PDA

View Full Version : Fishkeeping Quackery


jj
11th March 2005, 11:34 AM
Well, I think Randi has hit upon another hobby with a rather large variety of nonsense involved in it.

I used to keep a softwater (soft, acid, warm) tank populated with a bunch of amazon tropicals (it helped my well, at the time, was in a swamp, and I got swampwater, which is just what that kind of fish loves) and a bunch of southeast asian plants. (The amazon tends to be under tree canopy and varies in depth enough that it doesn't have a lot of indigenous plants, and plants that grow well definately add to the stability and health of a large (125 gal) aquarium.)

In any case, I didn't find quite as much total BS in the fishkeeping hobby, except in advertisements, but yes, there were the various magic things you should hang in the tank, things that never change and never get used up, that somehow make a difference. (Hint #1. ALL fishkeeping issues arise from substances being in the tank that need to be diluted out, or from something missing that needs to be SLOWLY added. Mostly things that need to be diluted out, unless you have a saltwater tank. If something never changes and never gets used up .....)

There were also some magic clips that you clipped on your filter lines, etc... Same sort of deal, never got used up, never actually touched the water in any meaningful fashion.

What I did find was present was a great (rule 8)ing lot of BAD SCIENCE. For freshwater acquaria, what keeps the thing healthy, in a nutshell, is the bacteria growing on your filter. Not the activated charcoal, or the mechanical removal of the sludge that gets trapped, but the bacteria growing in the filter that convert NH3 to Nitrite to Nitrate. Needless to say plants also help a lot with this one. So, even some of the mainstream filter makers insist that you "change your charcoal cartridge", etc, and the fact is simple, you should TAKE IT OUT AND PUT IN SOMETHING THAT PROVIDES A PLACE FOR THE RIGHT BACTERIA TO GROW. (there are reasons to use charcoal and the like, but they are quite limited in application and mean you're treating something) The best filters have nothing but sponge or ceramic substrate to provide a home for bacteria, and also some physical filtering so you can wash the gunk off the outside of the sponge once in a while. (using tank water, so as to not muck up your bacterial colony). There were many other examples of bad science as well, but you're probably asleep already.

And the key to keeping aquaria from having a buildup of metabolic products is just what you expect. Change water. For any realistic system you might make (in terms of fish load) you will not have enough plant growth to keep up.

And I can report that "hard to breed" amazon fish have no problems doing the deed if you provide them with food, clean water, and lots of plants for the fry to hide under, too. No effort applied, mind you, just let them do their thing.

jeremyp
11th March 2005, 12:32 PM
I think somebody needs to tell James Randi the difference between a hydrogen bond and a hydrogen atom though.

Although anything that could disrupt hydrogen bonds would be an interesting device. Apart from turning the water into a gas it would unzip the two DNA strands in each double helix of the fish in the tank.

Actually, wouldn't anything that makes water hot qualify?

jj
11th March 2005, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by jeremyp
I think somebody needs to tell James Randi the difference between a hydrogen bond and a hydrogen atom though.

Although anything that could disrupt hydrogen bonds would be an interesting device. Apart from turning the water into a gas it would unzip the two DNA strands in each double helix of the fish in the tank.

Actually, wouldn't anything that makes water hot qualify?

Well, hydrogen-oxygen bonds will disrupt every 45 minutes or so, on average (if I recall a water chemist here correctly) at 300K.

Hydrogen-somethingelse bonds might be more or less stable, depending on what the bond is, so I think you have to, practically speaking, refer to bonds between two atoms, or between a proton and a molecule it's attached to.

Edited to add: Well, I don't see any huge problem with what Randi said in the commentary. Perhaps he is confusing electrolysis with something involving no energy input, perhaps not, but it looks to me like his real point is that the chemistry of the device, which claims not to be used up, is, well, unusual, to say the least.