[APD] I think I said that<g>

["Karen Randall" <krandall at rdrcpa_biz>]

Seweryn wrote:

>> In a long-neglected tank, the levels of NO3 (or even gH??) might be high
or
low, respecively. In which case, a 90% water change would dramatically alter
the water chemistry, which the fish might have acclimatised over time to.
This sudden change might put them into shock, ironically stressing them out
or killing them as a result of "clean" water. Is this a plausible
possibility?<<

Isn't that what I just said?

>>To get back to your first statement, there WERE a few people here who were
>claiming that big water changes were "dangerous" in various ways.  My
>argument was with the idea that larger water changes (let's say 50-90%)
>were
>somehow inherently risky.  They're not, unless the tank has been neglected
>for a long time.<<

But, IMO, people who neglect their tanks to this extent have bigger issues
than the size of their water changes.  There are all KINDS of stressors on a
system that is badly polluted.  And, as I mentioned in another post, the
things that we can test for are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what
actually builds up in the tank.

Karen


_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/aquatic-plants