HOBBY GRADE TEST KITS CAN OUTPERFORM ICP MEASUREMENTS…REALLY??

[Reefahholic]

By the way, it’s obvious that the first two companies (LT) are sourcing the same raw materials for their products.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You are using the book you are quoting passages from as a reference to prove that the passages are true.

Asking again- If we don’t known the beneficial or ideal levels of those 40+ elements or compounds and we do know that the testing method may not be accurate or precise in measuring them… then how do we accurately dose them?

 

[Reefahholic]

we do know that the testing method may not be accurate or precise in measuring them.

May not be…or isn’t? You don’t know for sure and neither do they.

Anyway, we do have a good idea about target ranges based on NSW parameters, anecdotal observations/data, trial and error, etc. There’s thousands of people in our group who will tell you they’re not having problems accurately dosing elements and growing/coloring corals. If nobody’s doses were resulting the way we’d expect, everybody would leave the method. That’s just not the case. We’ve probably grown by 2K people this year already. The data is accurate enough, and reefers are having a lot of success.

Even if the margin of error is 3%, 5%, etc…the risk is too high to ignore elements like Cu, Zn, Nd, Sn, W, etc. I want my corals to thrive unhindered by toxic metals. I can always observe the ICP data, “but I don’t have to act” if I feel something is not accurate. Seeing the data is better than being in the dark.

Let’s say the margin of error is over 5% for some elements. I’m not saying it is, but hypothetically…let’s say Nd comes back at 500 or 600 ug/L. Who cares…I know it’s in the system and I can take action. I refuse to leave my source water and many other elements unchecked. I refuse to keep dosing products that are overdosing Lithium or Bromide when I have the ability to stop it. That’s the benefit of ICP data. Trust it or not, it’s working for people.

 

[Thales]

Trust it or not, it’s working for people.

That is what a lot of folks said about vibrant, Marc Weiss products, and the Ecoaqualizer. This is not me bashing any method, rather pointing out that every "method" can produce great results. So it may not be the particular method that is generating 'success', but the attention to the system that is generating success.
ICP is fine for what it can actually do, and it only gets weird when folks give it more credit that what it can actually do.

 

[KStatefan]

Andre just sent several ICP-MS on multiple products. I edited this picture to avoid drama, but you can see that ICP data can be very beneficial to eliminate products containing higher levels of certain elements which can become a problem over time. Without this data we couldn’t eliminate these issues. Thank you OCEAMO.

We can pretend this data isn’t accurate, but I can promise that people with higher levels will see a reduction. You can bet on that.

What is this chart saying?

 

[Pod_01]

Even if the margin of error is 3%, 5%, etc…the risk is too high to ignore elements like Cu, Zn, Nd, Sn, W, etc.

I am with you with Cu and Zn, from my experience at proper level they do help. Too much is not desirable.

The last 3, good or bad? You dose them or just don’t want them? I am sure they are in seawater but tin? Tungsten? and Neodymium?
Can you even unintentionally accumulate the last two? I guess you could put AP round in A tank and get Tungsten!!!!

Just curious…

 

[areefer01]

it only gets weird when folks give it more credit that what it can actually do.

Unrelated to ICP discussion but this is also true of many other things in this hobby. UV, bottles of magic potion, and so on.

Hope everyone's Monday is starting well.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I understand that. I was asking what you mean when you wrote "Icp companies certainly intend to give the same accurate results".

I was responding to reefaholic saying it is only noisy comparing between companies.

 

[Rick Mathew]

That is what a lot of folks said about vibrant, Marc Weiss products, and the Ecoaqualizer. This is not me bashing any method, rather pointing out that every "method" can produce great results. So it may not be the particular method that is generating 'success', but the attention to the system that is generating success.
ICP is fine for what it can actually do, and it only gets weird when folks give it more credit that what it can actually do.

Interesting point.

I think it should be of concern to all of us that we often buy into pseudoscience results that are filled with anecdotal observations and poorly designed experiments. We then for some reason establish “hard and fast” positions on these results and find it difficult to consider other alternatives….This in my view is very limiting and can be a detriment to discovery, innovation and the search for truth, which is my understanding of what science is all about. This is true in many aspects of life not just our reefing community and I personally believe to some degree we all do this!...Just my opinion.

 

[Pod_01]

This in my view is very limiting and can be a detriment to discovery, innovation and the search for truth, which is my understanding of what science is all about.

Just to nitpick “Science and truth” don’t go together.
In science you have law, theories, hypothesis etc….
Here is a quote from the net that explains it better:

Searching for Truth is something different.

 

[jda]

That is what a lot of folks said about vibrant, Marc Weiss products, and the Ecoaqualizer.

This is the way that it goes with trust-me type of deals. The fanboys find any reason not to trust another, but none not to trust theirs. They often do not know that this type of deal has existed since at least the early 1990s when I got started in the hobby and this is all just on wash-rinse-repeat. Nor do they know that they are actually in a trust-me type of deal.

Seriously, can anybody who is not a fanboy let me know if a single element that is actually proven to provide value in elemental form, does not exist in any other form and does not have a good-enough test kit on the market for me to use on my own? This is the only reason why I might use a plasma test where I could get a reliable number to take action upon.

 

[Rick Mathew]

Just to nitpick “Science and truth” don’t go together.
In science you have law, theories, hypothesis etc….
Here is a quote from the net that explains it better:

Searching for Truth is something different.

Yes as Obi Wan says from a “certain point of view”… - "One of the strengths of science is its inherent skepticism. Scientists challenge existing ideas and theories to improve our understanding, which can lead to a better approximation of 'truth.'"…I fully acknowledge that the concept of “truth” is quite philosophical and can be debated in great detail…Thanks for the reminder

 

[BeanAnimal]

Exactly - even if we could measure 40+ parameters with 100% certainty and precision of NSW and our tanks and dose the difference, is there proof that this is beneficial? What subset of those elements or compounds are active and drive any type of response or provide any type of benefit, and which of them are just passive filler or even detrimental.

So the goal of making our water match NSW sounds reasonable, and is not likely a bad idea, but is all of the trouble needed vs some known (or unknown) subset of parameters.

 

[jda]

I do think that it is hilarious that people often want to argue other people's truths but their own are facts. We are all probably guilty of this to some degree.

Not that we can measure seawater or our tanks with any kid of actionable precision, but what of the elements in seawater that we do not measure or test for in our tanks? Why do we assume that they are not important? The ocean holds an estimated 20 million tons of gold in it's waters (700 trillion dollars worth, or more). Why not test and dose for that? There is evidence that gold can reduce inflammation in organic tissue. Is gold just not important because X ICP company does not test for it nor does company Y sell a supplement for it?

 

[jda]

I was talking with a friend last week about a bio DNA test that started to scare the heck out of people into getting tests because of SCTLD - the buzzword scared them. I am going to start to call this reefing backwards where some vendor says that something must be true and people all of a sudden think that it is an issue and find a way to mostly blindly work towards that supposed truth.

I want to reef forward. I guess that if reefing backwards is desirable then putting all trust in ICP and some supplements is probably as good as anything.

Maybe this whole divide comes down to forward vs backward reefing.

BTW - SCTLD is not something to worry about in our tanks.

 

[BeanAnimal]

As I have said from the beginning. I don't think that ICP is useless, I now question the stock being put into it as the "better" testing method or "gold standard" testing method to reference other tests off of.

EOS was touted as the gold standard, and now MS. However, I think the data and reality indicates that neither are much more accurate than manual tests and if that error rate is applied to the 40 things that can't easily be hobby tested, then it is likely those are not accurate either. Reefaholoc mentioned the "noise" between vendors.... It is not the noise between vendors that is the issue. It is that the proponents are using the levels within that noise as a basis for dosing.

Garbage in, garbage out. The easily understandable parallel is using 5 decimal places to make decisions when you only have 1 decimal place worth of precision in your measuring tools.

 

[areefer01]

As I have said from the beginning. I don't think that ICP is useless, I now question the stock being put into it as the "better" testing method or "gold standard" testing method to reference other tests off of.

EOS was touted as the gold standard, and now MS. However, I think the data and reality indicates that neither are much more accurate than manual tests and if that error rate is applied to the 40 things that can't easily be hobby tested, then it is likely those are not accurate either. Reefaholoc mentioned the "noise" between vendors.... It is not the noise between vendors that is the issue. It is that the proponents are using the levels within that noise as a basis for dosing.

Garbage in, garbage out. The easily understandable parallel is using 5 decimal places to make decisions when you only have 1 decimal place worth of precision in your measuring tools.

This is why the hobby is so fractured between us (my opinion). I will say though that the discussion has been civil regardless of ones viewpoint. That is nice.

 

[Rick Mathew]

This is why the hobby is so fractured between us (my opinion). I will say though that the discussion has been civil regardless of ones viewpoint. That is nice.

Good observation!

If I might interject a philosophical thought.

Interesting word that word “fracture”. Generally fracture only occurs when something is brittle…not flexible. This is what I was talking about in post # 289…Becoming “hard and fast” and unwilling to listen and consider a thought or idea that doesn’t fit my current view or belief…That is why it is important as you well pointed out to have a civil conversation….I think of it like working with clay…As long as you work it and keep it moist you can make something out of it, but once you put it into the fire (heat…like heated discussion) it becomes hard and brittle and subject to “fracture”

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Just to nitpick “Science and truth” don’t go together.
In science you have law, theories, hypothesis etc….
Here is a quote from the net that explains it better:

Searching for Truth is something different.

I don’t believe that quote reflects my understanding of science.

 

[Pod_01]

I don’t believe that quote reflects my understanding of science.

Hmmmm….. so what is your understanding?

I see law (for example first law of thermodynamics ), theory (Theory of relativity), hypothesis etc…
being part of science….


Truth is more philosophical conversation.

Problem with quotes in general is some can agree, some can partially agree and some can completely disagree.
Would this one work better?