What’s using the flouride?

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

That’s a great analogy actually. So let’s take it a little further. I’m sure you love your dogs and cats but raise the stakes a bit higher. Would you be willing to live and have your love ones live in a house with 0% argon (perhaps replaced with nitrogen) for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps you might initially answer yes, assuming that argon is inert.

Now let’s present research that argon affects human GABA receptors and thus has neurological effects, along with other organ protecting effects.

Argon reduces the pulmonary vascular tone in rats and humans by GABA-receptor activation - PubMed

Argon exerts neuroprotection. Thus, it might improve patients' neurological outcome after cerebral disorders or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, limited data are available concerning its effect on pulmonary vessel and airways. We used rat isolated perfused lungs (IPL) and precision-cut...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Argon gas: a potential neuroprotectant and promising medical therapy

Argon is a noble gas element that has demonstrated narcotic and protective abilities that may prove useful in the medical field. The earliest records of argon gas have exposed its ability to exhibit narcotic symptoms at hyperbaric pressures greater than ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A Complete Review of Preclinical and Clinical Uses of the Noble Gas Argon: Evidence of Safety and Protection

The noble gas argon (Ar) is a “biologically” active element and has been extensively studied preclinically for its organ protection properties. This work reviews all preclinical studies employing Ar and describes the clinical uses reported ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Would this data change your mind in regard to living in an apartment or house with 0% argon. We can’t prove that it will adversely affect their health over the long run. But would you now be willing to risk it based on that lack of knowledge and data of biological effects? Also let’s not forget evolution. Organisms have evolved with a certain percentage of argon in the atmosphere, and certain concentrations of fluoride in the seawater for billions of years. And often when the environment is not biologically controlled for, changes in that environment affect organisms in both positive and negative ways because evolution is slow to deal with rapid changes.

Now obviously we’re talking about corals, and not human beings so the stakes are not the same. But in a risk analysis we’d also look at cost.
Would it not seem prudent to spend maybe $100 a year on dosing to prevent what may be several hundred or thousands of dollars of loss to expensive coral. Given that coral health research gets a minuscule fraction of the funds as human health, we may never get close to the data we have on even argon with human health.

And for the record, I’m not arguing that we just start dosing anything. Only that fluoride has some known biological uses, and we have a reasonable hypothesis that it may play a role, along with anecdotal evidence. Personally I did see color improvement in Acropora. I can’t tell you if it was blue, or what, but obviously we know all sorts of coral health changes can affect coloration in different ways, even if we can’t pinpoint it.

Anyway, I’m not arguing that everyone should be dosing flouride, because, frankly, I don’t know. But I do think we should still make sure we are curious, that we are still asking questions about it, and being scientific about it. Until we have a falsifiable hypothesis, it’s best to remain skeptical of both claims fluoride is important and unimportant.

I initially posted this because I couldn’t find anything substantial one way or the other and was hoping there was more up to date info. It’s a shame we are asking some of the same questions 30 years on. I think what would be most helpful is to try and push for more data and experimentation. Perhaps try and get ICP companies involved in open data sharing and experimental data collection and working with the research community.

I’d do the no argon test. The fact that an element or anything else might have an effect at much higher than normal levels isn’t convincing to me that normal amounts are needed or beneficial. That is clearly the case for a huge array of things, including X-rays, uranium, etc.

 

[Righteous]

I’d do the no argon test. The fact that an element or anything else might have an effect at much higher than normal levels isn’t convincing to me that normal amounts are needed or beneficial. That is clearly the case for a huge array of things, including X-rays, uranium, etc.

But neither is it convincing that because you believe argon is inert, it has no physiological requirement for health at regular levels.

Skepticism goes both ways. At this point you’re not skeptical enough that it may or may not have an effect and willing to bet the “no effect” based on no data to back it up other than instinct. That’s not very scientific in my opinion.

 

[Righteous]

Can you cite what corals in what tank became more colorful when suddenly dosing only fluoride?

I noticed changes Acropora primarily. I run a triton tank so no water changes. When I started dosing it was the only element I hadn’t been dosing before (primarily I dosed manganese, molybdenum, zinc, and iodine daily which would all get depleted very rapidly, and then others based on ICP to maintain NSW levels)

Here are the corals I noticed changes in (sorry these aren’t the best quality).

This coral was much less purple, much more brown. I noticed also some green highlights around polyps when it was only one color.

This coral had toe most drastic change. It had no color at all. It was one shade of brown.

This coral was also one color and now shows more shading

These photos aren’t great. I would say overall taking in the tank as a whole Acropora looked healthier.

I am 100% self aware of placebo effect and that other variables I was unaware of changing.

Who do you propose test all of your hypotheses?

What about staring with a poll to see if anyone else has seen changes with fluoride dosing and see if people post more specific information?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

But neither is it convincing that because you believe argon is inert, it has no physiological requirement for health at regular levels.

Skepticism goes both ways. At this point you’re not skeptical enough that it may or may not have an effect and willing to bet the “no effect” based on no data to back it up other than instinct. That’s not very scientific in my opinion.

Skepticism and wanting some evidence of utility is certainly appropriate, IMO.

The lack of evidence is not just from years of successful reefers not doing it, but from decades of scientists studying biology if all kinds.

I’m skeptical in general that hobbyists will ever be the first to discover some new biological use for an element, but of course, that is just a prediction. No one can ever prove a negative.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

What about staring with a poll to see if anyone else has seen changes with fluoride dosing and see if people post more specific information?

Sure, happy to do that.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I added a fluoride poll here. I added my experience which was to notice no effect, though I do not recall if I had SPS during that experiment.

Anyone detect clear evidence of a fluoride effect?

Anyone see a clear effect of any sort in a reef tank when starting or stopping dosing of just fluoride and nothing else?

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Reefahholic]

Can you cite what corals in what tank became more colorful when suddenly dosing only fluoride?

A lot of corals. My purple teal Stag, Oregon tort, a few Tenuis, etc.

Post reply #23

One obviously cannot count any results from folks who suddenly began dosing many things, as folks following the trendy icp dosing schemes typically do.

Many people were not dosing Fluoride at all, and that is how they noticed a marked difference in color.

Who do you propose test all of your hypotheses?

I don’t expect anybody to test anything. People are shooting themselves in the foot by “not dosing elements back” that we know are found in NSW. This doesn’t just apply to corals. Everything is utilizing trace elements for many different functions and processes. I agree that not every single element found in NSW or in a coral skeleton has a known biological role. Many pollutants make it into seawater. However, if there’s a decent amount of anecdotal evidence that suggests a particular element is beneficial, and zero evidence that suggests otherwise, I’d rather supplement that element vs leave it completely depleted until I learn new information.

Skepticism and wanting some evidence of utility is certainly appropriate, IMO.

He just gave you evidence with pictures.

What’s using the flouride?

That’s a great analogy actually. So let’s take it a little further. I’m sure you love your dogs and cats but raise the stakes a bit higher. Would you be willing to live and have your love ones live in a house with 0% argon (perhaps replaced with nitrogen) for the rest of their lives. Perhaps...

www.reef2reef.com

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

He just gave you evidence with pictures.

In this forum, I’ve been given evidence of all sorts of things, some of which may be cause and effect and other things are certainly not.

Ive personally done biological experiments with both positive and negative controls, and sometimes those experiments gave a different result when repeated. Biological experimentation does not live by a single observation, either positive or negative, both of which we have here. Couple that with lack of plausible reasons for the effect, and I remain skeptical..

 

[Reefahholic]

In this forum, I’ve been given evidence of all sorts of things, some of which may be cause and effect and other things are certainly not.

Ive personally done biological experiments with both positive and negative controls, and sometimes those experiments gave a different result when repeated. Biological experimentation does not live by a single observation, either positive or negative, both of which we have here. Couple that with lack of plausible reasons for the effect, and I remain skeptical..

Fair enough. I think in the future we will see more data emerge, that will give us a better understanding. For now, I just observe the corals and let them tell me.

 

[Righteous]

In this forum, I’ve been given evidence of all sorts of things, some of which may be cause and effect and other things are certainly not.

Ive personally done biological experiments with both positive and negative controls, and sometimes those experiments gave a different result when repeated. Biological experimentation does not live by a single observation, either positive or negative, both of which we have here.

I have to agree with Randy on a basic level here. I don’t think one or two people’s photos and anecdotes alone suffice.

It’s also true that most people confuse correlation with causation… “I dosed this and everything looks amazing”.. or “I dosed this and everything died.” Less reputable companies use peoples biases here to make money off of them, so Randy rightfully gets skeptical.

I think consistent well documented experience can give us a starting point to decide if things are worth investigating but by itself doesn’t prove anything.

Couple that with lack of plausible reasons for the effect, and I remain skeptical

I’m just pulling this hypothesis out of left field so it may be completely off base, so feel free to pull it apart. From the research I’ve read and some I posted above, it sounds like Acropora are more susceptible to local pH changes around new skeletal growth than other species. The new growth goes from being in “internal calcifying fluid” to “external calcifying fluid” and with Acropora that seems to happen sooner during the crystallization process (this is what I understand from the research)

We also know that rtn/stn starts at tips and base, usually where new growth is occurring.

So a hypothesis is that those areas are more susceptible to local pH fluctuations. For instance bacteria metabolism lowering pH significantly (same as it does on teeth). And with teeth, saliva itself maintains fluoride ions that help quickly remineralize areas subject to the low pH. Here is where in acroporas case the external fluid’s fluoride level might matter. My understanding is fluoride helps do this with apatite in teeth because it is so reactive it quickly reacts in those areas damaged by the low pH. An assumption here is that this occurs with aragonite in some similar manner, which I’m assuming because we find it in coral skeletons as such.

And what we might see as coloration changes could be more of an effect of coral health improving, requiring less energy to repair growth and be put into things like pigmentation, overall health etc. People’s specific color changes they see could be nothing more than coincidence.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

And what we might see as coloration changes could be more of an effect of coral health improving, requiring less energy to repair growth and be put into things like pigmentation, overall health etc. People’s specific color changes they see could be nothing more than coincidence.

Ok, thanks. It is certainly true that fluoride gets into calcium carbonate with two fluorides getting into the place of one carbonate. I’m not sure what effect that has on the aragonite, but I’ll see if there is any info available on changes in properties.

It is fairly widely studied to try to understand ancient seawater carbonate concentrations.

 

[Righteous]

normal levels isn’t convincing to me that normal amounts are needed or beneficial. That is clearly the case for a huge array of things, including X-rays, uranium, etc

Not to go entirely off topic, but I was going to comment on this but wanted to make sure I could back it up. There is growing evidence that various background levels of radiation are at the very least important for genetic diversity, but may also have some positive biological activity:

“Cell response to low doses of ionizing radiation appears more complex than that assumed for radiation protection purposes and that it is not always detrimental. Experiments conducted in underground laboratories with very low background radiation have even suggested positive effects of this background”

The Response of Living Organisms to Low Radiation Environment and Its Implications in Radiation Protection

Life has evolved on Earth for about 4 billion years in the presence of the natural background of ionizing radiation. It is extremely likely that it contributed, and still contributes, to shaping present form of life. Today the natural background radiation ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

“Considerable data have also accumulated demonstrating that low doses of ionising radiation can stimulate mechanisms that can prevent or delay cancer formation.”

Loading…

www.pathologyjournal.rcpa.edu.au

Sorry not trying to go off topic and discus uranium dosing just found the information fascinating and wanted to share

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Not to go entirely off topic, but I was going to comment on this but wanted to make sure I could back it up. There is growing evidence that various background levels of radiation are at the very least important for genetic diversity, but may also have some positive biological activity:

“Cell response to low doses of ionizing radiation appears more complex than that assumed for radiation protection purposes and that it is not always detrimental. Experiments conducted in underground laboratories with very low background radiation have even suggested positive effects of this background”

The Response of Living Organisms to Low Radiation Environment and Its Implications in Radiation Protection

Life has evolved on Earth for about 4 billion years in the presence of the natural background of ionizing radiation. It is extremely likely that it contributed, and still contributes, to shaping present form of life. Today the natural background radiation ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

“Considerable data have also accumulated demonstrating that low doses of ionising radiation can stimulate mechanisms that can prevent or delay cancer formation.”

Loading…

www.pathologyjournal.rcpa.edu.au

Sorry not trying to go off topic and discus uranium dosing just found the information fascinating and wanted to share

Biology is very complex, and many things known to stress organisms in various ways can have both positive and negative effects as the organism responds to that stress and the response may help deal with other problems.

The most classic example was the start of the vaccination methodology, with milk maids who caught cow pox being less prone to getting small pox. It was clearly a benefit for those folks to catch cow pox, but that’s very different than saying they need it. Zeo folks stressing corals with copper to get better color is an example close to home.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Maybe in that vein, the fact that a few folks report negative responses, perhaps to levels only a bit above NSW levels, that some of the effects folks see from fluoride are a stress response to fluoride doing something they do not like (such as messing with the skeleton).

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Unfortunately I could not find any studies on the impact of fluoride incorporation into aragonite on its physical properties. Lots of incorporation studies, as paleo chemistry indicators about ancient oceans, but none that suggest if it changes properties or has any benefits or detriments to organisms.

If anyone sees such a study, please post it.