tellus....
> --
> \\\|///
> ( @ @ )
> -----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------
>
>
> oooO
> ---------( )----Oooo----------------
> \ ( ( )
> \_) ) /
> (_/
> The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

[Jaime R-S]

Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different views. I
am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you, or whom
ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
If those same people that had been dealing with tanks all their lives were
successful, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE to start with!
Now, have a nice day!

jrs


"Billy" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Those "trace minerals" as you call them, are in every food or living
>> organism that you feed to your fish. Don't worry about your trace
>> minerals, worry more about that PO4 that feeds the algae and spoils your
>> tank
>>
>
>
> Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting here. Why don't drop by reef
> central or GARF sometime and tell people that have been caring for reef
> tanks all thier lives to "not worry about trace minerals".
>

[Jaime R-S]

Wao, that is what I call talking with evidence. Good job.
Yet, another humilliation to the poor Wayne.
We should just make another newsgroup and name it Wayne's World!

jrs
"Tidepool Geek" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi Wayne,
>
> The assertion that Instant Ocean is the best salt seems to run contrary
> to a study published in the March, 2003 issue of Reefkeeping. Here's a
> link to that article:
> http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/feature/index.php
>
> The article describes a bio-assay experiment comparing several
> different salt mixes (unfortunately Kent wasn't among them) to natural
> salt water by comparing the development of sea urchin larvae in each.
> The article goes into great detail about the methodology, a statistical
> analysis of the results, and certain inferences drawn from a chemical
> analysis of the commercial products.
>
> The bottom line of the testing was that Instant Ocean and Coralife came
> out looking pretty bad, both in terms of urchin development and of the
> levels of undesirable metals in the products.
>
> Of the salts tested, the winner by a pretty fair margin seems to be
> Crystal Seas Marinemix - Bioassay Formula made by Marine Enterprises
> International, Inc. This product's make-up was the closest to NSW and
> it actually had a slightly better urchin development result than did
> NSW.
>
>
> Brackishly yours,
>
> Alex
>

[Jaime R-S]

Agree, nevertheless, there is nothing in your water that you didn't put in
it. If your water has toxic levels of any organic or inorganic component,
there are other ways to get rid of them. That is exactly what I had been
working on for the past year. Getting close to a cybernetic system which
maintains itself.

jrs
"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Those "trace minerals" as you call them, are in every food or living
>> organism that you feed to your fish. Don't worry about your trace
>> minerals, worry more about that PO4 that feeds the algae and spoils your
>> tank
>
> Not only PO4 but whole list of other minerals and organic polutants
> you want to get rid of by doing the water change...
>

[TheRock]

Can't we all just get along ?

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
> Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different views. I
> am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you, or whom
> ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
> If those same people that had been dealing with tanks all their lives were
> successful, YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE to start with!
> Now, have a nice day!
>
> jrs
>
>
> "Billy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Those "trace minerals" as you call them, are in every food or living
>>> organism that you feed to your fish. Don't worry about your trace
>>> minerals, worry more about that PO4 that feeds the algae and spoils your
>>> tank
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting here. Why don't drop by reef
>> central or GARF sometime and tell people that have been caring for reef
>> tanks all thier lives to "not worry about trace minerals".
>>
>
>

[Pszemol]

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message ...
> Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different views.
> I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
> or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.

What issues do you work with ? What is your professional experience ?

[George Patterson]

Roy wrote:
> The new Aquarium in ATlanta has gone with Instant Ocean salt.....I
> seen pics of the truck load of salt they got in during the filling of
> the thing.....Now if memory serves me right, Kent is based out of
> Georgia, and not too fara form ATlanta region, so if Kent salt was
> nothing more than IO in a Kent bag, why did they not save bunches of
> money and get it directly from Kent right down the road instead of
> paying shipping costs to have it sent in from IO.......Perhaps Wayne
> can tellus....

Well, if Kent is simply repackaging IO, and the aquarium is buying truckloads of
salt just like Kent is, then they should be able to get it from IO for about
what Kent pays for it. That would make IO cheaper for them.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Tidepool Geek]

The topic of this thread is "What is the best salt" for a home
aquarium. Questions about the salt used by unidentified laboratories
and a public aquarium that buys 100,000+ pounds of salt for one exhibit
have little or no validity within this context. To establish the
validity of your point, you should document the answers to these
questions yourself.

It is likewise inappropriate for you to expect me to research points
that are in opposition to my own. I read Shimek's original bio-assay
article in Reefkeeping and was satisfied by his methodology, his
conclusions, and his inferences. Note that there is a difference
between a conclusion and an inference and that Shimek was careful to
avoid confusion between the two in his article and that I was careful
to do the same in my post.

Quite frankly, I have very little interest in whether there might be an
alternative cause for the test results. The various salts were obtained
in the same form in which a hobbyist would expect to get them and any
alternate explanation, however unlikely, would be just as much cause
for concern as is the possibility of metals toxicity. FWIW: I've read
discussions about this article on several different forums and could
find NO valid refutation of Shimek's findings even though there were
many people who fervently wished to disagree.

Google site searches of the IO and Coralife websites showed no sign of
any refutation of Shimek's article. If you're interested, the terms I
searched on were: Shimek, assay, urchin, and larvae.

So, if you wish to continue this discussion, here are a list of
questions that you need to address:

1. What research labs are using either IO or Coralife and why?

2. Is the Shedd Aquarium (Chicago Oceanarium) using the same IO product
that is marketed to hobbyist customers?

3. Why has Shedd chosen IO?

4. Is there an alternative explanation for the results that would
result in a positive recommendation for IO or Coralife?

5. Have IO, Coralife, or any other entity published any sort of
repeatable work that refutes Shimek's study?

It's incumbent on you to answer these questions with facts rather than
supposition and, if you really want to have a rational debate, to back
up those facts with confirmable sources.

Halitically yours,

Alex

[Pszemol]

"Tidepool Geek" > wrote in message oups.com...
> The topic of this thread is "What is the best salt" for a home
> aquarium. Questions about the salt used by unidentified laboratories
> and a public aquarium that buys 100,000+ pounds of salt for one exhibit
> have little or no validity within this context.

This is your opinion. My opinion is quite different :-)

Those questions should motivate you to think about the issue.
You could wonder "why IO, so bad salt, is used by scientists
in their experiments?" or "why IO, so bad salt, is used by
commercial institutions interested in the maximum profit
from their exhibits - why would they use salt giving bad results?"
or "there are thousands of hobbyists using IO salt and they
have successful tanks - would it be possible if IO was so bad?"
Answer yourself all this questions and make your own decision
not being manipulated by not-exactly-fair competitors game.

> To establish the
> validity of your point, you should document the answers to these
> questions yourself.

I am convinced IO is good salt - have been using it with great
success for over 3 years in my tanks. Fish only, reef and breeding
maroon clownfish. There is no reason to be affraid of IO salt
and buy overpriced salts which claim they are "better".

> It is likewise inappropriate for you to expect me to research points
> that are in opposition to my own. I read Shimek's original bio-assay
> article in Reefkeeping and was satisfied by his methodology, his
> conclusions, and his inferences. Note that there is a difference
> between a conclusion and an inference and that Shimek was careful to
> avoid confusion between the two in his article and that I was careful
> to do the same in my post.

Hearing only one side of the issue does not make you a good judge.

> Quite frankly, I have very little interest in whether there might be an
> alternative cause for the test results. The various salts were obtained
> in the same form in which a hobbyist would expect to get them and any
> alternate explanation, however unlikely, would be just as much cause
> for concern as is the possibility of metals toxicity. FWIW: I've read
> discussions about this article on several different forums and could
> find NO valid refutation of Shimek's findings even though there were
> many people who fervently wished to disagree.

The fact you did not find something is not a valid proof it does not exist.

> Google site searches of the IO and Coralife websites showed no sign of
> any refutation of Shimek's article. If you're interested, the terms I
> searched on were: Shimek, assay, urchin, and larvae.

I have heard opinion about Shimek's article from the salt manufacturer.
He has pointed out several flaws in the article and the experiment itself.
Now I have a better picture after hearing both: the prosecutor and
the "victims" advocate.

[George Patterson]

Peter Pan wrote:
> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
> salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
> mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
> over.( the process should take several months.

That's bull. I personally have set up a 125 gallon with Instant Ocean and
switched to Tropic Marin for all subsequent water changes. I've done this twice.
It's also common practice with several of the commercial aquarium maintenance
companies in the area to switch salts from time to time.

As far as "best" is concerned, I've been using Tropic Marin for the most part
since 1976. That doesn't make it the best, but I like it.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Rocco Moretti]

George Patterson wrote:
> Peter Pan wrote:
>
>> I've read that its not really a good
>> idea to change salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very
>> lengthy process with mixing your current salt with the new stuff until
>> your completly changed over.( the process should take several months.
>
>
> That's bull. I personally have set up a 125 gallon with Instant Ocean
> and switched to Tropic Marin for all subsequent water changes.

Note that if you only do small (20% or less) waterchanges not too
frequently (once a week or less), even if you use 100% new salt in the
new water, you *will* be slowly mixing the current salt with the new stuff:

Composition of Salt in tank, 20% weekly water changes:
Week 1: 80% old, 20% new
Week 2: 64% old, 36% new
Week 3: 51% old, 49% new
Week 4: 40% old, 60% new
Week 5: 32% old, 68% new
Week 6: 26% old, 74% new
Week 7: 20% old, 80% new
Week 8: 16% old, 84% new
Week 9: 13% old, 87% new
Week 10: 10% old, 90% new
Week 11: 8% old, 92% new
Week 12: 6% old, 94% new
Week 13: 5% old, 95% new
Week 14: 4% old, 96% new
Week 15: 3% old, 97% new
Week 16: 2% old, 98% new
Week 17: 2% old, 98% new
Week 18: 1% old, 99% new
Week 19: 1% old, 99% new
Week 20: 1% old, 99% new
Week 21: 0% old, 100% new

If you do 10% changes every two weeks, it takes over 10 months to drop
below 10% old salt, and about 2 years to drop below 1%.

Even if you were to do a 100% water change with the new salt, would it
be any worse than taking a new purchase from your LFS, and dumping it
into your water (which might not be the same salt as your LFS uses?)

[George Patterson]

Rocco Moretti wrote:

> Note that if you only do small (20% or less) waterchanges not too
> frequently (once a week or less), even if you use 100% new salt in the
> new water, you *will* be slowly mixing the current salt with the new stuff:

How many times have you bought an animal from an LFS that uses a salt mix
different from yours? That's 100% change of water in half an hour as far as that
fish is concerned.

In the situations I mentioned, I was moving. My critters went from my tank with
Tropic Marin in it to a friend's tank with Red Sea in it for a few weeks and
then to my new setup with IO in it. No problems.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Wayne Sallee]

Well this thread has been typical of "best salt" threads.
They are always loooong.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
> salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
> mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
> over.( the process should take several months.
>
> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant Ocean.
> What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a better
> product for my tank?
>
> Thanks
>
>

[Wayne Sallee]

But it does not run contrary to what reef aquarist prefer.
Yes I'm familiar with that experiment. It's an interesting
experiment. I always like to see such testing done with
salts, but even though, it does not proove one salt to be
better than another. You have to ask yourself, why did the
larva live longer? Keep in mind that the larva were never
feed. Maybe the larva lived longer in the samples that had
higher nutrient levels. There could be a lot of reasons
that the larva lived longer.

Marine enterprise salt "Crystal Sea" is good salt. I used
to sell a lot of it. I used to buy it by the pallet load.

I swiched back to Instant Ocean because:

the price I was getting for the Crystal Sea was not as
good of a deal as I had gotten before,

there had been some problems with moisture getting in the
bags through bad seals,

and there had been high levels of clay in the salt, wich
while it doesn't realy hurt the salt, it can turn
customers away.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


Tidepool Geek wrote on 1/22/2006 4:19 AM:
> Hi Wayne,
>
> The assertion that Instant Ocean is the best salt seems to run contrary
> to a study published in the March, 2003 issue of Reefkeeping. Here's a
> link to that article:
> http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/feature/index.php
>
> The article describes a bio-assay experiment comparing several
> different salt mixes (unfortunately Kent wasn't among them) to natural
> salt water by comparing the development of sea urchin larvae in each.
> The article goes into great detail about the methodology, a statistical
> analysis of the results, and certain inferences drawn from a chemical
> analysis of the commercial products.
>
> The bottom line of the testing was that Instant Ocean and Coralife came
> out looking pretty bad, both in terms of urchin development and of the
> levels of undesirable metals in the products.
>
> Of the salts tested, the winner by a pretty fair margin seems to be
> Crystal Seas Marinemix - Bioassay Formula made by Marine Enterprises
> International, Inc. This product's make-up was the closest to NSW and
> it actually had a slightly better urchin development result than did
> NSW.
>
>
> Brackishly yours,
>
> Alex
>

[Jaime R-S]

TMTC

jrs
"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different views.
>> I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
>> or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>
> What issues do you work with ? What is your professional experience ?

[Pszemol]

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message ...
> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different views.
>>> I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
>>> or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>>
>> What issues do you work with ? What is your professional experience ?
>
> TMTC

Can't you be more specific???

[RicSeyler]

That study has been bandied around for years........
Ask what the major aquariums and EPA marine labs use, IO.

Tidepool Geek wrote:

>Hi Wayne,
>
>The assertion that Instant Ocean is the best salt seems to run contrary
>to a study published in the March, 2003 issue of Reefkeeping. Here's a
>link to that article:
>http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/feature/index.php
>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35

http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove –SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson

[RicSeyler]

Don't you have some sandwich bags to wash
out or some coke cans to collect??

hehehehehehe ;-) jus kiddin

TheRock wrote:

>Can't we all just get along ?
>
>
>

--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35

http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove –SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson

[Jaime R-S]

My CV is mine and not to be questioned here.
Just consider my points and if you like them good, but if you don't is good
too!

jrs
"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different views.
>>>> I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
>>>> or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>>>
>>> What issues do you work with ? What is your professional experience ?
>>
>> TMTC
>
> Can't you be more specific???

[Pszemol]

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message ...
> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different views.
>>>>> I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
>>>>> or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>>>>
>>>> What issues do you work with ? What is your professional experience ?
>>>
>>> TMTC
>>
>> Can't you be more specific???
>
> My CV is mine and not to be questioned here.
> Just consider my points and if you like them good,
> but if you don't is good too!

Well, you started to preach from the proffesional stand...
I just wanted to know who's student I have the pleasure to be.
Nobody is asking for detailed CV - it would be enough if
you state what is your window of expertise in the broad field
of marine biology and what are your credentials to admire here...
But, if this is something you are ashamed of - forgive me I asked.

[Wayne Sallee]

What do you mean by "CV"?

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Jaime R-S wrote on 1/24/2006 7:27 PM:
> My CV is mine and not to be questioned here.
> Just consider my points and if you like them good, but if you don't is good
> too!
>
> jrs
> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different views.
>>>>>I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
>>>>>or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>>>>
>>>>What issues do you work with ? What is your professional experience ?
>>>
>>>TMTC
>>
>>Can't you be more specific???
>
>
>

[ImperialCoins]

There are hundreds of advanced aquarists that do not use trace
elements. Of these hundreds there are many that do not even do regular
water changes. There is a school of thought that trace element
supplimentation is not needed. (I don't happen to share in this
opinion, my tank has been doing MUCH better since I started regular
water changes!)

Replacing salt with what remains after evaporation is a bad idea. Some
salts do not remain stable through the process of evaporation and a lot
is lost in the process. (The main reason why we cant just evaporate
sea water and re-hydrate it for our tanks- it would not work well at
all.)

-Alfred

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message ...
> What do you mean by "CV"?

It is European version of "resume" in USA...
CV stands for Latin "Curriculum Vitae".

BTW, do you remember his responses in the thread "18 months and NO tank maintenance!"
I remember... :-) If you want a reminder - click the following link and all will be clear:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/a3b63c91e70ca993
Jaime, how is your tank with no maintenance working for you? Is the brown algae gone, yet ? :-)

[Boomer]

Kent is not IO salt. However, it is made by Aquarium Systems. Jack Kent of Kent Marine,
asked Ed Moka and Tom Frakes of AS to formulate a batch of salt and manufacture it, to
care the Kent name. One of the big differences is that IO does not have vitamins added to
the salt and Kent does. There are many seawater mixed formulas, about 150. Ed and Tom
picked one for Jack that made him happy.

--
Boomer

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Want to See More ! The Coral Realm
http://www.coralrealm.com



"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
: Well belive it or not, Kent is just instant ocean salt. If
: you don't belive me you can go around asking your LFS.
:
: Wayne Sallee
: Wayne's Pets
:
:
:
: Roy wrote on 1/21/2006 4:49 PM:
: > Come on Wayne why would Kent salt be the same as IO? Its contrary to
: > what lab results have shown on the various breakdowns of synthetic sea
: > salts commonly available. Its not even close to being Instant
: > Ocean.........
: >
: > http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/seasaltmixes/l/aa090503b.htmY'all
: > check it out and see what lab tests have shown....
: >
: >
: > Instant Ocean is a great salt so is Oceanic, and so is any other brand
: > that works for you..........If I was to guess since I do not really
: > know, the LFS is making more profit from Kent in more ways than one,
: > not only from the standpoint of margin of profit it costs them as
: > compared to I/O but probably as a way to be able to sell more of the
: > numerous KENT line of products to sup0plement what other salts already
: > have sufficiient quanities of.......Yea its a numbers game and a
: > marketing game, but Kent leaves a lot to be desired in lots of their
: > products........
: >
: > Salt water is salt water if its got the same degree of salt content
: > generally speaking and is totally interchangeable with any
: > other......all thats going to vary for the most part which should not
: > create problems is trace minerals.........But like another posted
: > already " If it ain't broke why fix it?"
: >
: > On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:45:49 GMT, Wayne Sallee >
: > wrote:
: >
: >>><>Your LFS is lying to you. Kent is Instant Ocean in a Kent Bag.
: >>><>
: >>><>The idea of not using different salts, is a scare tactic
: >>><>to keep people from swiching salts.
: >>><>
: >>><>The bit of trugh that lies in that statement is that some
: >>><>salt manufactures have used in the past, or currently use
: >>><>(I have not found anyone yet that does)EDTA (artificial
: >>><>clarifier). If your salts do not, then there is no problem
: >>><> with mixing.
: >>><>
: >>><>Wayne Sallee
: >>><>Wayne's Pets
:
: >>><>
: >>><>
: >>><>Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
: >>><>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
: >>><>> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
: >>><>> salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
: >>><>> mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
: >>><>> over.( the process should take several months.
: >>><>>
: >>><>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant Ocean.
: >>><>> What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a better
: >>><>> product for my tank?
: >>><>>
: >>><>> Thanks
: >>><>>
: >>><>>
: >
: >

[Boomer]

That article is a joke and filled with testing and analytical errors. Try reading these,
they are more real..

The Toxicity of Synthetic Sea Salts and Natural Seawater to the Development of White Sea
Urchin (Lytichinus pictus) Larvae
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/3/aafeature

Inland Reef Aquaria Salt Study Part I
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/11/aafeature1/view

Inland Reef Aquaria Salt Study Part II
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/12/aafeature1/view
--
Boomer

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Want to See More ! The Coral Realm
http://www.coralrealm.com



"Tidepool Geek" > wrote in message
oups.com...
: Hi Wayne,
:
: The assertion that Instant Ocean is the best salt seems to run contrary
: to a study published in the March, 2003 issue of Reefkeeping. Here's a
: link to that article:
: http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2003-03/rs/feature/index.php
:
: The article describes a bio-assay experiment comparing several
: different salt mixes (unfortunately Kent wasn't among them) to natural
: salt water by comparing the development of sea urchin larvae in each.
: The article goes into great detail about the methodology, a statistical
: analysis of the results, and certain inferences drawn from a chemical
: analysis of the commercial products.
:
: The bottom line of the testing was that Instant Ocean and Coralife came
: out looking pretty bad, both in terms of urchin development and of the
: levels of undesirable metals in the products.
:
: Of the salts tested, the winner by a pretty fair margin seems to be
: Crystal Seas Marinemix - Bioassay Formula made by Marine Enterprises
: International, Inc. This product's make-up was the closest to NSW and
: it actually had a slightly better urchin development result than did
: NSW.
:
:
: Brackishly yours,
:
: Alex
:

[Cindy]

ImperialCoins typed:
<snip>

> Replacing salt with what remains after evaporation is a bad idea.
> Some salts do not remain stable through the process of evaporation
> and a lot is lost in the process. (The main reason why we cant
> just evaporate sea water and re-hydrate it for our tanks- it would
> not work well at all.)
>
> -Alfred

Not to mention the dust and crud that settles on it. Yuk.

[Jaime R-S]

No ofense at all!
Ignorance is daring but understandable.

Do not judge the book for its cover, I have no idea what triggered your
emotions but telling you my achievements will divert the attention from the
real purpose of this forum.
Lets use this newsgroup as is intended, as a tool to help us make our
aquariums look better in a cheaper way.

Yes, I have a couple of related publications, have ample experience in field
research, am working in a few field guides of the Florida Key's wildlife, am
also developing an aquarium system with none or little maintenance, enough
wetlands experience to be called by city commissioners to address a
freshwater lake cleanup, etc...

Now, What difference does it make if I post here all the evidence?

Just enjoy the group and don't worry about who I am or am not...

jrs
"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different
>>>>>> views.
>>>>>> I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
>>>>>> or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>>>>>
>>>>> What issues do you work with ? What is your professional experience ?
>>>>
>>>> TMTC
>>>
>>> Can't you be more specific???
>>
>> My CV is mine and not to be questioned here.
>> Just consider my points and if you like them good,
>> but if you don't is good too!
>
> Well, you started to preach from the proffesional stand...
> I just wanted to know who's student I have the pleasure to be.
> Nobody is asking for detailed CV - it would be enough if
> you state what is your window of expertise in the broad field
> of marine biology and what are your credentials to admire here...
> But, if this is something you are ashamed of - forgive me I asked.

[Jaime R-S]

You wouldn't know!

jrs
"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
> What do you mean by "CV"?
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> Jaime R-S wrote on 1/24/2006 7:27 PM:
>> My CV is mine and not to be questioned here.
>> Just consider my points and if you like them good, but if you don't is
>> good too!
>>
>> jrs
>> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different
>>>>>>views.
>>>>>>I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
>>>>>>or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>>>>>
>>>>>What issues do you work with ? What is your professional experience ?
>>>>
>>>>TMTC
>>>
>>>Can't you be more specific???
>>
>>

[Jaime R-S]

Agree!


jrs
"ImperialCoins" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> There are hundreds of advanced aquarists that do not use trace
> elements. Of these hundreds there are many that do not even do regular
> water changes. There is a school of thought that trace element
> supplimentation is not needed. (I don't happen to share in this
> opinion, my tank has been doing MUCH better since I started regular
> water changes!)
>
> Replacing salt with what remains after evaporation is a bad idea. Some
> salts do not remain stable through the process of evaporation and a lot
> is lost in the process. (The main reason why we cant just evaporate
> sea water and re-hydrate it for our tanks- it would not work well at
> all.)
>
> -Alfred
>

[Pszemol]

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message ...
> Now, What difference does it make if I post here all the evidence?

It would make a huge difference.

[rtk]

I switched salt mix and now I'm going back to I.O. The brown bits and
film that develop in the tank begin to appear in the mixing bucket.
There's nothing but RO/DI water and salt, pump and heater in the bucket,
so I have to guess it could come from the salt.

Anyone else have this experience?

rtk

[Boomer]

It should not make any difference. An old saying on forums and NG's

The creditability or merit of a post can be judged by its reply. A BS, MS or Ph.D does not
make someone correct. Tooting ones credentials does not prove anything. I could care less
if someone has a degree or not. It is all within the answer/post given, to where the
credit lies

--
Boomer

If You See Me Running You Better Catch-Up

Former US Army Bomb Technician (EOD)
Member; IABTI, NATEODA, WEODF, ISEE & IPS

Want to talk chemistry ? The Reef Chemistry Forum
http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/index.php

Want to See More ! The Coral Realm
http://www.coralrealm.com



"Pszemol" > wrote in message ...
: "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
: > Now, What difference does it make if I post here all the evidence?
:
: It would make a huge difference.

[Pszemol]

"Boomer" > wrote in message ...
> It should not make any difference. An old saying on forums and NG's
>
> The creditability or merit of a post can be judged by its reply. A BS, MS or Ph.D does not
> make someone correct. Tooting ones credentials does not prove anything. I could care less
> if someone has a degree or not. It is all within the answer/post given, to where the
> credit lies

It is generaly true, but Mr. Jaime here is a special case because of his previous claims ;-)

[Rocco Moretti]

At this time I'd like to point out that it was Jamie R-S who originally
brought up credentials:

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...

> I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
> or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.

It might not have been intended in such a way, but to some it might have
come off as "Trust me: I'm an expert", which is probably why Pszemol
asked about Jamie's background. (In addition to the standard general
curiosity: "WOW! You get PAID to work on this stuff! What's that like?")

Another case of passing comments that get misinterpreted and blown out
of proportion on USENET.

[Pszemol]

"Rocco Moretti" > wrote in message ...
> At this time I'd like to point out that it was Jamie R-S who originally
> brought up credentials:
>
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
> > or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>
> It might not have been intended in such a way, but to some it might have
> come off as "Trust me: I'm an expert", which is probably why Pszemol
> asked about Jamie's background. (In addition to the standard general
> curiosity: "WOW! You get PAID to work on this stuff! What's that like?")
>
> Another case of passing comments that get misinterpreted and blown out
> of proportion on USENET.

Exactly, Rocco. You hit the target! I wish I had similar communication skills :-)

[Wayne Sallee]

Yea I remember.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Pszemol wrote on 1/25/2006 7:52 AM:
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> What do you mean by "CV"?
>
>
> It is European version of "resume" in USA...
> CV stands for Latin "Curriculum Vitae".
>
> BTW, do you remember his responses in the thread "18 months and NO tank
> maintenance!"
> I remember... :-) If you want a reminder - click the following link and
> all will be clear:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/a3b63c91e70ca993
>
> Jaime, how is your tank with no maintenance working for you? Is the
> brown algae gone, yet ? :-)

[Wayne Sallee]

Mabe Jaime is hiding behind the fact that he is a comunist.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Jaime R-S wrote on 1/25/2006 9:13 PM:
> You wouldn't know!
>
> jrs
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>What do you mean by "CV"?
>>
>>Wayne Sallee
>>Wayne's Pets

>>
>>
>>Jaime R-S wrote on 1/24/2006 7:27 PM:
>>
>>>My CV is mine and not to be questioned here.
>>>Just consider my points and if you like them good, but if you don't is
>>>good too!
>>>
>>>jrs
>>>"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different
>>>>>>>views.
>>>>>>>I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
>>>>>>>or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What issues do you work with ? What is your professional experience ?
>>>>>
>>>>>TMTC
>>>>
>>>>Can't you be more specific???
>>>
>>>
>

[Jaime R-S]

Well, you are right, I said what I study just to claim a different
perspective.
As an aquarist, I am a newbie. As a marine biologist I am moderate in
knowledge.
The point was that I am someone with a different perspective to what was
being mentioned. BTW, the salt issue has deteriorated and now you are
focusing on me...
That is not right, lets discuss our different approaches to the many
problems we have and please stop challenging someone's credibility, noone
benefits from it.

I apologize if I sounded like you say, but the only intention was to
establish that I have a different (not better) background

jrs


"Rocco Moretti" > wrote in message
...
>
> At this time I'd like to point out that it was Jamie R-S who originally
> brought up credentials:
>
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
> > or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>
> It might not have been intended in such a way, but to some it might have
> come off as "Trust me: I'm an expert", which is probably why Pszemol asked
> about Jamie's background. (In addition to the standard general curiosity:
> "WOW! You get PAID to work on this stuff! What's that like?")
>
> Another case of passing comments that get misinterpreted and blown out of
> proportion on USENET.

[Jaime R-S]

How did you know? is it illegal to be a comunist? where?
Jesus was a comunist, so was Peter and Paul...

jrs
"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
> Mabe Jaime is hiding behind the fact that he is a comunist.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> Jaime R-S wrote on 1/25/2006 9:13 PM:
>> You wouldn't know!
>>
>> jrs
>> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>What do you mean by "CV"?
>>>
>>>Wayne Sallee
>>>Wayne's Pets

>>>
>>>
>>>Jaime R-S wrote on 1/24/2006 7:27 PM:
>>>
>>>>My CV is mine and not to be questioned here.
>>>>Just consider my points and if you like them good, but if you don't is
>>>>good too!
>>>>
>>>>jrs
>>>>"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Its OK, if you come to this forum, we try to help with different
>>>>>>>>views.
>>>>>>>>I am not a hobbyist, I am a marine biologist that tried to give you,
>>>>>>>>or whom ever asked, some advice from a different point of view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What issues do you work with ? What is your professional experience ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>TMTC
>>>>>
>>>>>Can't you be more specific???
>>>>
>>>>
>>

[Pszemol]

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message ...
> As an aquarist, I am a newbie.

Oh come on... I think you are too hard on yourself. L0L! :-))

Months ago, you claimed here you are an expert aquarist!
From your first post here you were trying to mesmerize
everyone with your successful experiments with reef tanks
and no maintenance required, magical filters etc!

Do You Remember ? If not, the Google archive will remind you:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/b33482dfe1c4abd0?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/8827ab4b3cd368a9?hl=en

You were even ready to patent the system, comparing your
invention (in your own, very humble way) to a light bulb and
calling advanced aquarists here per your "son", suggesting
we need to learn from you because you ... :-)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/7def296ace1cfae8?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/9750df0777f9095e?hl=en

And now, you claim to be a newbie ? Oh come on... give me a break!

[unclenorm]

Hi All,
A few facts regarding Instant Ocean I thought might interest
you.
I recently contacted Aquarium Systems technical dept.(the
manufacturer of IO) and asked for a full analysis with quantity's in
ppm, required for an ongoing survey into salt mixes.
I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number, most of which were a
great deal higher than natural sea water, up to ten times higher, it
also listed Nitrate and Phosphate as zero.
I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.
They replied and I quote "The ions shown are the ones we have
had analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is
the only information we can provide."
I leave you to draw your own conclusions!!!???
regards,
unclenorm.











Wayne Sallee wrote:
> Well this thread has been typical of "best salt" threads.
> They are always loooong.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
> > I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
> > and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
> > salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
> > mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
> > over.( the process should take several months.
> >
> > My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant Ocean.
> > What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a better
> > product for my tank?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >

[Wayne Sallee]

Yes what you recieved sounds like a normal analysis. I
have recieved several over the years from different
manufactures.

But the statement "The ions shown are the ones we have had
analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers.
This is the only information we can provide.", I find very
interesting, and not to my satisfaction. That's
disapointing that a salt manufacture would only rely on
what they are being told by their suppliers. I'll have to
e-mail one of the higher-ups at IO, and see what responce
I get.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



unclenorm wrote on 1/27/2006 12:37 AM:
> Hi All,
> A few facts regarding Instant Ocean I thought might interest
> you.
> I recently contacted Aquarium Systems technical dept.(the
> manufacturer of IO) and asked for a full analysis with quantity's in
> ppm, required for an ongoing survey into salt mixes.
> I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
> Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
> numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number, most of which were a
> great deal higher than natural sea water, up to ten times higher, it
> also listed Nitrate and Phosphate as zero.
> I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
> half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.
> They replied and I quote "The ions shown are the ones we have
> had analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is
> the only information we can provide."
> I leave you to draw your own conclusions!!!???
> regards,
> unclenorm.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>
>>Well this thread has been typical of "best salt" threads.
>>They are always loooong.
>>
>>Wayne Sallee
>>Wayne's Pets

>>
>>
>>Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
>>
>>>I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in 2002
>>>and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to change
>>>salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
>>>mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly changed
>>>over.( the process should take several months.
>>>
>>>My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant Ocean.
>>>What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a better
>>>product for my tank?
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Wayne Sallee]

Bob Studt, who sent you the analysis, said those are
results of actual tests on the finished product. So they
are indeed testing the final product, not just going by
what their suppliers are telling them.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Wayne Sallee wrote on 1/27/2006 10:12 AM:
> Yes what you recieved sounds like a normal analysis. I have recieved
> several over the years from different manufactures.
>
> But the statement "The ions shown are the ones we have had analysed or
> have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is the only
> information we can provide.", I find very interesting, and not to my
> satisfaction. That's disapointing that a salt manufacture would only
> rely on what they are being told by their suppliers. I'll have to e-mail
> one of the higher-ups at IO, and see what responce I get.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> unclenorm wrote on 1/27/2006 12:37 AM:
>
>> Hi All,
>> A few facts regarding Instant Ocean I thought might interest
>> you.
>> I recently contacted Aquarium Systems technical dept.(the
>> manufacturer of IO) and asked for a full analysis with quantity's in
>> ppm, required for an ongoing survey into salt mixes.
>> I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
>> Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
>> numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number, most of which were a
>> great deal higher than natural sea water, up to ten times higher, it
>> also listed Nitrate and Phosphate as zero.
>> I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
>> half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.
>> They replied and I quote "The ions shown are the ones we have
>> had analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is
>> the only information we can provide."
>> I leave you to draw your own conclusions!!!???
>> regards,
>> unclenorm.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>>
>>> Well this thread has been typical of "best salt" threads.
>>> They are always loooong.
>>>
>>> Wayne Sallee
>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
>>>
>>>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank
>>>> in 2002
>>>> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea
>>>> to change
>>>> salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
>>>> mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly
>>>> changed
>>>> over.( the process should take several months.
>>>>
>>>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using
>>>> Instant Ocean.
>>>> What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a
>>>> better
>>>> product for my tank?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>
>>

[Don Geddis]

"unclenorm" > wrote on 26 Jan 2006 21:3:
> I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
> Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
> numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number
> I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
> half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.

So 30 ions is "less than half" of the number of ions in natural sea water?

You think there are 60-70 ions in NSW? Where did you get your list?

As I understand it, there are trace particles of pretty much EVERY (naturally
occurring) element in NSW. Of course, some of the more rare elements are
very, very dilute.

But lets see ... we've got 100+ elements in the periodic table, plus atomic
variants (different numbers of neutrons) of each. Plus some might be missing
an electron or two, making an ion.

But that's just single atoms. There are also lots of molecules (starting with
H2O) in seawater. And ions of some of those.

Even just counting inorganic items, surely there are hundreds or thousands of
distinct "things" in natural sea water. You start counting organic molecules
too and no doubt you'll be in the millions and billions and trillions.

But none of this really matters, right? All we care about are whether our
ornamental creatures in our aquaria require some particular
element/ion/molecule to survive.

Given that the full biology of most creatures is not well understood, can you
really tell me for certain that they DON'T need any one of the trillions of
different things found in natural sea water?

Or perhaps we can all agree that, with artificial salt mix, we're just
approximating the most important elements, needed by (and sufficient for) the
vast majority of life that we try to keep. In that case, who is to say that
30 such things is "not enough" to measure, but 100 of them would be "all we
need".

Why is the line you drew (between what you measure, and what you ignore) any
better than the reply you got from Instant Ocean? Aside from the obvious fact
that you'd like to measure a superset of what they told you, so of course it
ought to be slightly better. But no matter how many you pick, you'll still be
leaving out the vast majority of trace components.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/

[Jaime R-S]

Hey! I did say I was a newbie aquarist, but that doesn't mean I am not a
marine bio with more than 15 years of experience in coastal systems...

As for my experiment, well, I remember you even made fun of it. Well, it
has been seven months now without the need of a single water change with
twice the species...

All I said then and repeat now is that you aquarists should read more
science and less magazines. You are expending too much money on something
very simple...

Yes, I am a newbie aquarist, I only had a tank for 7 months, my first, lol

jrs
"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As an aquarist, I am a newbie.
>
> Oh come on... I think you are too hard on yourself. L0L! :-))
>
> Months ago, you claimed here you are an expert aquarist!
> From your first post here you were trying to mesmerize
> everyone with your successful experiments with reef tanks
> and no maintenance required, magical filters etc!
>
> Do You Remember ? If not, the Google archive will remind you:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/b33482dfe1c4abd0?hl=en
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/8827ab4b3cd368a9?hl=en
>
> You were even ready to patent the system, comparing your
> invention (in your own, very humble way) to a light bulb and
> calling advanced aquarists here per your "son", suggesting
> we need to learn from you because you ... :-)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/7def296ace1cfae8?hl=en
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/9750df0777f9095e?hl=en
>
> And now, you claim to be a newbie ? Oh come on... give me a break!

[unclenorm]

Hi Wayne,
As you say it was Bob Studt that replied to me but his
reply to you is somewhat different to his reply to me which I quoted
word for word in my post. As I said the 13 ion's given precise numbers
were reasonable in the most part, 2or 3 on the high side, but the 15
given 'less than' numbers would have be considerably 'Less than' to get
any ware near natural sea water. I would also point out that these
results were about 2.5 years old, testing of a product that can be as
inconsistent as a salt mix should be done on a frequent schedule.
regards,
unclenorm.

PS to answer Don Geddis there are about 70 elements and trace elements
regarded as important to the marine hobby.

[Don Geddis]

"unclenorm" > wrote on 28 Jan 2006 02:0:
> PS to answer Don Geddis there are about 70 elements and trace elements
> regarded as important to the marine hobby.

You assert this, but can you provide backup? What is the list of 70?
"Regarded as important" by who? I've been doing this (home reef tank)
for a few years, read a lot of books, and haven't ever seen such a list.

The common ones that you see in all the reefkeeping books -- for example
the nitrogen cycle, salinity, pH, phosphates -- probably numbers 10-15
molecules.

I'm really curious where you get your list of 70. And, more specifically, what
they are.

-- Don
__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Don Geddis http://reef.geddis.org/
I have to get home quickly. I think something terrible may have happened
to my Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru.

[Pszemol]

"Don Geddis" > wrote in message ...
> "unclenorm" > wrote on 28 Jan 2006 02:0:
>> PS to answer Don Geddis there are about 70 elements and trace elements
>> regarded as important to the marine hobby.
>
> You assert this, but can you provide backup? What is the list of 70?
> "Regarded as important" by who? I've been doing this (home reef tank)
> for a few years, read a lot of books, and haven't ever seen such a list.
>
> The common ones that you see in all the reefkeeping books -- for example
> the nitrogen cycle, salinity, pH, phosphates -- probably numbers 10-15
> molecules.
>
> I'm really curious where you get your list of 70. And, more specifically, what
> they are.

I did a quick search and found this (note: number 70 mentioned):

http://saltaquarium.about.com/library/weekly/aa012003d.htm
http://saltaquarium.about.com/cs/seasaltmixes/l/aa090503b.htm

[Wayne Sallee]

Here is some data to have some fun with :-)



Sea Water Anylisis 1968

Clorine 19,000
Sodium 10,500
Magnesium 1,350
Sulfur 8885
Calium 400
Potassium 65
Carbon 28
Strotium 8
Boron 4.6
Silicon 3
Florine 1.3
Argon .6
Nitrogen .5
Lithium 1.7
Rubidium 1.2
Phosphorus .07
Iodine .06
Barium .03
Idium .02
Iron .01
Molybdenum .01
Zinc .01
Aluminum .01
Selenium .004
Copper .003
Tin .003
Uranium .003
Arcenic .003
Vanadium .002
Nickel .002
Manganese .002
Titanium .001
Antimony .0005
Cesium .0005
Cobalt .0005
Cerium .0004
Yttrium .0003
Silver .0003
Krypton .0003
Lanthanum .0003
Neon .0001
Xenon .0001
Tungsten .0001
Gadmium .0001
Germanium .00007
Thorium .00005
Chromium .00005
Scandium .00004
Mercury .00003
Lead .00003
Gallium .00003
Bismuth .00002
Niobium .00001
Thallium .00001
Helium .000005
Gold .000004
Pratactinium .000002
Radium .0000001
Radon .0000000000006






Instant Ocean 34ppt salinity 1994
Chloride 19251
Sodium 10757
Sulfate 2669
Magnesium 1317
Potassium 402
Calcium 398
Carbonate/Bicarbonate 192
Strotium 8.6
Boron 5.6
Bromide 2.3
Iodide .22
Lithium .18
Copper <.03
Iron <.03
Nickle <.04
Zinc <.02
Manganese <.01
Molybdenum <.01
Cobalt <.05
Vanadium <.04
Selenium Trace
Florine <.05
Lead <.005
Arsenic <.0002
Cadmium <.02
Chroium <.0006
Aluminum <.04
Tin Trace
Atimony Trace
Rubidum Trace
Barium <.05
Mercury None
Nitrate None
Phosphate None

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


Wayne Sallee wrote on 1/27/2006 11:05 AM:
> Bob Studt, who sent you the analysis, said those are results of actual
> tests on the finished product. So they are indeed testing the final
> product, not just going by what their suppliers are telling them.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> Wayne Sallee wrote on 1/27/2006 10:12 AM:
>
>> Yes what you recieved sounds like a normal analysis. I have recieved
>> several over the years from different manufactures.
>>
>> But the statement "The ions shown are the ones we have had analysed or
>> have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is the only
>> information we can provide.", I find very interesting, and not to my
>> satisfaction. That's disapointing that a salt manufacture would only
>> rely on what they are being told by their suppliers. I'll have to
>> e-mail one of the higher-ups at IO, and see what responce I get.
>>
>> Wayne Sallee
>> Wayne's Pets
>>
>>
>>
>> unclenorm wrote on 1/27/2006 12:37 AM:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>> A few facts regarding Instant Ocean I thought might interest
>>> you.
>>> I recently contacted Aquarium Systems technical dept.(the
>>> manufacturer of IO) and asked for a full analysis with quantity's in
>>> ppm, required for an ongoing survey into salt mixes.
>>> I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
>>> Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
>>> numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number, most of which were a
>>> great deal higher than natural sea water, up to ten times higher, it
>>> also listed Nitrate and Phosphate as zero.
>>> I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
>>> half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.
>>> They replied and I quote "The ions shown are the ones we have
>>> had analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is
>>> the only information we can provide."
>>> I leave you to draw your own conclusions!!!???
>>> regards,
>>> unclenorm.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well this thread has been typical of "best salt" threads.
>>>> They are always loooong.
>>>>
>>>> Wayne Sallee
>>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank
>>>>> in 2002
>>>>> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea
>>>>> to change
>>>>> salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process with
>>>>> mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly
>>>>> changed
>>>>> over.( the process should take several months.
>>>>>
>>>>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using
>>>>> Instant Ocean.
>>>>> What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really
>>>>> a better
>>>>> product for my tank?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>
>>>

[Jaime R-S]

Strange, very close to what is in every cytoplasm of everyone of your
cells...
Most aquarists get lost in translation when it comes to biology. The
important part is not the ratio is the ability of your fish to use that
ratio to its advantages...

jrs
"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
> Here is some data to have some fun with :-)
>
>
>
> Sea Water Anylisis 1968
>
> Clorine 19,000
> Sodium 10,500
> Magnesium 1,350
> Sulfur 8885
> Calium 400
> Potassium 65
> Carbon 28
> Strotium 8
> Boron 4.6
> Silicon 3
> Florine 1.3
> Argon .6
> Nitrogen .5
> Lithium 1.7
> Rubidium 1.2
> Phosphorus .07
> Iodine .06
> Barium .03
> Idium .02
> Iron .01
> Molybdenum .01
> Zinc .01
> Aluminum .01
> Selenium .004
> Copper .003
> Tin .003
> Uranium .003
> Arcenic .003
> Vanadium .002
> Nickel .002
> Manganese .002
> Titanium .001
> Antimony .0005
> Cesium .0005
> Cobalt .0005
> Cerium .0004
> Yttrium .0003
> Silver .0003
> Krypton .0003
> Lanthanum .0003
> Neon .0001
> Xenon .0001
> Tungsten .0001
> Gadmium .0001
> Germanium .00007
> Thorium .00005
> Chromium .00005
> Scandium .00004
> Mercury .00003
> Lead .00003
> Gallium .00003
> Bismuth .00002
> Niobium .00001
> Thallium .00001
> Helium .000005
> Gold .000004
> Pratactinium .000002
> Radium .0000001
> Radon .0000000000006
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Instant Ocean 34ppt salinity 1994
> Chloride 19251
> Sodium 10757
> Sulfate 2669
> Magnesium 1317
> Potassium 402
> Calcium 398
> Carbonate/Bicarbonate 192
> Strotium 8.6
> Boron 5.6
> Bromide 2.3
> Iodide .22
> Lithium .18
> Copper <.03
> Iron <.03
> Nickle <.04
> Zinc <.02
> Manganese <.01
> Molybdenum <.01
> Cobalt <.05
> Vanadium <.04
> Selenium Trace
> Florine <.05
> Lead <.005
> Arsenic <.0002
> Cadmium <.02
> Chroium <.0006
> Aluminum <.04
> Tin Trace
> Atimony Trace
> Rubidum Trace
> Barium <.05
> Mercury None
> Nitrate None
> Phosphate None
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
> Wayne Sallee wrote on 1/27/2006 11:05 AM:
>> Bob Studt, who sent you the analysis, said those are results of actual
>> tests on the finished product. So they are indeed testing the final
>> product, not just going by what their suppliers are telling them.
>>
>> Wayne Sallee
>> Wayne's Pets
>>
>>
>>
>> Wayne Sallee wrote on 1/27/2006 10:12 AM:
>>
>>> Yes what you recieved sounds like a normal analysis. I have recieved
>>> several over the years from different manufactures.
>>>
>>> But the statement "The ions shown are the ones we have had analysed or
>>> have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is the only
>>> information we can provide.", I find very interesting, and not to my
>>> satisfaction. That's disapointing that a salt manufacture would only
>>> rely on what they are being told by their suppliers. I'll have to e-mail
>>> one of the higher-ups at IO, and see what responce I get.
>>>
>>> Wayne Sallee
>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> unclenorm wrote on 1/27/2006 12:37 AM:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> A few facts regarding Instant Ocean I thought might interest
>>>> you.
>>>> I recently contacted Aquarium Systems technical dept.(the
>>>> manufacturer of IO) and asked for a full analysis with quantity's in
>>>> ppm, required for an ongoing survey into salt mixes.
>>>> I got a prompt reply in the form of a list titled 'Typical
>>>> Composition of Instant Ocean Salt'. It listed 13 Ion's with exact
>>>> numbers, a further 15 with a 'less than' number, most of which were a
>>>> great deal higher than natural sea water, up to ten times higher, it
>>>> also listed Nitrate and Phosphate as zero.
>>>> I replied to this and pointed out that this list was less than
>>>> half the number of Ion's present in natural sea water.
>>>> They replied and I quote "The ions shown are the ones we have
>>>> had analysed or have info on from our raw material suppliers. This is
>>>> the only information we can provide."
>>>> I leave you to draw your own conclusions!!!???
>>>> regards,
>>>> unclenorm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well this thread has been typical of "best salt" threads.
>>>>> They are always loooong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne Sallee
>>>>> Wayne's Pets
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Pan wrote on 1/21/2006 1:25 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been using Instant Ocean since I set up my 75 Gal. FOWLR tank in
>>>>>> 2002
>>>>>> and never had a problem. I've read that its not really a good idea to
>>>>>> change
>>>>>> salt, but if you were to change it, it was a very lengthy process
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> mixing your current salt with the new stuff until your completly
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>> over.( the process should take several months.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My local LFS said that KENT was better for my tank then using Instant
>>>>>> Ocean.
>>>>>> What im wondering is; Is it better for his profits or is it really a
>>>>>> better
>>>>>> product for my tank?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

[Pszemol]

"Jaime R-S" > wrote in message ...
> Strange, very close to what is in every cytoplasm of everyone of your
> cells...

I would not consider it strange at all.
The Life on Earth originated from the ocean...

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message ...
> Here is some data to have some fun with :-)

As you probably noticed, many of these elements are in the concentrations
extremally hard or impossible to measure using standard lab equipment.
There are probably 2-3 labs in USA which can measure each of
these elements with reliable accuracy in a water sample...

Second problem - nobody has any control to that precision level
on what is in the tap water we add to the used salt mix...
It is possible that the RO/DI filtered water will have more, lets say,
phosphates than in the "natural sea water". Similar thing is with the
food we add to the tank - seaweed is quite rich in microelements
and when you put it to tank as food those microelements will circulate
in the feces/living tissues and add to the total number in the mix.

Third problem - if you take the sample of natural sea water from
different parts of the World you will probably find that concentration
of microelements varies quite strongly and depends on many
factors like composition of rock formations in the area, how far
is to the closest land, how intense are the freshwater run-offs from
this land, what are prevailing sea currents in the area etc...
I would bet any two samples of "natural sea water" would not be
the same, and what you found in the table is just an estimate, guide.

Fourth problem - science does not know the role of many micro-
elements they can play in the living organisms, and how varying
concentrations of such would affect certain group of animals...
Maybe it is totaly not important if there is .002 or .008 of Vanadium ?

My gut feeling tells me, that salt mix manufacturers do not controll
many of these microelements and totaly count on impurites contained
in major element salts they use. I am pretty sure they do not use
chemicals at the reagent purity grade... The fact the "Certificate of
Analysis" is not available upon request tells for itself... I hope they
do not use "aggriculture grade" chemical compounds :-)

And I think we are back to my original response in this thread:
If the IO is working for you do not change it - do not fix something which ain't broken!
Nano-grams of micro-elements are not such important as proper
aquarium maintenance (including water changes...)

[Wayne Sallee]

Pszemol wrote on 1/30/2006 10:44 PM:
> I would not consider it strange at all.
> The Life on Earth originated from the ocean...

Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
acknowledge the reality of the Creator.

My computer evolved from a toaster oven.

I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though
the slots are of different sizes, I could not get a slice
of bread in there. Obviously, an inferior evolutionary
process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.

Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of
the cut links. Take all of the intact links and arrange
them so that they look pretty. You will then have a good
working model of the theory of evolution.

Actually, evolution is easy to prove. Simply gather some
old bones from a variety of animals (your choice), and
some human bones, and put them together so that they look
half human, and then give it a name like Suzie.

Scientist have recently discovered a new class of
creatures down deep in the sea. They have classified them
in the zoowacko group. They have 2 heads and 3 eyes on
each head :-)

Zigg and Zagg, Martians from Venus (they were born on
Mars, but now live on Venus), did a study of the
evolutionary order on earth. They decided to first
doccument the order of evolvement of machines, since it
was what most interested them. It was quite interesting
reading, and learning how the different machines evolved
from each other, like cars, trucks, microwaves, television
sets, laptops, PDA's, watches, cranes, excetera. If you do
a search on the internet you might be able to find their
report :-)
They still have a few missing links to figure out. After
they get that study completely finished, they are going to
do their next study on animals and it's evolvement on the
great planet Earth. After both of those studies are
completed and proven, they are to decide "which came
first, the animals, or the machines?" Zigg and Zagg have
pritty-much decided that the machines came first since
they are more basic in construction than the animals, but
that has yet to be proven.


Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message ...
> Pszemol wrote on 1/30/2006 10:44 PM:
>> I would not consider it strange at all.
>> The Life on Earth originated from the ocean...
>
> Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
> acknowledge the reality of the Creator.

USA is still a free country...
You are free to believe in any kind of Creator you like.
It also means, I am free to not believe in any kind of Creator :-)

And let it be this way - no point going into heated debate.
Evolutionism or creationism is not the subject of this newsgroup.
You do not believe evolutionists are right? It is fine with me.

Note: My previous remark was addressed to Jaime R-S, person who
claims to be marine biologist and he finds it strange that living
cell's protoplasm mineral content reflects the mineral content
of natural sea water... What is wrong with this picture ? ;-)

[David Zopf]

"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Pszemol wrote on 1/30/2006 10:44 PM:
>>> I would not consider it strange at all.
>>> The Life on Earth originated from the ocean...
>>
>> Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
>> acknowledge the reality of the Creator.
>
> USA is still a free country...
> You are free to believe in any kind of Creator you like.
> It also means, I am free to not believe in any kind of Creator :-)
>

@Wayne and Pzemol:

Please move it to talk.origins, if you feel compelled to continue.

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

[Pszemol]

"David Zopf" > wrote in message m...
> @Wayne and Pzemol:

Pszemol, ok?

> Please move it to talk.origins, if you feel compelled to continue.

David,
if you read my reply you would have probably noticed I did not
continue this debate but tried to finish it - there was no need
to ask us to shut up... :-))))

[David Zopf]

"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "David Zopf" > wrote in message
> m...
>> @Wayne and Pzemol:
>
> Pszemol, ok?

A mis-type, which my spell-checker oddly didn't catch ;-) Sorry.

>
>> Please move it to talk.origins, if you feel compelled to continue.
>
> David,
> if you read my reply you would have probably noticed I did not
> continue this debate but tried to finish it - there was no need
> to ask us to shut up... :-))))

This particular debate topic has a habit of never finishing, as you probably
know. :-)

And, there is no need to equate my post to an "ask us to shut up", as you
say... I'm requesting you both to take it to a usenet hierarchy for which
it is on-topic, not to stop the conversation entirely. (FWIW, I find myself
in strong agreement with your perspective... not that that matters on whit.
It's all still very much OT for r.a.m.reefs.)

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

[Pszemol]

"David Zopf" > wrote in message t...
>>> @Wayne and Pzemol:
>>
>> Pszemol, ok?
>
> A mis-type, which my spell-checker oddly didn't catch ;-) Sorry.

Time to update your spellchecker dictionary ;-)

> I'm requesting you both to take it to a usenet hierarchy for which
> it is on-topic, not to stop the conversation entirely.

The conversations of this kind are pointless in my opinion.
That is why I did not continue and will not. So - no worry ;-)
EOT.

[David Zopf]

"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "David Zopf" > wrote in message
> t...
>>>> @Wayne and Pzemol:
>>>
>>> Pszemol, ok?
>>
>> A mis-type, which my spell-checker oddly didn't catch ;-) Sorry.
>
> Time to update your spellchecker dictionary ;-)
>
You'll have to help me out... what do I put in the "definition" field?

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

[Pszemol]

"David Zopf" > wrote in message t...
>>> A mis-type, which my spell-checker oddly didn't catch ;-) Sorry.
>>
>> Time to update your spellchecker dictionary ;-)
>>
> You'll have to help me out... what do I put in the "definition" field?

:-)) You'r funny! Here is a definition for your dictionary:

Pszemol - difficult to deal with, stubborn guy from rec.aquaria.marine.reefs ;-)

How do you like it ?

[Jaime R-S]

I was being sarcastic!

"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Jaime R-S" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Strange, very close to what is in every cytoplasm of everyone of your
>> cells...
>
> I would not consider it strange at all.
> The Life on Earth originated from the ocean...
>

[Jaime R-S]

Wao, here we go with religion!
Kid, let it go, there are more and better things to talk about.
If there was a creator...
Who created you? wasn't it your parents? and them?
Then, if all the people we know or have heard of had parents, Who did God
create? Adam and Eve? well, there is not one piece of evidence other than
faith that can place such humans on this earth!

Stop please, lets leave faith and fairy tales out of this forum...

jrs
"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
> Pszemol wrote on 1/30/2006 10:44 PM:
>> I would not consider it strange at all.
>> The Life on Earth originated from the ocean...
>
> Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
> acknowledge the reality of the Creator.
>
> My computer evolved from a toaster oven.
>
> I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though the slots are of
> different sizes, I could not get a slice of bread in there. Obviously, an
> inferior evolutionary process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.
>
> Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of the cut links.
> Take all of the intact links and arrange them so that they look pretty.
> You will then have a good working model of the theory of evolution.
>
> Actually, evolution is easy to prove. Simply gather some old bones from a
> variety of animals (your choice), and some human bones, and put them
> together so that they look half human, and then give it a name like Suzie.
>
> Scientist have recently discovered a new class of creatures down deep in
> the sea. They have classified them in the zoowacko group. They have 2
> heads and 3 eyes on each head :-)
>
> Zigg and Zagg, Martians from Venus (they were born on Mars, but now live
> on Venus), did a study of the evolutionary order on earth. They decided to
> first doccument the order of evolvement of machines, since it was what
> most interested them. It was quite interesting reading, and learning how
> the different machines evolved from each other, like cars, trucks,
> microwaves, television sets, laptops, PDA's, watches, cranes, excetera. If
> you do a search on the internet you might be able to find their report :-)
> They still have a few missing links to figure out. After they get that
> study completely finished, they are going to do their next study on
> animals and it's evolvement on the great planet Earth. After both of those
> studies are completed and proven, they are to decide "which came first,
> the animals, or the machines?" Zigg and Zagg have pritty-much decided that
> the machines came first since they are more basic in construction than the
> animals, but that has yet to be proven.
>
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>

[Jaime R-S]

What is wrong with this picture? I was being sarcastic, off course any lab
is going to claim that its product has those types of readings...

jrs
"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Pszemol wrote on 1/30/2006 10:44 PM:
>>> I would not consider it strange at all.
>>> The Life on Earth originated from the ocean...
>>
>> Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
>> acknowledge the reality of the Creator.
>
> USA is still a free country...
> You are free to believe in any kind of Creator you like.
> It also means, I am free to not believe in any kind of Creator :-)
>
> And let it be this way - no point going into heated debate.
> Evolutionism or creationism is not the subject of this newsgroup.
> You do not believe evolutionists are right? It is fine with me.
>
> Note: My previous remark was addressed to Jaime R-S, person who
> claims to be marine biologist and he finds it strange that living
> cell's protoplasm mineral content reflects the mineral content
> of natural sea water... What is wrong with this picture ? ;-)

[Wayne Sallee]

It takes more faith to believe that everything evolved
from simple matter than it does to believe that it was
created. Anyone here done a lot of breeding of something
like guppies? There is a genetic wall of how far you can
breed them or anything els. Guppies reproduce fast,
generation after generation, but who has breed a guppy
into a platty? You can only breed a fish or anything so
far to what you want it to be, and you hit a brick wall.

Evolution is the Fary tail. Evolution is so faulty that
Musiums put documents up on the wall that they know are
not true, just to help make it look like they have proof.
"Suzy" is a prime example of that. There is not one bit of
proof to the *theory* of evolution.


Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets





Jaime R-S wrote on 1/31/2006 7:33 PM:
> Wao, here we go with religion!
> Kid, let it go, there are more and better things to talk about.
> If there was a creator...
> Who created you? wasn't it your parents? and them?
> Then, if all the people we know or have heard of had parents, Who did God
> create? Adam and Eve? well, there is not one piece of evidence other than
> faith that can place such humans on this earth!
>
> Stop please, lets leave faith and fairy tales out of this forum...
>
> jrs
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Pszemol wrote on 1/30/2006 10:44 PM:
>>
>>>I would not consider it strange at all.
>>>The Life on Earth originated from the ocean...
>>
>> Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
>>acknowledge the reality of the Creator.
>>
>>My computer evolved from a toaster oven.
>>
>>I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though the slots are of
>>different sizes, I could not get a slice of bread in there. Obviously, an
>>inferior evolutionary process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.
>>
>>Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of the cut links.
>>Take all of the intact links and arrange them so that they look pretty.
>>You will then have a good working model of the theory of evolution.
>>
>>Actually, evolution is easy to prove. Simply gather some old bones from a
>>variety of animals (your choice), and some human bones, and put them
>>together so that they look half human, and then give it a name like Suzie.
>>
>>Scientist have recently discovered a new class of creatures down deep in
>>the sea. They have classified them in the zoowacko group. They have 2
>>heads and 3 eyes on each head :-)
>>
>>Zigg and Zagg, Martians from Venus (they were born on Mars, but now live
>>on Venus), did a study of the evolutionary order on earth. They decided to
>>first doccument the order of evolvement of machines, since it was what
>>most interested them. It was quite interesting reading, and learning how
>>the different machines evolved from each other, like cars, trucks,
>>microwaves, television sets, laptops, PDA's, watches, cranes, excetera. If
>>you do a search on the internet you might be able to find their report :-)
>>They still have a few missing links to figure out. After they get that
>>study completely finished, they are going to do their next study on
>>animals and it's evolvement on the great planet Earth. After both of those
>>studies are completed and proven, they are to decide "which came first,
>>the animals, or the machines?" Zigg and Zagg have pritty-much decided that
>>the machines came first since they are more basic in construction than the
>>animals, but that has yet to be proven.
>>
>>
>>Wayne Sallee
>>Wayne's Pets

>
>
>

[David Zopf]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...

I asked once, and politely, Wayne. You and Jamie are OT for r.a.m.reefs.

> It takes more faith to believe that everything evolved from simple matter
> than it does to believe that it was created. Anyone here done a lot of
> breeding of something like guppies? There is a genetic wall of how far you
> can breed them or anything els. Guppies reproduce fast, generation after
> generation, but who has breed a guppy into a platty?

Breeding a "guppy into a platy" is not prediced by evolution, even on a
"thousands of generations" scale. Creative non-sequiturs are a mark of
fundamental misunderstanding. If you choose to continue (in an appropriate
forum), I'd suggest you study the topic of your discourse further. At this
point, you fail to understand its basic tenets.

>You can only breed a fish or anything so far to what you want it to be, and
>you hit a brick wall.
>
This is somwhat on-topic. That "brick wall" is likely more to do with
limits on variety of the breeder's genetic stock (true natural selction
requires mutation, a multitude of generations, and a wide variety of genetic
stock to act upon), limits on what pressures you can put on the population
(most breeder pressure is a sole function of culling adolescents, any traits
that develop closer to breeding age aren't accounted or selected for),
limits on the scope of experiment (even commercial breeders are dwafed by
the abilities of nature to act on a population of fish), and limits on your
understanding of what evolution predicts (guppies won't evolve into
platies).

> Evolution is the Fary tail. Evolution is so faulty that Musiums (sic) put
> documents up on the wall that they know are not true, just to help make it
> look like they have proof.

In that other forum where you should continue this, you will be expected to
provide contemporary evidence of such claims, and demonstrate that deception
was the actual intent. Science is hardly flawless (no one disputes this),
but unlike other principles of thought, science will correct itself, when it
is found to be in error. And not suprisingly, those errors and the rare
hoax are discovered by other scientists, far more often than not.

> "Suzy" is a prime example of that. There is not one bit of proof to the
> *theory* of evolution.
>
One aspect of your fundamental misunderstanding is that scientific theories
are ever "proven". They are not. Newton's theory of gravity has never been
"proven", yet the behavior it predicts happens reliably enough that we all
leave our homes each morning with a fair bit of confidence that we won't
float away into outer space. And yet still, Newton's theory doesn't hold
for objects extremely small (atomic and subatomic structures), nor for
objects moving extremely fast (approaching the speed of light). Key to
understanding any theory is understanding the limits of its application.
A hypothesis is proposed that can be used to make certain predictions, those
predictions are tested, and evidence is gathered. When the data disproves
the hypothesis, the hypothesis is modified to accomodate the data (as per
Newtonian Gravitation Theory progressing into General Relativity Thoery), or
the hypothesis is rejected, based on the volume of evidence. Testing begins
anew on the revised hypothesis.
The result of this iterative process is a model for how the natural world
behaves, with a means of predicting future behavior. In the case of the
particular model you take issue with, the accumulated evidence is vast and
broad, and the model is used for a variety of purposes to direct benefit to
mankind (flu vaccinations, and the elimination of smallpox, to name two).
As with any scientific theory, "proof" is not required or expected (by
scientists, anyways), successful predictions and the accumulated evidence
from past testing are. "Proofs" are the realm of pure mathematics, not
science.

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

[Jaime R-S]

Not faith Wayne, we can see it every day, happening right now,
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/phil/fetal.htm

Checkout that site, we come from a single cell, we even have tails and
branchia in our development...

There is no God involved in any living thing's development

jrs
"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
> It takes more faith to believe that everything evolved from simple matter
> than it does to believe that it was created. Anyone here done a lot of
> breeding of something like guppies? There is a genetic wall of how far you
> can breed them or anything els. Guppies reproduce fast, generation after
> generation, but who has breed a guppy into a platty? You can only breed a
> fish or anything so far to what you want it to be, and you hit a brick
> wall.
>
> Evolution is the Fary tail. Evolution is so faulty that Musiums put
> documents up on the wall that they know are not true, just to help make it
> look like they have proof. "Suzy" is a prime example of that. There is not
> one bit of proof to the *theory* of evolution.
>
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
>
>
> Jaime R-S wrote on 1/31/2006 7:33 PM:
>> Wao, here we go with religion!
>> Kid, let it go, there are more and better things to talk about.
>> If there was a creator...
>> Who created you? wasn't it your parents? and them?
>> Then, if all the people we know or have heard of had parents, Who did God
>> create? Adam and Eve? well, there is not one piece of evidence other
>> than faith that can place such humans on this earth!
>>
>> Stop please, lets leave faith and fairy tales out of this forum...
>>
>> jrs
>> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Pszemol wrote on 1/30/2006 10:44 PM:
>>>
>>>>I would not consider it strange at all.
>>>>The Life on Earth originated from the ocean...
>>>
>>> Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
>>>acknowledge the reality of the Creator.
>>>
>>>My computer evolved from a toaster oven.
>>>
>>>I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though the slots are
>>>of different sizes, I could not get a slice of bread in there. Obviously,
>>>an inferior evolutionary process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.
>>>
>>>Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of the cut links.
>>>Take all of the intact links and arrange them so that they look pretty.
>>>You will then have a good working model of the theory of evolution.
>>>
>>>Actually, evolution is easy to prove. Simply gather some old bones from a
>>>variety of animals (your choice), and some human bones, and put them
>>>together so that they look half human, and then give it a name like
>>>Suzie.
>>>
>>>Scientist have recently discovered a new class of creatures down deep in
>>>the sea. They have classified them in the zoowacko group. They have 2
>>>heads and 3 eyes on each head :-)
>>>
>>>Zigg and Zagg, Martians from Venus (they were born on Mars, but now live
>>>on Venus), did a study of the evolutionary order on earth. They decided
>>>to first doccument the order of evolvement of machines, since it was what
>>>most interested them. It was quite interesting reading, and learning how
>>>the different machines evolved from each other, like cars, trucks,
>>>microwaves, television sets, laptops, PDA's, watches, cranes, excetera.
>>>If you do a search on the internet you might be able to find their report
>>>:-)
>>>They still have a few missing links to figure out. After they get that
>>>study completely finished, they are going to do their next study on
>>>animals and it's evolvement on the great planet Earth. After both of
>>>those studies are completed and proven, they are to decide "which came
>>>first, the animals, or the machines?" Zigg and Zagg have pritty-much
>>>decided that the machines came first since they are more basic in
>>>construction than the animals, but that has yet to be proven.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wayne Sallee
>>>Wayne's Pets

>>
>>

[Jaime R-S]

I totally agree with you, but in my last post I did mention a link to fish
in human development, let it pass, I won't continue...

jrs
"David Zopf" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I asked once, and politely, Wayne. You and Jamie are OT for r.a.m.reefs.
>
>> It takes more faith to believe that everything evolved from simple matter
>> than it does to believe that it was created. Anyone here done a lot of
>> breeding of something like guppies? There is a genetic wall of how far
>> you can breed them or anything els. Guppies reproduce fast, generation
>> after generation, but who has breed a guppy into a platty?
>
> Breeding a "guppy into a platy" is not prediced by evolution, even on a
> "thousands of generations" scale. Creative non-sequiturs are a mark of
> fundamental misunderstanding. If you choose to continue (in an
> appropriate forum), I'd suggest you study the topic of your discourse
> further. At this point, you fail to understand its basic tenets.
>
>>You can only breed a fish or anything so far to what you want it to be,
>>and you hit a brick wall.
>>
> This is somwhat on-topic. That "brick wall" is likely more to do with
> limits on variety of the breeder's genetic stock (true natural selction
> requires mutation, a multitude of generations, and a wide variety of
> genetic stock to act upon), limits on what pressures you can put on the
> population (most breeder pressure is a sole function of culling
> adolescents, any traits that develop closer to breeding age aren't
> accounted or selected for), limits on the scope of experiment (even
> commercial breeders are dwafed by the abilities of nature to act on a
> population of fish), and limits on your understanding of what evolution
> predicts (guppies won't evolve into platies).
>
>> Evolution is the Fary tail. Evolution is so faulty that Musiums (sic) put
>> documents up on the wall that they know are not true, just to help make
>> it look like they have proof.
>
> In that other forum where you should continue this, you will be expected
> to provide contemporary evidence of such claims, and demonstrate that
> deception was the actual intent. Science is hardly flawless (no one
> disputes this), but unlike other principles of thought, science will
> correct itself, when it is found to be in error. And not suprisingly,
> those errors and the rare hoax are discovered by other scientists, far
> more often than not.
>
>> "Suzy" is a prime example of that. There is not one bit of proof to the
>> *theory* of evolution.
>>
> One aspect of your fundamental misunderstanding is that scientific
> theories are ever "proven". They are not. Newton's theory of gravity has
> never been "proven", yet the behavior it predicts happens reliably enough
> that we all leave our homes each morning with a fair bit of confidence
> that we won't float away into outer space. And yet still, Newton's theory
> doesn't hold for objects extremely small (atomic and subatomic
> structures), nor for objects moving extremely fast (approaching the speed
> of light). Key to understanding any theory is understanding the limits of
> its application.
> A hypothesis is proposed that can be used to make certain predictions,
> those predictions are tested, and evidence is gathered. When the data
> disproves the hypothesis, the hypothesis is modified to accomodate the
> data (as per Newtonian Gravitation Theory progressing into General
> Relativity Thoery), or the hypothesis is rejected, based on the volume of
> evidence. Testing begins anew on the revised hypothesis.
> The result of this iterative process is a model for how the natural world
> behaves, with a means of predicting future behavior. In the case of the
> particular model you take issue with, the accumulated evidence is vast and
> broad, and the model is used for a variety of purposes to direct benefit
> to mankind (flu vaccinations, and the elimination of smallpox, to name
> two). As with any scientific theory, "proof" is not required or expected
> (by scientists, anyways), successful predictions and the accumulated
> evidence from past testing are. "Proofs" are the realm of pure
> mathematics, not science.
>
> Regards,
> DaveZ
> Atom Weaver
>
>

[Pszemol]

"David Zopf" > wrote in message om...
> I asked once, and politely, Wayne. You and Jamie are OT for r.a.m.reefs.

Then why do you take part in this OT discussion yourself ?
You are only adding oil to the fire already burning...

[unclenorm]

Hi, Pszemol
By stating you use tap water to make your salt mix
you've made the rest of your posts on this subject totally erelavent.
regards,
uncle norm

[Pszemol]

"unclenorm" > wrote in message ups.com...
> By stating you use tap water to make your salt mix
> you've made the rest of your posts on this subject totally erelavent.

Yes, I use *treated* tap water.
What do you use ? Rainwater ? Melted glacier ? Natural Sea Water ?

I use RO/DI filters, but I am sure they leave more than micro-grams
of many listed elements here... and you cannot do anything about it!
If you think the water coming out of your RO filter is pure H2O you
are simply cheating yourself.

[Wayne Sallee]

It's really not OT.

The more we understand the origin of what we keep, and the
more we understand why they act the way they do, the
better we can take care of them.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



David Zopf wrote on 2/1/2006 1:20 PM:
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> I asked once, and politely, Wayne. You and Jamie are OT for r.a.m.reefs.
>
>
>>It takes more faith to believe that everything evolved from simple matter
>>than it does to believe that it was created. Anyone here done a lot of
>>breeding of something like guppies? There is a genetic wall of how far you
>>can breed them or anything els. Guppies reproduce fast, generation after
>>generation, but who has breed a guppy into a platty?
>
>
> Breeding a "guppy into a platy" is not prediced by evolution, even on a
> "thousands of generations" scale. Creative non-sequiturs are a mark of
> fundamental misunderstanding. If you choose to continue (in an appropriate
> forum), I'd suggest you study the topic of your discourse further. At this
> point, you fail to understand its basic tenets.
>
>
>>You can only breed a fish or anything so far to what you want it to be, and
>>you hit a brick wall.
>>
>
> This is somwhat on-topic. That "brick wall" is likely more to do with
> limits on variety of the breeder's genetic stock (true natural selction
> requires mutation, a multitude of generations, and a wide variety of genetic
> stock to act upon), limits on what pressures you can put on the population
> (most breeder pressure is a sole function of culling adolescents, any traits
> that develop closer to breeding age aren't accounted or selected for),
> limits on the scope of experiment (even commercial breeders are dwafed by
> the abilities of nature to act on a population of fish), and limits on your
> understanding of what evolution predicts (guppies won't evolve into
> platies).
>
>
>>Evolution is the Fary tail. Evolution is so faulty that Musiums (sic) put
>>documents up on the wall that they know are not true, just to help make it
>>look like they have proof.
>
>
> In that other forum where you should continue this, you will be expected to
> provide contemporary evidence of such claims, and demonstrate that deception
> was the actual intent. Science is hardly flawless (no one disputes this),
> but unlike other principles of thought, science will correct itself, when it
> is found to be in error. And not suprisingly, those errors and the rare
> hoax are discovered by other scientists, far more often than not.
>
>
>>"Suzy" is a prime example of that. There is not one bit of proof to the
>>*theory* of evolution.
>>
>
> One aspect of your fundamental misunderstanding is that scientific theories
> are ever "proven". They are not. Newton's theory of gravity has never been
> "proven", yet the behavior it predicts happens reliably enough that we all
> leave our homes each morning with a fair bit of confidence that we won't
> float away into outer space. And yet still, Newton's theory doesn't hold
> for objects extremely small (atomic and subatomic structures), nor for
> objects moving extremely fast (approaching the speed of light). Key to
> understanding any theory is understanding the limits of its application.
> A hypothesis is proposed that can be used to make certain predictions, those
> predictions are tested, and evidence is gathered. When the data disproves
> the hypothesis, the hypothesis is modified to accomodate the data (as per
> Newtonian Gravitation Theory progressing into General Relativity Thoery), or
> the hypothesis is rejected, based on the volume of evidence. Testing begins
> anew on the revised hypothesis.
> The result of this iterative process is a model for how the natural world
> behaves, with a means of predicting future behavior. In the case of the
> particular model you take issue with, the accumulated evidence is vast and
> broad, and the model is used for a variety of purposes to direct benefit to
> mankind (flu vaccinations, and the elimination of smallpox, to name two).
> As with any scientific theory, "proof" is not required or expected (by
> scientists, anyways), successful predictions and the accumulated evidence
> from past testing are. "Proofs" are the realm of pure mathematics, not
> science.
>
> Regards,
> DaveZ
> Atom Weaver
>
>

[Wayne Sallee]

Yes, I'm aware of the tail thing, but that still does not
proove that we evolved from animals any more than my
computer evolved from a toaster oven.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Jaime R-S wrote on 2/1/2006 7:22 PM:
> Not faith Wayne, we can see it every day, happening right now,
> http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/phil/fetal.htm
>
> Checkout that site, we come from a single cell, we even have tails and
> branchia in our development...
>
> There is no God involved in any living thing's development
>
> jrs
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>It takes more faith to believe that everything evolved from simple matter
>>than it does to believe that it was created. Anyone here done a lot of
>>breeding of something like guppies? There is a genetic wall of how far you
>>can breed them or anything els. Guppies reproduce fast, generation after
>>generation, but who has breed a guppy into a platty? You can only breed a
>>fish or anything so far to what you want it to be, and you hit a brick
>>wall.
>>
>>Evolution is the Fary tail. Evolution is so faulty that Musiums put
>>documents up on the wall that they know are not true, just to help make it
>>look like they have proof. "Suzy" is a prime example of that. There is not
>>one bit of proof to the *theory* of evolution.
>>
>>
>>Wayne Sallee
>>Wayne's Pets

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Jaime R-S wrote on 1/31/2006 7:33 PM:
>>
>>>Wao, here we go with religion!
>>>Kid, let it go, there are more and better things to talk about.
>>>If there was a creator...
>>>Who created you? wasn't it your parents? and them?
>>>Then, if all the people we know or have heard of had parents, Who did God
>>>create? Adam and Eve? well, there is not one piece of evidence other
>>>than faith that can place such humans on this earth!
>>>
>>>Stop please, lets leave faith and fairy tales out of this forum...
>>>
>>>jrs
>>>"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pszemol wrote on 1/30/2006 10:44 PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I would not consider it strange at all.
>>>>>The Life on Earth originated from the ocean...
>>>>
>>>>Evolution is a great for people that don't want to
>>>>acknowledge the reality of the Creator.
>>>>
>>>>My computer evolved from a toaster oven.
>>>>
>>>>I tried to make some toast the other day, but even though the slots are
>>>>of different sizes, I could not get a slice of bread in there. Obviously,
>>>>an inferior evolutionary process. I'm sure it will become extinct soon.
>>>>
>>>>Get a chain, and cut every other link. Throw out all of the cut links.
>>>>Take all of the intact links and arrange them so that they look pretty.
>>>>You will then have a good working model of the theory of evolution.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, evolution is easy to prove. Simply gather some old bones from a
>>>>variety of animals (your choice), and some human bones, and put them
>>>>together so that they look half human, and then give it a name like
>>>>Suzie.
>>>>
>>>>Scientist have recently discovered a new class of creatures down deep in
>>>>the sea. They have classified them in the zoowacko group. They have 2
>>>>heads and 3 eyes on each head :-)
>>>>
>>>>Zigg and Zagg, Martians from Venus (they were born on Mars, but now live
>>>>on Venus), did a study of the evolutionary order on earth. They decided
>>>>to first doccument the order of evolvement of machines, since it was what
>>>>most interested them. It was quite interesting reading, and learning how
>>>>the different machines evolved from each other, like cars, trucks,
>>>>microwaves, television sets, laptops, PDA's, watches, cranes, excetera.
>>>>If you do a search on the internet you might be able to find their report
>>>>:-)
>>>>They still have a few missing links to figure out. After they get that
>>>>study completely finished, they are going to do their next study on
>>>>animals and it's evolvement on the great planet Earth. After both of
>>>>those studies are completed and proven, they are to decide "which came
>>>>first, the animals, or the machines?" Zigg and Zagg have pritty-much
>>>>decided that the machines came first since they are more basic in
>>>>construction than the animals, but that has yet to be proven.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Wayne Sallee
>>>>Wayne's Pets

>>>
>>>
>

[Rocco Moretti]

Wayne Sallee wrote:
> It's really not OT.
>
> The more we understand the origin of what we keep, and the more we
> understand why they act the way they do, the better we can take care of
> them.

Okay, I'll bite - You haven't said what origin story you believe vs.
evolution, but since you don't buy evolution, how does your origin
explanation help you to "understand why [fish] act the way they do"?

It's not like the Bible has any fish husbandry instructions for the
strict creationists, and "Intelligent Design" doesn't attempt to
identify the Designer, let alone tell us the rationale for
his/her/it/their/??? design, so I'm at a loss to figure out how
believing in that helps you in understanding animals.

Not that I care all that much what your personal beliefs are, it's just
that I'm at a loss at how a non-evolutionary explanation of origin can
have much of a practical bearing on how we keep fish tanks.

[Wayne Sallee]

Moon Snails:

An evolution viewpoint-
They develped a way to eat nails in such a way that other
creatures could not.

A creation viewpoint-
They were created to eat snails thus keeping the snail
poplulation in check.

Coral Reef Death:

An evolution viewpoint-
The corals have addapted to the environmental conditions
that they live in, and can't take the sudden increas in
temperature, or other environmental factors.

A creation viewpoint-
Some dyoff is part of the created plan to keep things in
proper ballance.

Parot Fish:

An evolution viewpoit-
They have evolved a way to get nutrition out of coral by
eating flesh and coral skeleton.

A creation viewpoint-
They were created to trim the coral, and help in the cycle
of calcim by dropping large amounts of calcium carbonate sand.

Cleaner Shrimp:

An evolution viewpoint-
They have learned over milions of years to eat parisites
off of fish. And have marked themselves, and changed their
body to be seen by fish wanting to be cleaned. And fish
have learned over milions of years to go to the shrimp to
be cleande.

A creation viewpoint-
They were created to clean fish, and Fish were given the
instinct to go to them to be cleaned.


Whether you belive in creation, or evolution, affects the
way you look at, and deal with the life in your reef tank,
and the life around you.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets




Rocco Moretti wrote on 2/2/2006 10:26 AM:
> Wayne Sallee wrote:
>
>> It's really not OT.
>>
>> The more we understand the origin of what we keep, and the more we
>> understand why they act the way they do, the better we can take care
>> of them.
>
>
> Okay, I'll bite - You haven't said what origin story you believe vs.
> evolution, but since you don't buy evolution, how does your origin
> explanation help you to "understand why [fish] act the way they do"?
>
> It's not like the Bible has any fish husbandry instructions for the
> strict creationists, and "Intelligent Design" doesn't attempt to
> identify the Designer, let alone tell us the rationale for
> his/her/it/their/??? design, so I'm at a loss to figure out how
> believing in that helps you in understanding animals.
>
> Not that I care all that much what your personal beliefs are, it's just
> that I'm at a loss at how a non-evolutionary explanation of origin can
> have much of a practical bearing on how we keep fish tanks.

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message ...
> Whether you belive in creation, or evolution, affects the
> way you look at, and deal with the life in your reef tank,
> and the life around you.

Humans:

An evolutionism viewpoint-
They have tail and branchia in prenatal development because
they are related to other vertebrates...

A creationism viewpoint-
They have tail and branchia in prenatal development beacuse
[...]

You fill the blank! :-)

[Wayne Sallee]

I don't know. I'm not a medical doctor. :-)
I have not done any research on fetal developement. But
even if you and I had a 6 foot long tail, it still would
not prove that we evolved from animals.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Pszemol wrote on 2/2/2006 2:37 PM:
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Whether you belive in creation, or evolution, affects the way you look
>> at, and deal with the life in your reef tank, and the life around you.
>
>
> Humans:
>
> An evolutionism viewpoint-
> They have tail and branchia in prenatal development because
> they are related to other vertebrates...
>
> A creationism viewpoint-
> They have tail and branchia in prenatal development beacuse
> [...]
>
> You fill the blank! :-)

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message ...
> I don't know. I'm not a medical doctor. :-)

Nice excuse Wayne... but you were so sure God created
those previously listed animals for the purpose you named...
Are you a marine zoology Ph.D. ? Ichtiologist ? Oceanographer ?

So if you do not need to have PhD in marine zoology to know
the purpose of the parrot fish peculiar behaviour take the guess
on what is the purpose of branchia in human development...
You are a human being... Do you need branchia ? Tail ?
Why develop something just to remove it before human is born ?
Can we say "God made a mistake"? :-)))))

> I have not done any research on fetal developement. But
> even if you and I had a 6 foot long tail, it still would
> not prove that we evolved from animals.

Unfortunatelly...
What you just said negates ANY reasoning whatsoever in this subject.
And this is not a big surprise, since religion or faith have nothing in
common with scientific reasoning. For me, it makes an end of discussion.

And please, do not tempt us to continue this debate and do not reply.
Thanks!

[Wayne Sallee]

Pszemol wrote on 2/2/2006 4:21 PM:
> Nice excuse Wayne... but you were so sure God created
> those previously listed animals for the purpose you named...
> Are you a marine zoology Ph.D. ? Ichtiologist ? Oceanographer ?
>
> So if you do not need to have PhD in marine zoology to know
> the purpose of the parrot fish peculiar behaviour take the guess
> on what is the purpose of branchia in human development...
> You are a human being... Do you need branchia ? Tail ?
> Why develop something just to remove it before human is born ?
> Can we say "God made a mistake"? :-)))))

I've done a lot more research on the reef environment than
I have or ever will do on fetal development. I'm sorry to
disapoint you in that I have not done extensive research
on fetal development. :-)

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message ...
> I've done a lot more research on the reef environment than
> I have or ever will do on fetal development. I'm sorry to
> disapoint you in that I have not done extensive research
> on fetal development. :-)

I am affraid, you are missing the point...

You do not need any reaserch to know, being a human,
that you do not need branchia nor the tail... but you had
them, guaranteed, before you were born...
There is not question about "if" they are there - they are!
This is the fact. The question is "why", or "what for".

[Pat]

Seriously, humans are developed with a tail? I'm disappointed that has
been evolved out. My cat seems to enjoy his, I think I could while away
several hours wagging my tail. It may not be necessary, but I think
it would be great.

Pszemol wrote:
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> I've done a lot more research on the reef environment than I have or
>> ever will do on fetal development. I'm sorry to disapoint you in that
>> I have not done extensive research on fetal development. :-)
>
>
> I am affraid, you are missing the point...
> You do not need any reaserch to know, being a human,
> that you do not need branchia nor the tail... but you had
> them, guaranteed, before you were born...
> There is not question about "if" they are there - they are!
> This is the fact. The question is "why", or "what for".

[Pszemol]

"Pat" > wrote in message ...
> Seriously, humans are developed with a tail? I'm disappointed that has
> been evolved out. My cat seems to enjoy his, I think I could while away
> several hours wagging my tail. It may not be necessary, but I think
> it would be great.

Creationist:
Please dirrect your complaint to Mr. (or Mrs?) God ;-)

Evolutionist:
If you really need it, you would still have it attached to your behind... :-)

BTW - there are some occurences of humans born with remainder
of the tail, which is usually surgically removed later... Check this out:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=pl&q=human%20tail&lr=&sa=N&tab=wi
This is not a joke - these are real pictures.

[Pszemol]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message ...
> Yes, I'm aware of the tail thing, but that still does not
> proove that we evolved from animals any more than my
> computer evolved from a toaster oven.

Then it must be true what they say here about the Hindu god :-)
http://www.visual-evolution.com/tails.htm
"Crowds are flocking to Indian temples to see a Muslim baby
with a 'tail' who is believed to be the reincarnation of a Hindu god.
The 11-month-old boy has been named Balaji or Bajrangbali, another
name for monkey-faced Lord Hanuman. He is reported to have a 4in 'tail'
caused by genetic mutations during the development of the foetus.
Iqbal Qureshi, the child's maternal grandfather, is taking Balaji from
temple to temple where people offer money to see the boy. Mr Qureshi
says the baby has nine spots on his body like Lord Hanuman and
showed them to journalists, reports Indian newspaper The Tribune."


Yet another example for religion filling gaps in one's education!

History repeats: same thing was with lightning, which was considered
in ancient Greece/Rome as a sign of "god Zeus being angree"
http://www.greeka.com/greek-mythology.htm or, Sun eclipse
in ancient Egypt was used by educated priests for brainwashing
poorly educated peasants, convincing them they made God angry with
their lack of obedience... http://www.touregypt.net/astro/
And many, many other similar examples...

I will not be first to notice that with expanding science, religion
withdraws into marginal role in society - Sadly, in USA, creationism
is growing strong and now challenges evolutionism in schools, which
is interestingly consistent with the visible problems in the education
sector: http://www.conway.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm

[Jaime R-S]

Let it rest, this guy is a fanatic, probably republican, no use to continue
argueing with a fanatic...
Lets please go back to aquariums...

jrs
"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yes, I'm aware of the tail thing, but that still does not proove that we
>> evolved from animals any more than my computer evolved from a toaster
>> oven.
>
> Then it must be true what they say here about the Hindu god :-)
> http://www.visual-evolution.com/tails.htm
> "Crowds are flocking to Indian temples to see a Muslim baby
> with a 'tail' who is believed to be the reincarnation of a Hindu god. The
> 11-month-old boy has been named Balaji or Bajrangbali, another
> name for monkey-faced Lord Hanuman. He is reported to have a 4in 'tail'
> caused by genetic mutations during the development of the foetus.
> Iqbal Qureshi, the child's maternal grandfather, is taking Balaji from
> temple to temple where people offer money to see the boy. Mr Qureshi
> says the baby has nine spots on his body like Lord Hanuman and
> showed them to journalists, reports Indian newspaper The Tribune."
>
>
> Yet another example for religion filling gaps in one's education!
>
> History repeats: same thing was with lightning, which was considered
> in ancient Greece/Rome as a sign of "god Zeus being angree"
> http://www.greeka.com/greek-mythology.htm or, Sun eclipse
> in ancient Egypt was used by educated priests for brainwashing
> poorly educated peasants, convincing them they made God angry with
> their lack of obedience... http://www.touregypt.net/astro/
> And many, many other similar examples...
>
> I will not be first to notice that with expanding science, religion
> withdraws into marginal role in society - Sadly, in USA, creationism
> is growing strong and now challenges evolutionism in schools, which
> is interestingly consistent with the visible problems in the education
> sector: http://www.conway.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm

[Wayne Sallee]

LOL yes I'm a republican.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets



Jaime R-S wrote on 2/2/2006 8:52 PM:
> Let it rest, this guy is a fanatic, probably republican, no use to continue
> argueing with a fanatic...
> Lets please go back to aquariums...
>
> jrs
> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Yes, I'm aware of the tail thing, but that still does not proove that we
>>>evolved from animals any more than my computer evolved from a toaster
>>>oven.
>>
>>Then it must be true what they say here about the Hindu god :-)
>>http://www.visual-evolution.com/tails.htm
>>"Crowds are flocking to Indian temples to see a Muslim baby
>>with a 'tail' who is believed to be the reincarnation of a Hindu god. The
>>11-month-old boy has been named Balaji or Bajrangbali, another
>>name for monkey-faced Lord Hanuman. He is reported to have a 4in 'tail'
>>caused by genetic mutations during the development of the foetus.
>>Iqbal Qureshi, the child's maternal grandfather, is taking Balaji from
>>temple to temple where people offer money to see the boy. Mr Qureshi
>>says the baby has nine spots on his body like Lord Hanuman and
>>showed them to journalists, reports Indian newspaper The Tribune."
>>
>>
>>Yet another example for religion filling gaps in one's education!
>>
>>History repeats: same thing was with lightning, which was considered
>>in ancient Greece/Rome as a sign of "god Zeus being angree"
>>http://www.greeka.com/greek-mythology.htm or, Sun eclipse
>>in ancient Egypt was used by educated priests for brainwashing
>>poorly educated peasants, convincing them they made God angry with
>>their lack of obedience... http://www.touregypt.net/astro/
>>And many, many other similar examples...
>>
>>I will not be first to notice that with expanding science, religion
>>withdraws into marginal role in society - Sadly, in USA, creationism
>>is growing strong and now challenges evolutionism in schools, which
>>is interestingly consistent with the visible problems in the education
>>sector: http://www.conway.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm
>
>
>

[Jaime R-S]

and I bet you are proud of it too!

jrs
"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
> LOL yes I'm a republican.
>
> Wayne Sallee
> Wayne's Pets
>
>
>
> Jaime R-S wrote on 2/2/2006 8:52 PM:
>> Let it rest, this guy is a fanatic, probably republican, no use to
>> continue argueing with a fanatic...
>> Lets please go back to aquariums...
>>
>> jrs
>> "Pszemol" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Yes, I'm aware of the tail thing, but that still does not proove that we
>>>>evolved from animals any more than my computer evolved from a toaster
>>>>oven.
>>>
>>>Then it must be true what they say here about the Hindu god :-)
>>>http://www.visual-evolution.com/tails.htm
>>>"Crowds are flocking to Indian temples to see a Muslim baby
>>>with a 'tail' who is believed to be the reincarnation of a Hindu god. The
>>>11-month-old boy has been named Balaji or Bajrangbali, another
>>>name for monkey-faced Lord Hanuman. He is reported to have a 4in 'tail'
>>>caused by genetic mutations during the development of the foetus.
>>>Iqbal Qureshi, the child's maternal grandfather, is taking Balaji from
>>>temple to temple where people offer money to see the boy. Mr Qureshi
>>>says the baby has nine spots on his body like Lord Hanuman and
>>>showed them to journalists, reports Indian newspaper The Tribune."
>>>
>>>
>>>Yet another example for religion filling gaps in one's education!
>>>
>>>History repeats: same thing was with lightning, which was considered
>>>in ancient Greece/Rome as a sign of "god Zeus being angree"
>>>http://www.greeka.com/greek-mythology.htm or, Sun eclipse
>>>in ancient Egypt was used by educated priests for brainwashing
>>>poorly educated peasants, convincing them they made God angry with
>>>their lack of obedience... http://www.touregypt.net/astro/
>>>And many, many other similar examples...
>>>
>>>I will not be first to notice that with expanding science, religion
>>>withdraws into marginal role in society - Sadly, in USA, creationism
>>>is growing strong and now challenges evolutionism in schools, which
>>>is interestingly consistent with the visible problems in the education
>>>sector: http://www.conway.com/ssinsider/snapshot/sf011210.htm
>>
>>

[Cindy]

Oh brother.....I've had this thread blocked for a week -- just checked in to
see if maybe the subject got interesting or on-topic.....guess not. Have
fun guys.

[unclenorm]

OK, the time has come for you guys to stop trying to provoke each other
by talking utter crap, if you are still interested in the original
thread then post relevant comments and stop acting like ignorant young
school kids, if you have no interest in salt mixes then go find some
other subject to talk crap about.
regards,
unclenorm.

[unclenorm]

Pszemol,
It is no use trying to twist your statement now you
realise what a stupid statement it was. Your statement that your RO/DI
filters do not do a very good may well be true, for many reasons. A
properly operated and mentained good quality RO/DI unit will give you
water that even the best of your labs will not be able to detect any
impuritys. I am not cheating my self, purification of water to the
highest grade is our buisiness.
regards,
unclenorm.

[Dogma Discharge]

> Evolution is the Fary tail. Evolution is so faulty that
> Musiums put documents up on the wall that they know are
> not true, just to help make it look like they have proof.
> "Suzy" is a prime example of that. There is not one bit of
> proof to the *theory* of evolution.

So you're a Goddidit kind of guy?. Come on over to talk.origins and we can
continue the discussion there. I dare you :)
--
Kind Regards
Cameron

[Pszemol]

"unclenorm" > wrote in message oups.com...
> It is no use trying to twist your statement now you
> realise what a stupid statement it was.

No, I am far from realising this... Help me to realise, please! :-)

> Your statement that your RO/DI filters do not do a very good
> may well be true, for many reasons. A properly operated and
> mentained good quality RO/DI unit will give you water that even
> the best of your labs will not be able to detect any impuritys.

That was my point, exactly... A lot of good labs is NOT ABLE to
detect several ions at the concentrations listed in the NSW.
Why bother with such ions then ?

> I am not cheating my self, purification of water to the
> highest grade is our buisiness

Tell me please, how do you measure the concentration of Antimony and
Cesium in your water ? What are the levels of them in your fish tank ?
How about Tungsten, Chromium, Bismuth, Gold ? How often you test
for them and where do you test your water samples ? I am sure you
know what are the levels of these ions in the water... tell me, please!

p.s. Note, I am not mean and I do not ask about Radium and Radon :-)

[David Zopf]

"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> "David Zopf" > wrote in message
> om...
>> I asked once, and politely, Wayne. You and Jamie are OT for r.a.m.reefs.
>
> Then why do you take part in this OT discussion yourself ?
> You are only adding oil to the fire already burning...
>

You are probably right... I added comments only as the conversation relates
to fishkeeping and (as Wayne says) our understanding of aquatic life. (and
to correct Wayne's mis-understandings of ToE, as best I can...)

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

[David Zopf]

"Wayne Sallee" > wrote in message
...
> Moon Snails:
>
One other poster said that their natural diet consists of clams and
oysters..

> An evolution viewpoint-
> They develped a way to eat nails in such a way that other creatures could
> not.
>
Better to say; some Moon Snail ancestor which could eat shellfish bred more
successfully/more often, because of the advantage given by a either a more
nutritous or less competitive food source.

> A creation viewpoint-
> They were created to eat snails thus keeping the snail poplulation in
> check.
>
The snail diet you observe in your tank is not the function it serves in
nature. Should Moon Snails be banned from sale, unless we provide them with
the food which their Creator intended for them?

> Coral Reef Death:
>
> An evolution viewpoint-
> The corals have addapted to the environmental conditions that they live
> in, and can't take the sudden increas in temperature, or other
> environmental factors.
>
Yes, corals are highly adapted to (and successful in) their niche.

> A creation viewpoint-
> Some dyoff is part of the created plan to keep things in proper ballance.
>
Is the human waste/involvement part of the Created plan, too?

It is also reasonable under ToE to say that the ecosystem which developed
tends to try to keep itself in balance.

> Parot Fish:
>
> An evolution viewpoit-
> They have evolved a way to get nutrition out of coral by eating flesh and
> coral skeleton.
>
> A creation viewpoint-
> They were created to trim the coral,
OK

> and help in the cycle of calcim by dropping large amounts of calcium
> carbonate sand.
>
This is a mere observation of consequence, and is also true under ToE.

> Cleaner Shrimp:
>
> An evolution viewpoint-
> They have learned over milions of years to eat parisites off of fish.

Learning is a trait of individuals. Individuals don't evolve, species do.
Say instead; a Cleaner shrimp ancestor gained a reproductive advantage over
others by adapting this behavior.

> And have marked themselves, and changed their body to be seen by fish
> wanting to be cleaned. And fish have learned over milions of years to go
> to the shrimp to be cleande.
>
and again with the re-state. Don't you think you should learn the ToE,
_before_ you evaluate it against Creationism..?

> A creation viewpoint-
> They were created to clean fish, and Fish were given the instinct to go to
> them to be cleaned.
>
Then why do cleaner species get eaten by their "clients"? The
"cleaner-client" instinct is pretty imperfect, for a God-given trait...

>
> Whether you belive in creation, or evolution, affects the way you look at,
> and deal with the life in your reef tank, and the life around you.
>
Aye, that it does. Your examples, though, look only at modern species.
We have evidence of species which have died off, both ancient and recent,
due to human action, and due to natural processes. Why Create species such
that they would perish (and here I'm thinking of the ones which die out not
because of human interaction)?
As for the life around me... at the beginning of the winter season, I went
to a doctor for a flu shot, rather than to a priest for a prayer. I'm a
theistic chemist (Why be suprised? The majority of scientists are...), I'd
prefer to use my God-given capacity for reason, and look at what the world
shows me, when dealing with the life around me. A literal interpretation of
a (revelatory) text doesn't aid that looking and reasoning, and isn't in the
spirit of the Book in the first place. Reading the Bible literally is good
for a giggle (Matthew 16:18 (http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm) is my
favorite... so Peter was a rock, hmm? He was pretty mobile and chatty, for
a bit of granite.)

DaveZ
Atom Weaver

[Elizabeth Davis]

so what is the best salt????? lol