Protein Skimmer

[TamiW]

Originally posted by pledosophy


Do you know there is no scientific proof that establishes that humans have the ability to smell. It is still a mystery. The way the olfatory senses work still eludes science. Does that mean we cannot smell? At one time gravity was a theory, yet we don't float away.

I call bull**** on this. Where do you find information that says there is no scientific proof that humans have the ability to smell? That would be easily testable. ANd, if you bother to read the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction it goes into detail about the specific mechanisms of smell.

And gravity is still a theory.

[pledosophy]

Originally posted by djc1026
So let me see if I can summarize this

1. GBD occurs in systems with AND without skimmers.
2. GBD occurs more frequently in systems with skimmers.
3. GBD appears to be alleviated in systems with skimmers when the skimmer is removed.
4. A conclusion to be drawn is that skimmers are not the cause of GBD, but exacerbate the condition, which some seahorses may be predisposed to.

T

Jeez why did it take me so long to say all that?

Great summary. The only thing I would add/change is number 3. If it were my summary it would read:

GBD appears to be alleviated in systems with skimmers when the skimmer is removed, but has shown it will return if the skimmer is put back on the system.

I just polled everyone I know who owns seahorses in my local club. We have 95% skimmer use. That provides a correlation that skimmers actually reduce occurance of GBD.

95% SKimmer use, only 85% of cases had a skimmer, thats a pretty serious correlation. 5% of the tanks are accounting for 15% of the cases. That makes tanks without skimmers almost four times as likely to have GBD.

Curious to know how many people you polled, how many of them had skimmers, and how many if any had ever experienced GBD. Also what local reef club do you belong to? Do they have a forum where we could view the posts.

Sorry I don't follow your math. Where are you getting the 85%? Perhaps if you have mistaken this number it is possible you have confused others as well.

I don't think anyone has stated anywhere in this thread that every seahorse in a tank with an HOB skimmer is going to get GBD. I tried to make it clear that this disorder only affected a small number of seahorses and explain the circumstances surrounding the situation. Clearly I am not able to do so in a mannor in which you will understand.

Originally posted by FishGrrl
I call bull**** on this. Where do you find information that says there is no scientific proof that humans have the ability to smell? That would be easily testable. ANd, if you bother to read the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction it goes into detail about the specific mechanisms of smell.

And gravity is still a theory.

Hi Tami.

I originally saw the special on PBS. Honestly I fell asleep in the middle of it so I can't argue it's merits to much. I can't find the exact episode on the PBS site, just a box set that include the show.I guess you can't believe everything you see on TV.

Most of the time I don't like to use wikipedia as a resource. IME many of the authors there while well intentioned are misinformed. Take the page on seahorses for example (since this is the seahorse forum). There are errors in regards to nutrition, tankmates, and managomy to name a few.

While I am not really qualified to critique the article on wikipedia in regards to the ense of smell, it does appear to be well written. Further research shows that a few things have changed since I was in college.


Howard Hughes Medical Institute Article

"How we perceive such chemical substances as odors is a mystery that, until recently, defeated most attempts to solve it."

"When scientists tried to explore the details of this system, however, they hit a blank wall"

"This would be amazing progress for a sensory system that was virtually unexplored five years ago. Axel and Buck's discoveries have galvanized the study of olfaction, and scientists now flock to this field, aroused by the possibility of success, at last, in solving its mysteries."

Apparently I was wrong. In the past five years significant advances in the study of the sense of smell have been made. I think my point is still valid though. Just because something has not been proven by the scientific method, does not mean it is not so.

[pledosophy]

oops wrong button.

[TamiW]

Originally posted by pledosophy
Just because something has not been proven by the scientific method, does not mean it is not so.

But it also doesn't mean it *IS* so either. The best you can do is develop an untested hypothesis and present it as such. That is all.

[RichConley]

Originally posted by pledosophy
J
Curious to know how many people you polled, how many of them had skimmers, and how many if any had ever experienced GBD. Also what local reef club do you belong to? Do they have a forum where we could view the posts.

I'm curious about the same sorts of things on your information. Without exactly those things, absolutely NO inferences can be made from either one of our sets of data. They say exactly what they say, and nothing more.

pledosophy, you're coming to conclusions that the data you have doesnt support. Your making inferences that involve assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

Skimmers may cause GBD, i dont know, but your data most certainly DOES NOT show that.

[pledosophy]

Originally posted by RichConley
I'm curious about the same sorts of things on your information.

You should start reading my posts. Notice that once again you fail to answer any question into any statement you have made.

Originally posted by pledosophy
The number of survey completed to get the 80% number was 85.

That would be 85 surveys completed.
Roughly 80% of those surveyed used protein skimmer.
Posts to such information can be found in the Gas Bubble Disease forum which I previously provided a link to.

Originally posted by FishGrrl
The best you can do is develop an untested hypothesis and present it as such. That is all.

I disagree that it has not been tested, you disagree with the test methods and results, we'll have to agree to disagree there.

IMHO the ancedotal evidence gathered through the survey and the hundred plus cases of documented GBD is ample enough to warrant a theory.

Hey maybe someone will read all this and decide to pay for a microprobe to analyze the gas. Then at least we would know for sure, but I guess to appease you guys they'd have to do it a hundred times or so, it's just to expensive for a $40 fish, especially when the cure has already been found.

[RichConley]

Originally posted by pledosophy

That would be 85 surveys completed.
Roughly 80% of those surveyed used protein skimmer.
Posts to such information can be found in the Gas Bubble Disease forum which I previously provided a link to.

And none of them mean anything without knowing what percentage of the general populus is using protien skimmers. THats where the whole crux of the argument is.

If 70% use protien skimmers, than they may be causing it. If 90% are using them, then theyre preventing it.

Without knowing that (and knowing what it was at the time of the survey), the numbers in the survey dont mean anything. You keep trying to dodge that point, but its the whole issue.

[TamiW]

Originally posted by pledosophy

IMHO the ancedotal evidence gathered through the survey and the hundred plus cases of documented GBD is ample enough to warrant a theory.

No, it isn't! A theory has to be tested to be a theory. There is no way around this and saying otherwise is a fundamental lack of the scientific process.

Kevin, I know you mean well, but its these mistakes in the process and others like it that make it so difficult to take seriously. The methods are flawed because the people involved don't seem to understand the process involved with coming up with a solid, scientifically based theory.

Don't take this the wrong way, but please read the following:
http://servercc.oakton.edu/~billtong...ificmethod.htm

This is why people like myself and Rich hear have a hard time taking anecdotal evidence as anything other than anecdotal evidence. No matter how convincing it may seem. Understand, I am not a scientist, but the critical thinking outlined by the scientific method is a simple way of eliminating errors and thinking critically about problems.

Right now, as it stands, the first attack that the data collected by the skimmer = elevated instances of GBD is the lack of data regarding the number of people with skimmers without gbd. The second is it hasn't been replicated. The data may at this point seem to point to skimmers but it is an untested hypothesis, and throwing around terms like theory give it more credibility than it currently deserves. This isn't someone being pedantic about semantics, but a clearly defined process that has worked for hundreds of years to weed out invalid data.

[EricBrian]

Great info Rich and Tami. Thanks for it.

[djc1026]

So technically speaking, according to the scientific method, the general lay people would be better informed if this issue were referred to as an hypothesis? Sounds like semantics? I haven't taken one thing from this thread, or any other thread, as gospel. This sounds like the beginnings of a holy war Can't we all just get along?

I believe Kevin gave disclaimers several times about the data and I've, me personnally, not taken anything away from what he has written other than additional information to consider. There is so much to this hobby and so many factors effecting a closed SW system that true research for the home hobbyist is almost impossible. And for what it's worth, the analysis of data collected from surveys is a valid form of research that should be qualified as a lesser preferred method and may not be generalizable to the entire population because of the small data set.

I love a good debate, but tagging along with this one, it seems right on the edge of hard feelings.

V/R,
Dave

[TamiW]

Originally posted by
djc1026
I believe Kevin gave disclaimers several times about the data and I've, me personnally, not taken anything away from what he has written other than additional information to consider.

Originally posted by pledosophy

Some people warn against them because research has shown that protein skimmers increase the rate at which seahorses contract GBD is they are already predisposed to it.

This, and statements like this, are what make me cringe. The term "research" tends to lend itself to mean scientifically rigorous collection of data. As explained above, there are flaws in the collection of data with the survey; and it doesn't hold up to scrutany.

Data collection is a form of research, true, but it must be set up to eliminate as many possible errors and again, hold up to scrutany. RichConley and myself have pointed out a huge glaring flaw that just wouldn't hold up. And if that data can be tested, it must before it can possibly be considered as useful.

As for the term "theory" its as much semantics as calling a bus a jet. They're both vehicles, but its still fundamentally wrong. To the lay person, the corruption of the term theory makes it seem like its little more than a guess. "Oh, evolution? Its just a theory!" And to someone that understands what theory is supposed to mean, they're going to the the intelligent design theory and say "Well, its been rigorously tested, it must be accurate!" Neither which are correct. (examples, of course.)

The best way to look at it is if the data would hold up in a peer reviewed journal. Would it hold up to public scrutany of all the methodology used? If not, then its little use to anyone. Its not that peer reviewed journals are some special club that must like you to gain acceptance. They are a resource in research to look for flaws in the research methods used, to hopefully refine and correct mistakes. Anyone that can't take criticism shouldn't be involved in research because that is a huge part of it.

I do realize this thread and my responses have become heated, and to that I apologize. I've just made this argument so many times and it continues to fall on dead ears, so I'm a little sensitive about it.

[djc1026]

Fair enough Tami

I definitely understand the dilemmas of research. In my field of domestic violence prevention, we can only analyze data that is gathered from situations. It is unethical to put couples in a controlled environment in effort to illicit violent responses to study.

If I were to explain the principles, conclusions, results, if not theories as used in the world of psychology, they would not hold up to the scrutiny of the step by step process of the scientific method. Yet there are thousands of research articles published in respected peer reviewed journals. The research was done as scientifically as possible given the constraints of the subject matter.

All research is valid and all research is flawed. It's all valid because it at the very least tells us that's not the way to do something. It's all flawed because it's conducted or interpreted by human beings.

Anyway, it's just plain inspiring to see the research passion among hobbyists and you will almost always, if not always, have opposing points of view no matter what area you are in. Because the other way to look at this, is anyone researching any other contributing factors, like the oxygenation of large macro beds and the release of micro bubbles from them? Now I'm not trying to start something else, just making a point.

Anyway, I just appreciate, the input from you, Kevin and Rich, as well as the others that have chimed in with their input.

Dave

[RichConley]

Using your domestic violence as an example:
(numbers arbitrary)

1. 90% of abused women live in houses.


Assumption: Living in a house increases your chance of being abused.'


The problem is, without knowing what percentage of women live in houses, the 90% of abused women living in houses 1) doesnt tell you anything, and 2) leads to the false assumption that living in a house is causing it.

Thats all we're trying to stop: people making assumptions based on data that is incomplete, and misleading.

[Lacrosseboss18]

I used to run a remora on mine

[EricBrian]

So, Fishguy13, is all of this helping you come to a conclusion?

[djc1026]

Very good Eric, sorry for my part in the hijack Fishguy.

As I've stated, I personally use a skimmer on my tank and think it is beneficial, due to the waste produced by seahorses.

Dave

[TamiW]

Originally posted by RichConley
Using your domestic violence as an example:
(numbers arbitrary)

1. 90% of abused women live in houses.


Assumption: Living in a house increases your chance of being abused.'

Rich, we must think alike. Earlier, I was going to suggest that 100% of seahorses with gas bubble disease have long term exposure to salt water. Therefore saltwater causes gbd.



I too, apologize for the thread hijack. Hopefully this has helped fishguy and others make an informed decision!

[Fishguy13]

im going to use i once in a while

[djc1026]

Sorry Fishguy, I'm going to re hijack to address this research issue some more.

Rich, your 90% statement is not totally useless. If you wanted to, you could ask yourself is there something I can get from this? What is it about houses? 90%...that's pretty high...since living in a house appears to be a common factor, maybe there's something about location. And in fact, your arbitrary number is not too far off, 93% of domestic violence occurs in the privacy of one's own home. This may sound matter of fact, but you have to establish the basic stuff first to build on. If 93% of DV occurred in public, the public might be more interested as a whole to do something about it....assumption that needs research, I know. Anyway, the number is not useless, no the original 90% analogy does not establish cause and effect, but can lead to better research if questions are asked and investigation into the answers. That's all I'm trying to say. I definitely concur that the sample size and methods used in the quoted "research" is not generalizable nor establishes cause and effect. However, it may be a platform to launch better research if it asks more questions than it answers. Anyway, I understand where you and Fishgrrl are coming from as well as seeing potential from the information that Kevin has shared.

Dave

[RichConley]

Originally posted by djc1026
Sorry Fishguy, I'm going to re hijack to address this research issue some more.

Rich, your 90% statement is not totally useless. If you wanted to, you could ask yourself is there something I can get from this? What is it about houses? 90%...that's pretty high...since living in a house appears to be a common factor, maybe there's something about location. And in fact, your arbitrary number is not too far off, 93% of domestic violence occurs in the privacy of one's own home.
Dave

You're missing the point. I didnt say occurs in the home (and home can be home or apartment). I said "Live in a house"

My point is this: If 90% of domestic violence happens to people who live in houses, and 90% of people live in houses, then there is absolutely NO correlation with having a house having to do anything with domestic violence.

What people are doing here is seeing "90% of violence happens to people who have houses" wihthout seeing that the overwhelming majority of people live in houses, and making the assumption that the house is causing it.

replace house with "skimmer", and violence with "GBD" and you have the previous 3 pages of this thread.


Fishgrrls example is pretty much the same. 100% of seahorses with GBD have had long term exposure to Sodium Chloride.

Without knowing that 100% of seahorses have long term exposure to salt, it appears that the salt is causing it, when in fact theres absolutely no causation going on there (there is correlation though)

When the % of things affected using some stimuli matches up with the general population using that stimuli, you have your control matching your experimental, and you've proved that the change in the experimental IS DOING NOTHING.

[Fishguy13]

w t f!!!!!!!!!! Stop hijscking my thread lets get back to Seahorses

[Habanero]

I do not use a skimmer and I have had seahorses with GBD. I can't see why, if GBD is caused by supersaturation (which would affect all the fish) or some mechanical process, why the seahorse couldn't just flush his pouch. My male seahorses inflate and deflate their pouches quite frequently.

[Samala]

Gang I really feel this thread has run its useful course. I'm kinda troubled by the elitist tone taken here on the whole 'research' (or not) debate. The material mentioned by Pledosophy was never meant for scientific publication, and as such isnt exposed to the strict (or not) research methodologies required.

Yes, the survey could use some work. However, it would be much more constructive if we would give ideas on how to make the survey a better one. Constructing a control group for comparison purposes was a great idea. If there is more like this I'd encourage another thread to be opened to chat about it, or, if we feel its too non-RC, taken to PM or email.

Its one thing to point out flaws in someone's approach, I understand that more than anyone here could imagine. But lets not resort to putting down entire groups of people, for whatever reasons, because of the way they approach problems and questions. Not everyone has scientific training, and those of us that do (I'm guessing..).. it would be great if you could contribute your ideas in design and methods.

Pledo I cant see why you couldnt post polls here and the second syngnathid board to get as many responses as possible. Particularly for the "do you run a skimmer" / "do you not run a skimmer" question. You may find that some groups of aquarists are natively predisposed to run one or not run one. For example, converted reefers might never second guess a skimmer on a SH tank. Those that came directly to marine tanks through seahorses may never think to try them out. I find hobbyists that had little previous aquarium experience tend to congregate at SHorg, and converted reefers go back and forth from here to there. Just a thought. I understand the 'political' undercurrent that may exist, but its for more or less scientific purposes. The more responses you get, the better, right? And you'll get a better overall idea of the seahorse keeper group and incidences of GBD as well I'd think.

>Sarah

[RichConley]

Sarah, the problem at this point is, that survey has already had some impact. In order to get an actual picture, you need to know what percentage of keepers were using skimmers at the time the survey was taken. Otherwise, the data is useless, and CAN NOT be salvaged.


"Yes, the survey could use some work. However, it would be much more constructive if we would give ideas on how to make the survey a better one. Constructing a control group for comparison purposes was a great idea. If there is more like this I'd encourage another thread to be opened to chat about it, or, if we feel its too non-RC, taken to PM or email."

We have suggested ways, Pledosophy just keeps denying that theyre needed.




Bad data is worse than no data.

[TamiW]

Samala, I think having a poll/survey here is a great idea. I'm wondering if we can get the mods on board; and get a couple polls; one regarding skimmer use and one regarding occurances of gbd with or without a skimmer.

I do appologize on my part if it came off as elitest. I am not, however, scientifically trained, just a stickler for the details. The scientific method was covered in junior high and every science class after that; so I guess I get frustrated when the lay person doesn't know it, because *I'M* a lay person.

I don't think we're going to inspire anyone at SH.ORG, especially here, to change their survey and I don't want to create a sh*t fest there by suggesting it. But perhaps something informal here can lead to some more data to work with.

Rich, I agree with you, though, bad data is worse than no data. Any day of the week I'd rather say I don't know than give someone information that could be detrimental. And I think that is my grip; dissuading aquarists from skimmers can be a huge disservice to them and their charges. Seahorses are big pooping machines, and without a good way to remove the waste, it can cause many problems. Skimmers help with that. Of course its not the only way, but for many people its the easiest.