bheron copper in tap water

beaslbob

Well-Known Member
wow it just keeps getting bigger and bigger. :DWill try to cut down the size.
Originally posted by bheron
Man, good stuff here.


yep
Bob, some answers to your questions below. However, I have to agree with jedininja in that, after all of these posts, I’m still not sure what you’re saying. Youre statements seem to jump back and forth and contradict each other. While you may be right in what you’re saying, none of it is as conclusive and clear as what the majority are saying.


To me my comments are consistant and clear. I think what the problem is that you and others simply don't agree. I didn't believe this either on my first tanks. But after only a few weeks of allowing plant life (fresh and salt) to flourish, i know something was better. Years later I was sure of it.
Some comments…:
First removing all copper is not necessary nor desirable. If you want to see copper in water stir you ro/di with a copper wire. – no idea what you mean here? Please explain.

not all copper needs to be removed. ro/di water will dissolve copper much faster than tap.
– copper failed my tank, not the lack of plant life. While it plants may have helped remove some copper, it would’ve happened gradually and after it killed everything. So why would I want copper in there?

As I said you simply do not think plant life will filter out the copper. IMO it filters out cooper extremely rapidily.
You are succeeding with a tank that uses ro/di water and plant life. – not entirely true. My tank has been up and running for about three months. Added plant life (chaeto) about 3 weeks ago.

If I am correct that is enough time for the chaeto to work.
Do you see where I am comming from? Your experience does not mean your tap water was at fault. Your second system will be much better because of the plant life. I do not

In order to troubleshoot what is wrong you must change one and only one thing at a time. You can not be sure if it was the input water or the plant life because you changed both. In my experience, I only added the plant life. Therefore, I am sure it was the plant life and only the plant life.
ainer_container">It is my firm opinion that the plant life not the input water will make the difference. Especially, with the way you used your original tap water. – this opinion, I know . Just am not clear why.
that is because you do not have my experience. Otherwise the why would not be relevant. To answer the why, the plant life filters out the toxins as it consumed the ammonia,nitrate,phosphates, and carbon dioxide.
I predict that you will have to dose calcium and many other things to keep you ph alk and calcium, mag in line. That is directly tied to the input water being stripped of those essential trace elements. – I can see this

...
Two things to ad::
1) I’ll go dig up the test results and post them on here.
2) If anyone thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll run a test of my tap water with some chaeto to see if it removes copper. Basically, I’ll take a certain amount of my tap water, and place whatever amount you, bob, think I should place of chaeto inside the jar. Then, I’ll just let it sit and see how long it takes to remove the copper.
I’m not a scientist, so let me know if anyone thinks this simple test would answer the debate over plants removing copper from tap water.

That would be an excellent test. Just a quart jar would be sufficient. And be sure to mix the saltwater in a larger container. As a suggestion you might try a jar with just saltwater, a jar with just cheato, a jar with cheato and CC or crushed oyster shells, a jar with chaeto and LS. And aerate all the jars. and just place them where they can get 3-4 hours of sunlight. tha tway you can compare all them. But I am worried that the copper test kits may not be that accurate below 5-10 ppb. But if they are down to that level it should be ok anyway.
Naaaa that's a lot of work. You could simply set up a culture tank using your tapwater. Just a simply tupperware container. then after three weeks add a snale. If it lives then you have an indication it was the plants not the input water. Oh yea you could even use the garden hose again just to be sure. :thinking:
 

bang guy

Moderator

Originally posted by beaslbob
After a google search I uncovered that upper limits for environmental concerns in the ocean is 3.1 PPB or .0031 ppm. Or as bang stated .002ppm is the NSW value. So inverts start living and thriving somewhere betweeen .15 ppm and .002 ppm.

You missed a zero on that Bob. 0.00025ppm is the normal NSW level.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member

Originally posted by Bang Guy
You missed a zero on that Bob. 0.00025 is the normal NSW level.

sorry. but my point is not affected by that error. so inverts start thriving somewhere between .00031 ppm and .000025 ppm. Almost the same as .00031 ppm and .00025. With copper starting out a ~ 1.000ppm not a significant difference in what the plant life must filter out.
 

bang guy

Moderator

Originally posted by beaslbob
sorry. but my point is not affected by that error. so inverts start thriving somewhere between .00031 ppm and .000025 ppm. Almost the same as .00031 ppm and .00025. With copper starting out a ~ 1.000ppm not a significant difference in what the plant life must filter out.

This time you added an extra zero. No, it's not the same. If someone is doing research about Copper toxicity I don't want them quoting me incorrectly :) it's 0.00025ppm.
The studies I've seen indicate that copper starts to become a problem with invert larvae at about 0.001ppm. Feel free to use that number.
 

bang guy

Moderator

Originally posted by beaslbob
As I said you simply do not think plant life will filter out the copper. IMO it filters out cooper extremely rapidily.

Do you have any reason to believe this? Nothing I have ever read anywhere agrees with your opinion.
If that were true I believe most life would cease in the oceans.
Luckily, Horseshoe crabs would be one of the survivors (I think they're cool even if not reef compatible).
PS. Thank you for stating it's an opinion :) I appreciate that.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member

Originally posted by broomer5
bob
What inverts do you keep presently ?

well from the original cleaner crew a year ago last feb or so, hermits, turbo snales, green brittle starfish(doesn't have a back bone but hard to call an invert LOL).
Banded coral shrimp ~ 1 year has molted every 4-6 weeks.
more recent in good condition after a disasterous move: open brain (~5 months), various button polyps~ 5 months, green star polyps 4 months, red ball sponge 2 weeks (previous 4 months-took it out of water woopsies)
also have a yellow rod and purple rod. Kinda so so. the purple is being picked on but still extends polyps and i think i see new growth.
just added some ghost shrimp. I have numerous shrimp like pods in the display and gammarus also.
So that's about it for now. at least one turbo snale appears to have about doubled in size. And the hermits are much larger also.
 

elfdoctors

Active Member

Originally posted by blackomne
I wonder what effect that copper has on us.

Copper is an essential trace mineral for humans. Deficiencies can cause anemia, growth retardation, problems with hair color and texture, hypothermia, mental deterioration and scurvy like changes in the skeleton.
Copper overdose is rare in humans. Fortunately, people have the ability to excrete excess copper through their bile. Chronic overdosage can cause cirrhosis and inflammation of the liver, mental deterioration, anemia, and kidney problems.
There is a genetic disease, Wilson's Disease, (~1 of about 30,000 people have the gene) in which affected individuals are unable to remove copper. This can be fatal but rarely causes any symptoms before the age of 40.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member

Originally posted by Bang Guy
Do you have any reason to believe this? Nothing I have ever read anywhere agrees with your opinion.
If that were true I believe most life would cease in the oceans.
Luckily, Horseshoe crabs would be one of the survivors (I think they're cool even if not reef compatible).
PS. Thank you for stating it's an opinion :) I appreciate that.


Sure if all the copper was completely filtered out yep you are right. But that doesn't mean there is absolutely no filtration going on.
It is my opinion but a few sources like antony calfo state very general terms like "in some cases heavily also". Hardly scientific.
What may happen is the filtering would be more rapid at higher concentrations. Then almost stop down at NSL values. Again just an opinion but logical. After filtering out 99% you may have to filter 100 times more water to get the next .9% out. Again just speculation.
 

bang guy

Moderator

Originally posted by beaslbob
What may happen is the filtering would be more rapid at higher concentrations. Then almost stop down at NSL values.

I can buy that.
 

cincyreefer

Active Member
i can not believe you just said that...this is the most ridiculous thing that i think i have ever heard *anyone* including you say about salt water aquariums
Ignorance is bliss, heh... :rolleyes:
Why does everyone jump on Bob's back for anything he posts. I don't agree with some of the things he posts but just ask him if he has evidence of a claim... If he says it is his opinion then people will know that and can make their own opinion. He HAS tried to show scientific proof of many of his claims which is more than most people can say with some of the crazy claims I see made all the time. And he does concede some ideas if you can prove it to him... not just your opinion against his. He just says things that are not necessarily "mainstream" and it looks to me that many people are a puppet of other hobbiest's... George Patton once said "If everyone is thinking alike, then someone isn't thinking." Now I am not saying that Bob should try to force his ideas on others as the best way, but it is definitely an alternative and could help lead someone to new ideas of their own.... That is what science is all about IMO. Too many people seem ready to flame instead of discuss... They then claim Bob will never change his ideas when they won't even try to understand or accept what he is trying to point out. If a newbie sees one person post his method and everyone else posts the same method another way, then the logical idea would be to follow what others have proven a good method. If they want to take the easy way out, they probably would have anyway. I have helped so many new hobbiest out before, and I can say a majority of them will have to have a tank "crash" or be unsuccessful until they will try the more "expensive" or difficult methods. It is sad for the animals we love to keep, but I feel it is the truth. I don't want the wrong people to take this post the wrong way so just take it with a grain of salt. And if you want to know some of my opinions or findings on this topic then check out the copper thread Bang Guy started.
 

lestregus

Member
cincyreefer - for bob to post that removing copper from a tank is not a desirable solution in a thread discussing why a person's tank crashed from high copper is simply unacceptable behavior. this post began in the new hobbyists forum. for a newbie copper and salt water should not be mentioned in the same sentance let alone the same post. i'm sorry if i offended you.
 

cincyreefer

Active Member
First removing all copper is not necessary nor desirable.
That is his exact quote and he is absolutely correct. He did not say that copper concentrations should not be lowered, just that removing all
copper is not necessary nor desirable. If he didn't think lowering copper concentration is important then why would he keep on mentioning plant life to filter it out.
I just get annoyed when everyone flames him so bad and he is able to keep his cool and openly discuss his opinions, but yet others keep throwing back just as false information as they think he is. But they have nothing to go by other than "well look at Bob's tank and look at my tank" If you want to discuss without flaming then fine... but please have an understanding of what you are talking about.
Sorry Lestregus- The end wasn't pointed at you. Just some thoughts i am throwing out in the same post.
 

bang guy

Moderator

Originally posted by cincyreefer
I just get annoyed when everyone flames him so bad and

A lot of that is probably my fault.
I got really upset a little while back when he said my "methods are so unsuccessful". This is after a whole year of seeing his fish & corals die.
I just took a strong exception to that. If it were just advanced hobbiests here I wouldn't have given it a second look.
 

dburr

Active Member
Some reports of the effectiveness of plant life from this board and others: "my nano went from 5 ppm nitrate to 0 in a day with a single baby shaving brush. " " my nitrAtes went from ~10ppm to 0.0 in two weeks". My own experience my nitrates went from 160++ppm to 0.0 in three weeks.

Some reports of the effectiveness of plant life from this board and others: "my nano went from 5 ppm nitrate to 0 in a day with a single baby shaving brush. " " my nitrAtes went from ~10ppm to 0.0 in two weeks". My own experience my nitrates went from 160++ppm to 0.0 in three weeks.

Some reports of the effectiveness of plant life from this board and others: "my nano went from 5 ppm nitrate to 0 in a day with a single baby shaving brush. " " my nitrAtes went from ~10ppm to 0.0 in two weeks". My own experience my nitrates went from 160++ppm to 0.0 in three weeks.
This may be your experience and others experiance, but how can you prove it was the plants? Was their a DSB in any/all the tanks? What did the others use for top off?
Their are to many variables. This will never be solved without an experiment done over the course aleast a few months maybe years.
I presume I get seasonal variances. After all the scientist/engineer in my says nothing is constant. But who cares? By eatablishing plant life as the first thing the first total volumn is processed by the plants before the livestock is added. Then by replacing evaporative water only, about 10% is evaporated and new water is added each week. So 100% is initially processed and from that point on only about 10% needs to be processed (from whatever is added by the water). Meanwhile, the bioload has buildup plant food easily in the 20-40 or more ppm each week. So we have a system processing 20ppm (ammonia, nitrates or phosphates) with 1ppm/10 or .1ppm of something. Seems to me the plant can easily filter out that .1ppm. And being as they are growing so fast and over taking the display, you have to remove a bunch to see the fish and corals. Or they are in a refugium and livestock can not eat them anyway.
Again without an experiment......
This is just common sense to me.
Common sense to you, but newbies don't know about common sense when it comes to salt water. They are here to learn and you post your thoughts they take it for fact ,IMO, not the exception the the rule. Others are posting main stream ideas that have worked for alot of people not the exception.
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member

Originally posted by Bang Guy
A lot of that is probably my fault.
I got really upset a little while back when he said my "methods are so unsuccessful". This is after a whole year of seeing his fish & corals die.
I just took a strong exception to that. If it were just advanced hobbiests here I wouldn't have given it a second look.


Bang: I don't remember ever saying you or your systems were ever unsuccessful. If I did that my apologies in advance. Please link my to my post I will edit and delete.
I thought all I have ever said is the newbie following standard prictices leading to little or no plant life are a tank crash waiting to happen. I stick by that statement. Did not mean to even infer you system was anything less than highly successful.
 

007

Active Member

Originally posted by beaslbob
Bang: I don't remember ever saying you or your systems were ever unsuccessful. If I did that my apologies in advance. Please link my to my post I will edit and delete.
I thought all I have ever said is the newbie following standard prictices leading to little or no plant life are a tank crash waiting to happen. I stick by that statement. Did not mean to even infer you system was anything less than highly successful.

Originally posted by beaslbob

The reason I keep posting especially to the newbies is because the "conventional" methods are so unsucessful. We would have much happier hobbiests and more successful aquariums if each and every newbie started the plant ife first and then did the rest. The absolute worse thing you can do is right in the middle of establishing a system is add a cleaner crew to get rid of the Ugly algae. The newbies deserve better.

:rolleyes:
Uhhh . . . . yeah
 

beaslbob

Well-Known Member

Originally posted by beaslbob
Bang: I don't remember ever saying you or your systems were ever unsuccessful. If I did that my apologies in advance. Please link my to my post I will edit and delete.
I thought all I have ever said is the newbie following standard prictices leading to little or no plant life are a tank crash waiting to happen. I stick by that statement. Did not mean to even infer you system was anything less than highly successful.

Originally posted by beaslbob
The reason I keep posting especially to the newbies is because the "conventional" methods are so unsucessful. We would have much happier hobbiests and more successful aquariums if each and every newbie started the plant ife first and then did the rest. The absolute worse thing you can do is right in the middle of establishing a system is add a cleaner crew to get rid of the Ugly algae. The newbies deserve better.

Originally posted by 007

:rolleyes:
Uhhh . . . . yeah

007: I stand by that post. I new hobbiest will have many many problems by following the "conventional" approach. use LS and LR, skimmer, go through several algae blooms, add cleaner crew. Many many many problems. As posted by many newbies here. And when I say add plant life, 80% of the time they go huh? what's that, or where do i get, what's a refugium.
All I am saying is get the plant life established and thriving and then do the rest. And keep the plant life thriving as the very first thing. macros/plants if you want. Refugium to protect the plants sure. Just don't expect a 2 quart refugium to keep a 300g display in line. If you must use a refugium, then that should be started with the rest of the system. Or simply use the hair/slime in the refugium as an algae scrubber.
That way ammonium, phosphates, nitrates, and carbon dioxide is being consumed right from the start. And heavy ions and toxins are being filtered out as well.
Done right the will not even have algae blooms in the startup.
 

007

Active Member
Lets go back to some good old fashioned logic here . . . .
If A then B.
A
___________
Therefore B
If you use the conventional methodes you will be unsuccessful at keeping a marine tank. (taken from above post by beaslbob)
Bang Guy uses the conventional methods.
Therefore Bang Guy must be unsuccessful at keeping marine tanks.
I am not going to argue with you anymore bob, I just want to point out to all those following your threads that your logic is consistently flawed . . .
 
Top