Tom, you have not addressed several of my points in your last reply, nor have you provided any links or journals which support your conclusions that micros don't build up to toxic ranges in the aquarium. If you want to talk about proof then you need to back up your claims as well. You mentioned your 15+ years aquarium experience in an earlier post. That is not proof. I also have 15+ years of experience, as well as many years working in research labs, Yale University being one of them.
Say you want 0.2ppm of Cu at your threshold:
0.5 Fe x 20X = 10 ppm
0.01 Cu X 20X = 0.2 ppm
Overdoing it 20X is not been done by anyone I've known or seen on line ever.
Say the toxic dose is 0.02 ppm Cu
That's still 2X the more than the upper limit for EI.
Math don't lie.
If you are starting with pure RO water with no other sources of micros then you are correct. However, most people do not reconstitute RO water, they use city or well water which have varying quantities of micro nutrients in them. I do not claim that copper is the heavy metal that always causes toxicity problems in our tanks. Most of the micros can cause issues when in toxic ranges. There are many situations that can bring about higher than normal concentrations of one or many micro nutrients. I already stated two in my previous post:
What about people who have naturally higher levels of certain micro nutrients in their tap water? What happens when we add very high trace nutrients to their tank? Both doses combine and you can fully enter toxic ranges.
What about people who have small tanks and accidentally add a teaspoon of micros 3x a week? A teaspoon doesn't seem like that much to a beginner, but in a small tank it can quickly reach toxicity levels especially since plants don't use up micros as quickly as they do macros.
I have seen these both happen and have documented water values for each micro nutrient that was in the water at the time. In each case micro nutrients had entered the toxic range and unsurprisingly the plants showed micro nutrient toxicity symptoms. In addition, when micros were flushed out of the tank using RO water the problems disappeared as well.
Yet another example is when soil is used and heavy handed EI dosing is continued. The combined micros leaching from the soil and from EI can easily reach toxicity ranges.
Have you tested copper in planted tanks? It does not last long. Try it and see for yourself, do not take my word for it. Plants can handle quite a bit. Shrimp are the best bet for a hyper sensitive species. They are the best bet for a "canary in the coal mine"
I have actually. I had my water samples analyzed by lab grade equipment several times and there seems to be a lot of interesting data showing which micros end up staying in the water column. The most consistent part is that plants show signs of toxicity every time the heavy metals exceed certain concentrations. Read the second thread I provided in post #20. In addition to that thread, there are several other threads on various forums that describe similar examples.
See the table of test results when CSM+B was used:
I've shown there's no risk at high CMS+B dosing for Shrimp.
I've got video, I've got long term photo journals, I've got dozens of local hobbyists who have seen my tanks in person.
Those are the facts.
It is good that you are documenting your tests. However, showing that shrimp do not die when CSM+B is dosed in moderation is not what I am claiming. If your copper levels reach the proven LD50 levels for copper or other heavy metals the shrimp will likely die. It is in the literature, or are you arguing that the literature values do not apply in our tanks?
You cannot logically conclude that there is risk, when others have show otherwise. People make these claims X is caused by Y, but then do not test their own hypotheses. These are not my hypotheses. They are yours, you argue for them, then you do the work.
Tom, you clearly didn't read through the links I provided where I showed the potential risk.
In addition, you have not provided any evidence in this thread to show that there is no risk.
Even if there might be and you want to use belief, you can still switch to a different brand. Both management issues are easily met.
Hobbyists test all kinds of things in their tanks every day arriving at all sorts of conclusions, what makes them wrong and you right? You have not provided any links to your relevant toxicity tests, your means of analyzing results, or even background literature evidence as I have when writing replies. There is no way to fact check your statement that 'we can never realistically reach micro toxicity ranges in our aquariums.' You asked for proof of my ideas, and I provided links to some of my research, now where is your evidence for your claims?
Chelation makes a massive difference in toxicity, and we all add chelated metals for traces. I am also unaware of any shrimp studies that had planted tanks, CO2 enriched systems, this makes growth, uptake and many other issues very different compared to the research.
Chelation does reduce toxicity, sometimes by quite a lot depending on the metal we are talking about. I have been very careful to state this in several of my previous posts and summaries.
Research is a good starting point, but unless it's pretty specific to our systems and there's also observations that are not falsified already, it can be misapplied. We assumed that PO4 above 0.2ppm induced algae based on that same logic and research for support.
Research is the most valid way we have of examining the processes that occur in our tanks. Most of the studies I have looked at on toxicities use the aquatic plant species we often keep, there is no closer analog to our system than that or do you believe that your personal tests are more accurate than peer reviewed lab tests conducted by a team of researchers with funding?
Clearly that was not true. The same logic I used there I'm using here. All I have to do is falsify it. If I or others cannot, then I tentatively accept it.
I've already falsified your claim way beyond the typical dosing routines and errors newbies and folks who are prone to make mistakes might do.
CMS might be more toxic to livestock than Flourish, but........I've gone overboard with both enough to know there's little associated risk.
One calculation hardly constitutes falsifying all my evidence especially when I have made it easy for you to examine my data and my ideas by providing links, research journals and data from research publications. You also have not addressed all of the points I brought up in my previous post.
If you wish to do more research and post your findings then I will look them over and perhaps we can mutually agree on what ranges are realistically toxic for each micro nutrient, otherwise as you have stated yourself in several places you do not know what the toxicity ranges are for the micros.