There are so many factors that can affect carbon that is would be darn hard to point to it as a definite cause of anything. Quality of carbon, source of material, how it was stored and handled, what it may have come in contact with before use int he tank, how often it is replaced in the tank (ie is it long since spent and just a nitrate trap?). Even the Britta people can't tell you how long carbon lasts. They expect that Britta filter to last a measly 60 passes or so of a small amount of water. Aquariums pass a lot more than that.
The carbon controversy HLLE and anything else you have.
- Thread starter Que
- Start date
- Status
I think the carbon/no carbon issue will always be a bit of controversy in the aquarium hobby. There are arguments on both sides of the fence. Reminds me of the question "Which came first - the chicken or the egg?"
Some may claim that while being an inert substance carbon can only absorb. I think that ultimately it comes down to personal preference. At our LFS not a single one uses carbon and has the standard shipping loss any pet store would have. I think water DOC content should be the deciding factor on whether or not to use it. Those on public water have things like fluoride and chloramine to worry about as it does not exist naturally in water. Those on well water may have other chemicals to worry about. I believe there to be too many water differences to draw a standard conclusion.
For someone to make a blanket statement is to err in scientific theory without providing a standard baseline from which to draw conclusions. My opinion is to go with what works for you and forget he articles you find. After all: "If it ain't broke don't fix it"!
Some may claim that while being an inert substance carbon can only absorb. I think that ultimately it comes down to personal preference. At our LFS not a single one uses carbon and has the standard shipping loss any pet store would have. I think water DOC content should be the deciding factor on whether or not to use it. Those on public water have things like fluoride and chloramine to worry about as it does not exist naturally in water. Those on well water may have other chemicals to worry about. I believe there to be too many water differences to draw a standard conclusion.
For someone to make a blanket statement is to err in scientific theory without providing a standard baseline from which to draw conclusions. My opinion is to go with what works for you and forget he articles you find. After all: "If it ain't broke don't fix it"!
Usually nitrate traps/factories refer to places that trap debris that eventually breaks down into nitrate, causing a signficant nitrate spike.
Carbon is far from a common cause of HLLE, but some cases have shown that it was the main and only cause IN THOSE CASES. It does not mean all cases of HLLE have anything to do with carbon, most don't.
My general statement of carbon being unnecessary and possibly harmful is onbviously limited by situations that do require it. Some people use it to treat incoming tap water, some use it as the only dechlorinator, others will have things in their tap that require some sort of filtration (carbon, RO, DI, etc.).
In my experience and in most cases with adequate water changes and filtration it is unnecessary and can remove beneficial things (especially in tanks with more than just fish, like planted and reef tanks).
Carbon is far from a common cause of HLLE, but some cases have shown that it was the main and only cause IN THOSE CASES. It does not mean all cases of HLLE have anything to do with carbon, most don't.
My general statement of carbon being unnecessary and possibly harmful is onbviously limited by situations that do require it. Some people use it to treat incoming tap water, some use it as the only dechlorinator, others will have things in their tap that require some sort of filtration (carbon, RO, DI, etc.).
In my experience and in most cases with adequate water changes and filtration it is unnecessary and can remove beneficial things (especially in tanks with more than just fish, like planted and reef tanks).
I just re-read that article.
As expected the normal errors were made.
1- People ASSUME it is all one disease. They use HITH and HLLE interchangeably or simply state HITH/HLLE as one disease. This assumption is not supported when you look at the lack of consistency in cases there is no known unity in causes. Assumptions are dangerous in science because they greatly limit seeing the whole picture and coming to the best conclusion.
A differentiation needs to be made. I split it into HITH (parasitic causes) and HLLE (non-parasitic causes).
2- People ASSUME there is a single cause. They look for one thing to be the same in all the cases. This is also not supported by the cases. Even within HLLE there is not the unity among the cases needed to support a single cause.
One error people make is they take a few cases and apply them to all the others. For example, citing a few cases where carbon was proven to be the cause and then stating 'carbon is the cause for all cases of HLLE' is obviously very inaccurate. However, looking at most cases and applying them to all the others is just as wrong. For example: if I find that in most cases an improvement in diet led to an improvement in the condition of the HLLE, and then I assumed that all the other cases were simply malnutrition, that is also very wrong. Anytime you look at specific cases they do not necessarily prove (or disprove) a general rule, but are simply facts for those particular cases that need to be accounted for in the big picture.
Science is taking all legitimate cases (the facts) and developing the simplest explanation for them (the theory). In this situation this CANNOT be done with just one cause (out of any that are commonly theorized as the cause).
HITH being caused by parasites is also highly debated. Many cite that Hexamita spp. are present in most fish, so that must not be the cause. This is a false assumption because we should all understand that just because a pathogen is present does not mean it will cause the disease. We have many pathogens inside us that are not causing problems. This may be permanent (we have antibodies for them) or temporary (until stress reduces the immune system's ability to fight that pathogen). In addition, they cite that in many cases of the disease the parasites were not present. In this case again you must acknowledge that the evidence does not support a single cause, so those cases may not have been parasitic, but it does not prove that none are. In addition, there are multiple parasites that have been associated with HITH. The most commonly cited is Hexamita spp. In addition, Spironucleus vortens has been shown to cause HITH. So even if they tested fish with HITH for one or the other and did not find it, that case may have been the other type of parasite or that case may not have been parasitic. This does not prove that HITH is never parasitic, just that not all cases are.
He also states that the carbon dust is to blame, not the carbon itself. He does not however support this at all. He simply states that the dust gets in the water and causes the disease. Without any support at all for this, it should be assumed to be a false conclusion.
As expected the normal errors were made.
1- People ASSUME it is all one disease. They use HITH and HLLE interchangeably or simply state HITH/HLLE as one disease. This assumption is not supported when you look at the lack of consistency in cases there is no known unity in causes. Assumptions are dangerous in science because they greatly limit seeing the whole picture and coming to the best conclusion.
A differentiation needs to be made. I split it into HITH (parasitic causes) and HLLE (non-parasitic causes).
2- People ASSUME there is a single cause. They look for one thing to be the same in all the cases. This is also not supported by the cases. Even within HLLE there is not the unity among the cases needed to support a single cause.
One error people make is they take a few cases and apply them to all the others. For example, citing a few cases where carbon was proven to be the cause and then stating 'carbon is the cause for all cases of HLLE' is obviously very inaccurate. However, looking at most cases and applying them to all the others is just as wrong. For example: if I find that in most cases an improvement in diet led to an improvement in the condition of the HLLE, and then I assumed that all the other cases were simply malnutrition, that is also very wrong. Anytime you look at specific cases they do not necessarily prove (or disprove) a general rule, but are simply facts for those particular cases that need to be accounted for in the big picture.
Science is taking all legitimate cases (the facts) and developing the simplest explanation for them (the theory). In this situation this CANNOT be done with just one cause (out of any that are commonly theorized as the cause).
HITH being caused by parasites is also highly debated. Many cite that Hexamita spp. are present in most fish, so that must not be the cause. This is a false assumption because we should all understand that just because a pathogen is present does not mean it will cause the disease. We have many pathogens inside us that are not causing problems. This may be permanent (we have antibodies for them) or temporary (until stress reduces the immune system's ability to fight that pathogen). In addition, they cite that in many cases of the disease the parasites were not present. In this case again you must acknowledge that the evidence does not support a single cause, so those cases may not have been parasitic, but it does not prove that none are. In addition, there are multiple parasites that have been associated with HITH. The most commonly cited is Hexamita spp. In addition, Spironucleus vortens has been shown to cause HITH. So even if they tested fish with HITH for one or the other and did not find it, that case may have been the other type of parasite or that case may not have been parasitic. This does not prove that HITH is never parasitic, just that not all cases are.
He also states that the carbon dust is to blame, not the carbon itself. He does not however support this at all. He simply states that the dust gets in the water and causes the disease. Without any support at all for this, it should be assumed to be a false conclusion.
I agree completely. A scientific fact is published as a fact when it can be verified by consistent testing against established parameters. Having HITH or HLLE without having a consistent cause associated with it becomes a cause of theory and not fact. There are far too many contributing factors that need to be weighed in before establish something as being factual. Without a known cause, carbon may or may not be a contributing factor. Until it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt as being harmful to aquatic life there is no scientific reason to use or not use carbon. Do what gives your fish the best health based on your experience in your environment. What is right for you may not be right for me because of my environment being different from yours.
How do you come to this conclusion?
Here is the scientific method step by step.
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Please elaborate on where the process is failing. Please note that step 5 is the all important one where there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Science can only prove, disprove or find a hypothesis inconclusive.
Q
Q: pulled it out of .....
Seriously though via adsorption of impurities in tap water some of the activated carbon will be rendered ineffective.
I was researching for the following when you posted which is hopefully a readers digest version (ie. little classical or quantum chemistry) of why activated carbon does it's thing.
An item to note is that a gram of activated carbon can have a surface area in excess of 500 m², with 1500 m² being readily achievable. For comparison, a tennis court is about 260 m².
What is the difference between graphite, diamond and activated carbon?
Graphite has a loose crystalline structure.
Diamond has a tight crystalline structure.
Activated carbon has no structure (ie. it is amorphous).
Diamond and to some extent graphite cannot easily be combined with other elements due to the interlocking of the carbon atoms which produces the crystalline structure.
The atoms in activated carbon are not bound to each other (ie. amorphous) and as such strong and weak electical and magnetic forces exist
When something comes along which is susceptible to these forces the activated carbon adsorbs this something which is many, many chemicals.
Interesting items to note are that activated carbon can sometimes be used in overdosing or poisoning situations in order to prevent lethality; and
is used in the processing of high $ vodka and whiskey in order to remove organic compounds.
Notable for us fish keepers is that activated carbon does not adsorb ammonia very well.
I have read stories concerning the time period during which activated carbon is effective and these stories vary the duration from seven days to twenty-eight days. I believe that these durations vary significantly as the period during which activated carbon is effective is dependent upon the concentration of the various molecules which it is adsorbing.
TR
BTW: I do not employ activated carbon in my typical filtration process.
Just a reminder for everyone on what the OPs intent was on this thread...
This post is intended to bring forth information and discussion about activated carbon, how it's used and what it does or doesn't do to our fish and water...
Not wether you should or shouldn't use it.
Thanks.
This post is intended to bring forth information and discussion about activated carbon, how it's used and what it does or doesn't do to our fish and water...
Not wether you should or shouldn't use it.
Thanks.
- Status
