[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CO2 & science or was that Svengali?
> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:03:52 EST
> From: Biplane10 at aol_com
> Subject: CO2 & science
> A few recent postings about apparent CO2 *poisoning* brings to my mind the
> recent exchanges and very scientific explanations regarding CO2/oxygen
> content in water and whether or not it affects fish.
> You can come up with numbers and scientific explanations to explain why CO2
> levels will not harm fish.
> In practice however, it does happen. It's not helpful for people reading the
> list to see an impressive very technical explanation (must be true!) of why
> it is not harmful. It can be harmful. Depends on temperature, fish, and lots
> of other variables, but the bottom line is CO2 can kill fish.
Well I don't remember anyone EVER saying it was
absolutely not harmful to fish in all scenarios (maybe
I missed that post). Certainly if you exceed the recommended
concentration for plants (about 15mg/l), then you start running a risk with
your fish. The higher it goes, the more risk you run...pretty simple to me.
In practice, CO2 toxicity is very rare in a well maintained and
monitored tank. Of course, accidents can happen.
Personally I think technical explanations are great,
we need MORE of them as opposed to people just rattling incorrect
or partially correct information off the top of their heads. Not that that
happens too often on this list. How could a correct technical
explanation not be helpful? If it is incorrect, you can bet it will be
corrected in short order on this list. If incomplete, people will add
to it. Just because it is a technical explanation does not mean it is untrue!
Scientists do not change their name to Svengali when they get their