Here is a Ph.D's writing on the subject:
http://www.reefedition.com/phosphate-in-the-reef-aquarium-by-randy-holmes-farley/
His methodology is here:
http://reefkeeping.com/joomla/index...ar-dosing-methodology-for-the-marine-aquarium
He has several other papers published that go into greater detail. Some even that agree with the statement that fish can handle well over 100ppm of nitrate. Interestingly enough, the same paper speaks of the long-term toxicity effects on metabolism in fish with nitrates levels as low as 50ppm here:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-06/rhf/index.php
It really doesn't matter if the OP's level is, based on your opinion, too high or not. If he decides to lower the level, carbon dosing will lower nitrate, regardless of phosphate concentration.
Stating the opinion, and concern, that you felt more comfortable providing information once numbers were provided, would have been respected. Berating those providing information, but not in a manner that you deemed fit, is merely arrogance. Furthermore, spewing misinformation as "fact" is the true irresponsible act.
To pontificate while trying to decry others only discredits your reputation.
Congratulations on changing your avatar from your selfie to Andy Dick. Since logic, intelligence, reading comprehension, and grit aren't your strongest attributes, at least you can claim to be mildly clever.
While I am not discounting the contributions to the hobby from Randy or arguing his conclusions, these hardly qualify as white papers. I asked for the white papers that you claim to have read. I was not shocked when you provided articles instead of white papers,
none of which contradict my point that if phosphate were truly zero, vinegar (carbon) dosing is unlikely to work very well, however unlikely that may be.
Additionally, you said:
"He has several other papers published that go into greater detail. Some even that agree with the statement that fish can handle well over 100ppm of nitrate. Interestingly enough, the same paper speaks of the long-term toxicity effects on metabolism in fish with nitrates levels as low as 50ppm here:
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2005-06/rhf/index.php"
Umm, did you even read this? It's a discussion of
nitrite - with an "I" - not nitrate. In fact, let's quote the article in larger context regarding the exact point you
think you are making:
"For the reason described above,
nitrite is considerably more toxic to many freshwater fish (
Table 1) than it is to most marine species (
Table 2). The data in these tables are primarily the LC50, which is the concentration at which 50% of the test organisms die (24-h LC50 is the concentration that kills half of the tested organisms within 24 hours). As Table 1 shows, some freshwater fish can die at
nitrite levels below 1 ppm. This toxicity is the reason many aquarists worry about
nitrite in aquaria. It can be a significant problem in freshwater aquaria.
Tests in marine species, however, showed the toxicity to be much lower. None of the thirteen marine fish species for which I could find nitrite toxicity data had LC50 values below 100 ppm, and half had LC50 values of 1,000 - 3,000 ppm or more.
Death is, of course, a very crude indicator of toxicity. An aquarium's nitrite level should not come anywhere close to the LC50 value, because less severe toxicity can occur even at levels below that. In the previous section, I showed data on one marine species in which biochemical effects could be detected at levels well below concentrations that caused death. We saw, for example, a rise in methemoglobin at values as low as 46 ppm
nitrite. However, the point remains valid that marine species are orders of magnitude less susceptible to the effects of
nitrite than are many freshwater species. The marine aquaculture industry often uses a rough guideline that the safe rearing level of many compounds is a factor of 10 or less than their LC50.30"
This is where you got your point from, even though you grossly misinterpreted what it is actually saying even if it did refer to nitr
Ate, which it doesn't...it's talking about nitr
Ite. Nice job.
Next point of yours:
"It really doesn't matter if the OP's level is, based on your opinion, too high or not. If he decides to lower the level, carbon dosing will lower nitrate, regardless of phosphate concentration."
I didn't base anything off of my opinion - you are simply making this up. My entire original post was about waiting for data, i.e.
facts, until recommending a course of action. And again, if phosphates are truly zero, carbon dosing may have
some effect, but that doesn't mean it it likely to be effective. Huge difference.
Next point:
"Stating the opinion, and concern, that you felt more comfortable providing information once numbers were provided, would have been respected. Berating those providing information, but not in a manner that you deemed fit, is merely arrogance. Furthermore, spewing misinformation as "fact" is the true irresponsible act."
I called some people irresponsible for telling someone to take action against a "problem" that may not exist.
This IS irresponsible. And it's hardly berating. If you can't handle that, you aren't going to do well in life. And again, I haven't "spewed misinformation" at all, it's just that you are incapable of understanding the point I am making. That's your problem, not mine.