Inland Reef Salt Study - Where we're going

[MattM]

I think part two, where we try to spell out what this all means, will generate more discussion. Part one all by itself reads a little dry - pretty much just numbers.

If you check around on other boards you will find Ron Shimek dismissing it and Michael Del Prette (sp?) criticising it. He even insists that we started it before Ron Shimek's study, even though I gave him the dates of the posts here when we were planning it!

- Mathew Marulla

 

[LA-Lawman]

Shane i agree with u too,

Sciguy also, I don't know how to interpret all the results... I think the PH, salinity... thank god i mix water and age it a bit....

I wish you guys would have the whole study posted... now i cant wait for the rest of it.

 

[Ninong]

Am I the only one who wonders how he got a measurement of 180 ppm Mn in Oceanic salt? That's absurd.

And what about the 2 ppm Pb in Crystal Sea Bioassay salt?

Manganese is toxic to marine life at 1/10 the level Matt is reporting for Oceanic salt and lead, according to the USGS, is toxic to a wide array of bioaquatic life at 1 - 5.1 ppm. There is no way that the guys at the EPA lab in Baton Rouge would still be using CS Bioassay salt for their bioassays if it really had 2 ppm lead.

Was this study peer reviewed? Did anyone bother to proof-read it?

Just wondering.

 

[LA-Lawman]

he had a typo... see the other post

 

[Anonymous]

http://reefs.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=917603#917603

 

[Anonymous]

Did I miss Part II of the study?

 

[Anonymous]

Found it!

 

[Len]

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2005/12/aafeature1

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Len!