Bo0ger1, show me your tank...

First, you're the one who asserted that everyone else is doing things
"wrong" with their water changes.

OK, now you want to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said doing water changes
was wrong. Read this slowly: Water changes are NOT necessary. How many
times do I need to write this?

Second, you're the one who claims to
have some degree of scientific knowledge, and insight into the lack of
scientific knowledge of others. Science is founded on evidence, as I'm
sure you know. If you want to claim a superior scientific position, then
it should be no suprise when someone asks you to show your evidence.

You are really good at writing what I have never claimed!

I have no evidence to give other than my personal accounts (which have been
claimed by others as well). Take it or leave it! I don't care either way.
It's your money and your time invested.

You can take it or leave
it. This is a newsgroup, not a court room.


It doesn't need to be a "court room". I'm not looking for "beyond
reasonable doubt", or a "preponderance of the evidence". I'm merely
looking for anything you can offer to back up your claim of scientific
knowledge, other than your anonymous word (which, in itself, holds no
scientific value) and snarky comments against a proven method and its
proponents.

I say again, what evidence could I possible offer ??

I'll admit freely, your attitude towards the regulars on
this forum, (people whom I've had disagreements with myself, but whose
advice on reefkeeping has generally been sound), and your denigrating
attitude towards a commonly useed, evidenced practice, does put an extra
burden of expectation on you to prove your claims. *shrug* That's your
own fault, but its easy enough to correct.

Geesh! What makes you think I have the burden to prove anything? Read this
slowly :You can take what I have offered (and others) or leave it.

What makes you think not doing water changes is "not sound" when several
have made the same claim with great success?

and 2) specify further the conditions
under which he obtained his claimed success.

Here are my conditions: No water changes. I use a skimmer and
supplement with Kent Marine Essential Elements.

You've said that already, but that is hardly sufficient information to
characterize a tank, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree.


It seems to me like you're suggesting that, since booger's
experiences
correlate with your own, that should somehow validate his unevidenced
assertions scientifically for the rest of us.

No, what he is stating is that I am not alone. People do exist, other
than those that have responded in this thread, that do not do water
changes and still maintain a successful aquarium.


I've already recognized their presence (and success) as a minority. But
without more specific knowledge about their setups, the mere fact that
they
don't change water doesn't mean that I or anyone else will be able to
reproduce their results, does it?

It's not rocket science dude. Instead of doing water
changes...ummm....don't do water changes.


What I'd really like is for No Water
Change (NWC) tank proponents to get down to specifics, so we can all try
to
see what trends lead to success in those NWC tanks. Blackhole has been
very accomodating in that respect. You've chosen instead to support your
position by attacking the opposing (majority) view, the only thing that
ever does is damage your credibility when you _do_ have something relevant
to say...

Your opinion.

Really? In order to make this statement you have to make an
assumption. Your assumption is that we (those that have addressed this
thread in opposition) are alone.

No. My only assumption is that the sum total of *your* experience would
amount to one data point in support of not changing water (in FOWLR
tanks),

Sure. That's all 'I' can offer is one data point because 'I' only have one
aquarium. Sorry, I'm not setting up another tank just to convince you.

were you to substantiate it somehow (setup, water parameters, pictures).

Have you polled everyone that
maintains a marine aquarium? You are also making the assumption that
the practice of regular water changes is the only accepted practice
for maintaining a healthy aquarium.


Not at all, and since I started posting to this thread with a specific
acknoweldgement that you _can_ maintain FOWLR and, under specific
conditions, sometimes reef tanks without water changes, there is evidence
that your characterization of my position is false;

You never misrepresented my position? (see above)


Look atomweaver. You are correct, my experiences only represent one data
point and are purely anecdotal. I am not forcing my views on anyone, I am
merely stating that from my experience, water changes are not necessary. My
success with non-water changing has also been mirrored by others (more
anecdotal evidence). 'I' maintain a very healthy FOWLR aquarium sans water
changes. I was merely offering my experiences to the 'herd' as an
alternative to water changes. Maybe, just maybe a few people 'woke up' and
are now questioning their own aquarium maintaince practices. I offer no
guarantees for success. 'take it or leave it'

"bo0ger1" .@. wrote in :

First, you're the one who asserted that everyone else is doing things
"wrong" with their water changes.

OK, now you want to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said doing water
changes was wrong.

Thus the quotes... You don't say it directly, but nearly every post you
make on the topic alludes to water change proponents being knuckleheads, or
worse... How else should I read it when you characterize water changers in
this fashion?


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5ab41c03808c60
a?dmode=source&hl=en

booger:"I haven't done a water change over a year either. Most of these
*knuckle heads* in this NG are *brain washed* into thinking you have to do
water changes."

*Emphasis mine. Here, you attribute water changes to a herd mentality;

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...480267794f045c
6?dmode=source&hl=en

"Pat: I agree that anything is possible, but many many more people than
Pat: you and
Pat: your friend say that water changes are necessary with the current
Pat: technology.

booger: This is called FOLLOWING the HERD. Follow away!"


Read this slowly: Water changes are NOT
necessary. How many times do I need to write this?

For FOWLR tanks, you never needed to write it even once.

Second, you're the one who claims to
have some degree of scientific knowledge, and insight into the lack
of scientific knowledge of others. Science is founded on evidence,
as I'm sure you know. If you want to claim a superior scientific
position, then it should be no suprise when someone asks you to show
your evidence.

You are really good at writing what I have never claimed!


That's exactly what you claimed when you offered these insights:

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."

source:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...5601568df1393c
6?dmode=source&hl=en

"Than don't change your habits. Old habits are hard to break. Continue to
do your water changes and leave the non-water changing to those that are
more qualified (I mean no offense here). "

source:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...48e9083de7c305
e?dmode=source&hl=en


Their lack of knowledge (and your corresponding excess) is the reason why
they do water changes, and you don't. You assert a greater level of
understanding, but you do not evidence your results.

Even if you do evidence your results, I don't understand why the need to
denigrate water-changers (aka the knuckleheads/knuckledraggers, aka the
brain washed, aka the herd). If their inability to maintain tanks without
water chnages is somehow based on their lack of understanding of chemistry,
or how "qualified" they are, why put them down for it?

You can take it or leave
it. This is a newsgroup, not a court room.


It doesn't need to be a "court room". I'm not looking for "beyond
reasonable doubt", or a "preponderance of the evidence". I'm merely
looking for anything you can offer to back up your claim of
scientific knowledge, other than your anonymous word (which, in
itself, holds no scientific value) and snarky comments against a
proven method and its proponents.

I say again, what evidence could I possible offer ??

The same things I've been repeatedly asking for, please.

Tank size?
Tank age?
sump?
sump size?
nutrient export?
fish species/size?
inverts species/size?
recent water test results?
Do you track water parameters regularly? Observe any fluctuations?
Equipment setup (skimmer, lights, powerheads, sterilizer, carbon, phos-
reactor, other filtration etc)?
Feeding schedule?

A pic would be nice, as many of us can gauge general tank health from the
appearance of the inhabitants, especially inverts, who tend to reflect
clearly the quality of the water in which they're raised.

Your word on these values is good enough, but my point here is that just
saying 'NWC!!!one!' is simply insufficient without the above context to go
with it.

and 2) specify further the conditions
under which he obtained his claimed success.

Here are my conditions: No water changes. I use a skimmer and
supplement with Kent Marine Essential Elements.

You've said that already, but that is hardly sufficient information
to characterize a tank, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree.

See, this is where I take issue with your assertions. By your
disagreement, its almost the same as saying that tank parameters other than
"skimmer and supplement" may be varied freely with the same final result;
success without water changes.

It seems to me like you're suggesting that, since booger's
experiences
correlate with your own, that should somehow validate his
unevidenced assertions scientifically for the rest of us.

No, what he is stating is that I am not alone. People do exist,
other than those that have responded in this thread, that do not do
water changes and still maintain a successful aquarium.


I've already recognized their presence (and success) as a minority.
But without more specific knowledge about their setups, the mere fact
that they
don't change water doesn't mean that I or anyone else will be able to
reproduce their results, does it?

It's not rocket science dude.

What happened to that special insight into tank chemistry/biology that I
needed?

Instead of doing water
changes...ummm....don't do water changes.


The above conflicts, more or less directly, with this;

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."

Which is it?

No. My only assumption is that the sum total of *your* experience
would amount to one data point in support of not changing water (in
FOWLR tanks),

Sure. That's all 'I' can offer is one data point because 'I' only
have one aquarium. Sorry, I'm not setting up another tank just to
convince you.


Nor am I asking you to. All I'm asking is that you elaborate on your data
point a little bit... and maybe quit denigrating those who maintain their
tanks successfully via a different method?

Have you polled everyone that
maintains a marine aquarium? You are also making the assumption
that the practice of regular water changes is the only accepted
practice for maintaining a healthy aquarium.


Not at all, and since I started posting to this thread with a
specific acknoweldgement that you _can_ maintain FOWLR and, under
specific conditions, sometimes reef tanks without water changes,
there is evidence that your characterization of my position is false;

You never misrepresented my position? (see above)

If I did, it was inadvertent, and I apologize. I try to make it clear when
what I write is my interpretation of comments which are potentially
subjective. You'll see qualifiers like:"It seems to me like you're
suggesting that.." etc. to opinion/interpretations...

Look atomweaver. You are correct, my experiences only represent one
data point and are purely anecdotal. I am not forcing my views on
anyone, I am merely stating that from my experience, water changes are
not necessary. My success with non-water changing has also been
mirrored by others (more anecdotal evidence). 'I' maintain a very
healthy FOWLR aquarium sans water changes. I was merely offering my
experiences to the 'herd' as an alternative to water changes. Maybe,
just maybe a few people 'woke up' and are now questioning their own
aquarium maintaince practices. I offer no guarantees for success.
'take it or leave it'

This is the most concise, well thought-out, informed, and polite (only one
'herd' comment) segment I think you've ever posted in this forum. Had you
started with the above, intead of this;

"Most of these knuckle
heads in this NG are brain washed into thinking you have to do water
changes. The people who push it are LFS owners like Wayne. The more water
changes you do the more money he makes."

I'd say you would have had a very different past two weeks, here...

I think you are right about water changes, to a certain extent, but i'm a
bit more cautious about which setups I would consider NWC for, especially
reef type setups.

If you have the time to post the extra information about your tank and
parameters I asked for above, I'd appreciate it. See you all after the
holiday...

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Why do you even continue talking to this troll ?
You know you you cannot learn anything from him...
He is just full of b.s.

Pszemol wrote:
Why do you even continue talking to this troll ?

Dave is doing newbies to this group a great service. If nobody debates trolls, a
newcomer might take the troll seriously. It's a lot of work, and I think Dave is
doing a marvelous job of it.

George Patterson
Forgive your enemies. But always remember who they are.

Dave is doing newbies to this group a great service. If nobody debates
trolls, a newcomer might take the troll seriously. It's a lot of work, and
I think Dave is doing a marvelous job of it.

The fact that you read this thread 12 levels deep and are still following
along demonstrates that you take me seriously AND/OR you want to learn.

Do you want to debate science with me or just throw mud (I've given up on
Pszemol)?

George Patterson wrote in
newsw79h.3302$JQ.2084@trnddc06:

Pszemol wrote:
Why do you even continue talking to this troll ?

Dave is doing newbies to this group a great service. If nobody debates
trolls, a newcomer might take the troll seriously. It's a lot of work,
and I think Dave is doing a marvelous job of it.


Thanks George,

For the record, I don't think that he is a genuine troll. Sure, he is
strongly opinionated (*shrug* thats not necessarily a bad thing, but it
does make it a bit harder to communicate), and is maybe the sort of
personality to get quickly pulled in to emotional posts and flamewars
(bo0ger and Pat seem to clash particularly hard), but that he probably has
some genuinely positive contributions to make here.
His original comments were a bit irresponsible and overstated, but when
pushed for details on the specifics of his comments, and treated with a bit
of respect, he's the same reasonable kind of human being that we all can
be.

I think that we can arrive at some understanding, if we can eventually
come to agree upon a few things;
1) NWC (No Water Changes) is reasonable for a FOWLR tank (depending upon
occupants), and *possible* for *some* reef tanks.
2) There is significant disagreement on how easy a NWC method would be for
reef tanks.
3) Not every system can be converted to NWC, without some further
understanding of the total system (mostly, this is a point to avoid die-off
from FOWLR newbies with too big a fish load going to NWC... not that I
think anyone would do so on the basis of an anonymous post on Usenet, but
stranger things have happened.)
4) There _might_ be some underlying scientific reason behind water changes
(and thus, a motivation other than 'herd mentality', or the Grand Water
Change Conspiracy by Fish Store Owners to Sell More Products). Some
reasons might be; to export dissolved nutrients, and/or to replenish trace
elements.
5) None of the above will become clear or detailed until after we _all_
quit with the ad-homs. ;-)

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

"atomweaver" wrote in message ...
His original comments were a bit irresponsible and overstated, but when
pushed for details on the specifics of his comments, and treated with a bit
of respect, he's the same reasonable kind of human being that we all can
be.

How can you say this, if he did not provide any details asked for ?
He did not tell us how many fish and what kind of fish he keep
and what is the size of his tank... He did not provide pictures,
so we do not even know he actually has a tank... and what is its
condition. He recently ordered Xenia - this was his first coral...
He claims he owns an anemone, but he did not state what species.
I am betting his "anemone" is an aiptasia anemone :-))

4) There _might_ be some underlying scientific reason behind water changes
(and thus, a motivation other than 'herd mentality', or the Grand Water
Change Conspiracy by Fish Store Owners to Sell More Products). Some
reasons might be; to export dissolved nutrients, and/or to replenish trace
elements.

Water changes are THE CHEAPEST and the simplest method of
nutrients export, when you consider the price of phosban,
phosban reactors, activated carbon and oversized skimmers
costing easily 400 USD and more.
Abucket of Instant Ocean salt costs little more than $30 and
you can make almost 160 gallons of clean sal****er with it.
Trace elements & calcium in a bottle - all these costs money.
150gram of phosban costs almost $20... same for carbon...
These amounts of phosban/carbon will not last long time.
And you have to mess with ugly filter bags or reactors...
For the reactor you need to spend money on reactor/pump.
And carbon/phosban are only working on specific compounds,
water changes do refresh water composition with all ions.
Including ones which concentration you CANNOT measure, so
you cannot know if you need to add or remove it from the water.

Pszemol wrote:

I am betting his "anemone" is an aiptasia anemone :-))

Naw... If that were the case, he could claim to have several hundred anemones by
now.

George Patterson
Forgive your enemies. But always remember who they are.

OK, now you want to put words in my mouth. I NEVER said doing water
changes was wrong.

Thus the quotes... You don't say it directly, but nearly every post you
make on the topic alludes to water change proponents being knuckleheads,
or
worse... How else should I read it when you characterize water changers
in
this fashion?




*Emphasis mine. Here, you attribute water changes to a herd mentality;

Do you know why I refer to it as the 'herd mentality' or 'herd behavior'?
Because most people in this forum (and most people that I have discussed the
topic with) perform water changes ONLY because everyone else is doing it.
They don't understand why they are doing it AND for this reason they don't
know that they don't have to do it.

Read more on the 'herd behavior' he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality

You are really good at writing what I have never claimed!


That's exactly what you claimed when you offered these insights:

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change
than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."

Ok, so I guess I am superior in this regard. Oops!


Their lack of knowledge (and your corresponding excess) is the reason why
they do water changes, and you don't. You assert a greater level of
understanding, but you do not evidence your results.

Again. What evidence do you require?


Even if you do evidence your results, I don't understand why the need to
denigrate water-changers (aka the knuckleheads/knuckledraggers, aka the
brain washed, aka the herd). If their inability to maintain tanks without
water chnages is somehow based on their lack of understanding of
chemistry,
or how "qualified" they are, why put them down for it?

Good point.

I say again, what evidence could I possible offer ??

The same things I've been repeatedly asking for, please.


Tank size? 75 G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
Tank age? 2 years (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump? Yes (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump size? approx. 5G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
nutrient export? ???
fish species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
inverts species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
recent water test results?
Do you track water parameters regularly? I use to, but always same result.
0ppm Nitrate, nitrite, ammonia. pH normal range. Observe any fluctuations?
No
Equipment setup (skimmer, lights,powerheads, sterilizer, carbon, phos-
reactor, other filtration etc)? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as
evidence)
Feeding schedule? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

A pic would be nice, as many of us can gauge general tank health from the
appearance of the inhabitants, especially inverts, who tend to reflect
clearly the quality of the water in which they're raised.

My inhabitants appear healthy. I am certain that they would not appear
unhealthy to you.

Your word on these values is good enough, but my point here is that just
saying 'NWC!!!one!' is simply insufficient without the above context to go
with it.

OK. Take it or leave it.


You've said that already, but that is hardly sufficient information
to characterize a tank, don't you agree?

No, I don't agree.

See, this is where I take issue with your assertions. By your
disagreement, its almost the same as saying that tank parameters other
than
"skimmer and supplement" may be varied freely with the same final result;
success without water changes.

Maybe. That kind of goes along with your one data point spiel doesn't it?

It's not rocket science dude.

What happened to that special insight into tank chemistry/biology that I
needed?

That's what makes this thread so sad. If you understood why water changes
were not needed (at the biological level) you would understand how really
simple (not rocket science) this topic is.


Instead of doing water
changes...ummm....don't do water changes.


The above conflicts, more or less directly, with this;

"I think the real reason they do it is for a lack of understanding at the
chemical/biological level. It is easier for them to do a water change
than
to grasp what is going on in their tank at a biological level."

Which is it?

I fail to see the conflict. Reread this :
That's what makes this thread so sad. If you understood why water changes
were not needed (at the biological level) you would understand how really
simple (not rocket science) this topic is.

Nor am I asking you to. All I'm asking is that you elaborate on your data
point a little bit... and maybe quit denigrating those who maintain their
tanks successfully via a different method?

OK, good point.

snip

Look atomweaver. You are correct, my experiences only represent one
data point and are purely anecdotal. I am not forcing my views on
anyone, I am merely stating that from my experience, water changes are
not necessary. My success with non-water changing has also been
mirrored by others (more anecdotal evidence). 'I' maintain a very
healthy FOWLR aquarium sans water changes. I was merely offering my
experiences to the 'herd' as an alternative to water changes. Maybe,
just maybe a few people 'woke up' and are now questioning their own
aquarium maintaince practices. I offer no guarantees for success.
'take it or leave it'

This is the most concise, well thought-out, informed, and polite (only one
'herd' comment) segment I think you've ever posted in this forum. Had you
started with the above, intead of this;

"Most of these knuckle
heads in this NG are brain washed into thinking you have to do water
changes. The people who push it are LFS owners like Wayne. The more
water
changes you do the more money he makes."

I'd say you would have had a very different past two weeks, here...

Maybe. Maybe not.


I think you are right about water changes, to a certain extent, but i'm a
bit more cautious about which setups I would consider NWC for, especially
reef type setups.

My experience has directed me to the following conclusion (again, take it or
leave it): Water changes weaken your bioload. Bacteria exist in your
aquarium that take care of ammonia, nitrite AND nitrate. The end result is
N2(g) and H2O. I would suggest stopping your water changes gradually (gauge
by testing) to allow your bacteria to proliferate.


If you have the time to post the extra information about your tank and
parameters I asked for above, I'd appreciate it. See you all after the
holiday...

Regards,
DaveZ
Atom Weaver

Tank size? 75 G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
Tank age? 2 years (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump? Yes (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
sump size? approx. 5G (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)
nutrient export? ???
fish species/size? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

How many fish do you have?

Equipment setup (skimmer, lights,powerheads, sterilizer, carbon, phos-
reactor, other filtration etc)? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as
evidence)

Do you only have a skimmer?

Feeding schedule? (I'm not sure how this qualifies as evidence)

Do you feed everyday?

Thank you steve

See my web site
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/myreef/