UV or not

Pszemol wrote:

And it really does not matter if you have tanks for 25 years or 2 months.
Scientific method is much more important in judging how UV affects ich.

Observation is the single most important tool in the scientific method, and, in
most sciences, it is the only tool. Nearly everything we know about this world
has been learned purely by observation.

I suppose you regard the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun as
"anegdotal evidence or wishfull thinking?"

George Patterson
If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess
to anything.

"George Patterson" wrote in message news:bUZGh.483$as.116@trnddc04...
Observation is the single most important tool in the scientific method, and, in
most sciences, it is the only tool. Nearly everything we know about this world
has been learned purely by observation.

The point is that to make a valid observation you HAVE TO prepare
the subject of yout test properly. Without this, you basically confirm
your wishfull thinking...

I suppose you regard the fact that the Earth revolves around
the Sun as "anegdotal evidence or wishfull thinking?"

I suppose you would agree with clerics chasing away Copernicus
for claiming their observation was wrong, and Sun does not
circle the Earth with the whole Universe... :-)))
Everybody who "observes" Sun and stars at night knows that
every celestial body runs around the Earth, the center of Universe :-)

Observation is not everything... you could conclude WRONGLY
from an observation, regardless how long you would observe.

Pszemol wrote:

The point is that to make a valid observation you HAVE TO prepare
the subject of yout test properly.

I am not conducting tests. I'm simply using something and commenting on the
observed effects of that usage. The observed FACT is that ich spreads less
rapidly and is more easily controlled in tanks that have UV sterilizers than in
those without them.

George Patterson
If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess
to anything.

"George Patterson" wrote in message news:ik_Gh.567$as.192@trnddc04...
Pszemol wrote:

The point is that to make a valid observation you HAVE TO prepare
the subject of yout test properly.

I am not conducting tests. I'm simply using something and commenting on the
observed effects of that usage. The observed FACT is that ich spreads less
rapidly and is more easily controlled in tanks that have UV sterilizers than in
those without them.

No, you have no idea about effects of UV :-)

You stated fact, that in your tanks, with unspecified fish
and unspecified UV you observed such and such amount
of infections. You cannot say if it was LESS or MORE than
in tanks without UV or judge effects of UV lamps on ich
because you did not run controlled group of fish/tanks
without UV to compare them with the same amount of
freshly arrived fish/rock from the ocean.

You cannot compare apples to oranges because you will
conclude WRONGly and your conclusion is just stating
your wishful thinking about UV lamps not scientific facts
about these lamps.

Each person falling for a UV lamp in the store wishes
his/her money were not wasted. So it is easy to come up
with rationalization on how UV lamp is making your life better.
It could be true that aquarium grade lamps have not enough
dosage of UV during the short time water passing the lamp
to impact life off the organisms suspended in the water...
So adding UV lamp to a tank could not do much in most
cases - it could be just money costing placebo for a fish tank
owner to make him feel better :-)

Until you understand scientific method and how it works
further discussion on this subject is futile.

Pszemol wrote on 3/5/2007 3:23 PM:
It could be true that aquarium grade lamps have not enough
dosage of UV during the short time water passing the lamp
to impact life off the organisms suspended in the water...
So adding UV lamp to a tank could not do much in most

It is true that most people that use UV sterilizers
run water through too fast. And most people that
purchase a UV, purchase one that is too small for
what they are wanting it to do.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets

"Wayne Sallee" wrote in message nk.net...
Pszemol wrote on 3/5/2007 3:23 PM:
It could be true that aquarium grade lamps have not enough
dosage of UV during the short time water passing the lamp
to impact life off the organisms suspended in the water...
So adding UV lamp to a tank could not do much in most

It is true that most people that use UV sterilizers
run water through too fast. And most people that
purchase a UV, purchase one that is too small for
what they are wanting it to do.

In effect, the lamp installed in the tank does not kill anything.

It is working as placebo - that is what I was talking about :-))

Also, if you do not have ich in your tank you cannot tell
what is the reason behind it. You do not know even if the
parasite arrived in your tank and got eaten by cleaner shrimps
crabs or some other animal before got a chance to infect fish.
Stating as a fact that tanks to UV lamp you do not have ich in
your tank is just empty speculation without scientific base.

This is not science, this is how myths are born :-)

It is true that most people that use UV sterilizers
run water through too fast. And most people that
purchase a UV, purchase one that is too small for
what they are wanting it to do.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne's Pets


I used to use one but haven't for a couple of years. I'm thinking about it
again. I have a 210 gallon reef . My primary interest is killing stray
pathogens. I'm thinking 40 watts and maybe 200 gallon/hour?

Bob

"Bob" wrote in message ...
I used to use one but haven't for a couple of years. I'm thinking about
it again. I have a 210 gallon reef . My primary interest is killing stray
pathogens. I'm thinking 40 watts and maybe 200 gallon/hour?

What "stray pathogens" you have on your mind?
This water flow is good enough to kill bacteria, algae
but to kill cilliates/prothozoans you need to slow down
to about 40 gph or even less for worms/crustaceans...

Good point.



"Pszemol" wrote in message
...
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:bUZGh.483$as.116@trnddc04...
Observation is the single most important tool in the scientific method,
and, in
most sciences, it is the only tool. Nearly everything we know about this
world
has been learned purely by observation.

The point is that to make a valid observation you HAVE TO prepare
the subject of yout test properly. Without this, you basically confirm
your wishfull thinking...

I suppose you regard the fact that the Earth revolves around
the Sun as "anegdotal evidence or wishfull thinking?"

I suppose you would agree with clerics chasing away Copernicus
for claiming their observation was wrong, and Sun does not
circle the Earth with the whole Universe... :-)))
Everybody who "observes" Sun and stars at night knows that
every celestial body runs around the Earth, the center of Universe :-)

Observation is not everything... you could conclude WRONGLY
from an observation, regardless how long you would observe.