Can a Reef Tank Be Crashed by Misinformation?

[sixty_reefer]

There is plenty of good and bad information in this hobby, depending on which side of the aisle you’re sitting. This got me thinking, has misinformation ever actually crashed a reef tank?

Can following incorrect literature, misunderstood concepts, opinions or hypotheses genuinely cause a system to fail or is it usually the way the aquarist interprets and applies that information?

Take dinoflagellates as an example. There are countless methods people recommend, many based on personal experience rather than controlled studies. Some aquarists swear by them while others report the exact opposite outcome. Does that make the advice misinformation or simply unproven?

Personally, I don’t follow trends and I don’t see the need to silence opinions or hypotheses just because they haven’t been proven yet. New ideas are how we learn, provided they’re presented as ideas rather than facts.

So where do you draw the line between misinformation, opinion and hypothesis? Have you ever followed advice that you genuinely believe harmed your tank or maybe even saved it? If so, what was the advice, how did you apply it and what was the outcome? Share your story in the comments below, specific details are especially helpful and let’s build a real world picture of what actually works and what doesn’t.

 

[BeanAnimal]

This feels like a continuation of the thread that just got locked, wrapped in a new rhetorical question about hypothesis versus misinformation, hedged again so it can't be wrong. A question posed, but already answered by the framing itself.

A hypothesis is fine on its own. The problem isn't proposing ideas, it's presenting them with hedges soft enough to sound like a hypothesis while still functioning as a claim, "fits nicely with," "likely influenced by," language built to never be wrong rather than to be tested. That's not a hypothesis. That's a claim dressed up to look like one. The tell, in general: hypothesis, made as hedged claims that never get substantiated when pressed, and never get abandoned or retracted either. They just carry weight through repetition instead.

"Crashed" is also doing a lot of work here. What counts as a crash, specifically? Until that's defined, any answer can be framed as confirming or denying whatever's convenient.

Has anybody followed bad advice and had less than desirable outcomes or pure disaster? Sure, that is just asking g for stories of bad advice, which are everywhere. That is not the real question being framed here, but a vehicle for the pre answered question underneath it, whether critical pushback is "fair."

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

Of course a tank can be crashed by misinformation. Depends on what it is, and if the aquarist acts on it.

I do not have any simple way to distinguish misinformation from accurate info except to use sources that are reliable.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Of course a tank can be crashed by misinformation. Depends on what it is, and if the aquarist acts on it.

I do not have any simple way to distinguish misinformation from accurate info except to use sources that are reliable.

I remember a few years back there was a lot of controversy around the “rip clean” method. If my memory doesn’t fail me, it worked well for some people but not so well for others. To this day I still don’t know whether some of the issues reported were caused by the method itself or by how it was applied.

 

[Abominable Snow Crab]

This forum starting to feel more and more like reefcentral. Hope yall figure out how to control some of the keyboard strongmen on here...

 

[Hypothetical]

Agree with bean, feels like using AI to hedge that last thread - sourcing and proof is always important. Trust but verify for a learned person is the way of the world where you can't trust a lot of what people posit.

 

[keagan]

Yes bad information can make someone new to the hobby crash their tank and even worse, leave the hobby.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I remember a few years back there was a lot of controversy around the “rip clean” method. If my memory doesn’t fail me, it worked well for some people but not so well for others. To this day I still don’t know whether some of the issues reported were caused by the method itself or by how it was applied.

Did people have success and failure? Sure.

The method itself, mechanical cleaning of rock, all at once, or used as a tank transfer has been practiced for decades with varying levels of success depending on how it was applied and the systems in question.

Most of the controversy surrounding the method came from the primary proponent's unsubstantiated scientific claims, dressed up in scientific abstraction (word soup) and his refusal to substantiate, retract, or abandon those claims. The mechanism that gave them authority was dogged repetition and deflection, no matter the pushback.

 

[Reefer Matt]

I don’t think many people intentionally try to give bad info. Using vetted information can crash a tank along with misinformation. Trying to diagnose a problem through pictures and text can be difficult at times. Also, info seekers sometimes don’t use the info entirely, and piece together their own solution into one that is more convenient. It’s not always the info, but the application of it. But yeah, bad or misinformed info certainly doesn’t help. But who is the judge of what’s right?

 

[davidm777]

I will say that sometimes I see advice being given too soon. While the information given might be right on some scenarios is not always the case. I usually appreciate to see questions asked to further understand the particular situation and the request of pictures before just giving advice. Time and time I see someone asking a question and once you see the picture of the setup you're like bro... you have other problems here.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I remember a few years back there was a lot of controversy around the “rip clean” method. If my memory doesn’t fail me, it worked well for some people but not so well for others. To this day I still don’t know whether some of the issues reported were caused by the method itself or by how it was applied.

I never paid much attention to it, or what it was supposed to accomplish, but a method that works in some tanks and not others is not necessarily misinformation, unless the claim is made that it works in every tank to accomplish some goal.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Yes bad information can make someone new to the hobby crash their tank and even worse, leave the hobby.

Could you elaborate a bit? I’d be interested to hear some real examples where “misinformation” led to a tank crash.

 

[keagan]

Could you elaborate a bit? I’d be interested to hear some real examples where “misinformation” led to a tank crash.

So a good example is on reef central there was so much advice telling people DSB's will fix nitrate issues. That led to a ton of of people tanks crashing when they (or newly added livestock) later disturbed the sandbed.

Early on switching from Halides to early LEDs we thought "LEDs run cooler" so blast the intensity. That led to a lot of bleaching events

ULNS were pushed here a lot years ago and while changing methods many people ended up with dino outbreaks and color loss in SPS.

Even the "Rip clean method" you brought up is a good example it worked fine in the creators tiny vase aquarium. People trying to institute the same method on larger tanks ended up with a huge amount of work and it often didn't work. Especially for people with DSB that rinsed their sand and put it back in.

Misinformation has led to a lot of problems in this hobby over the years and it's why some people push so hard for information to be verified before being passed off as useful information.

 

[sixty_reefer]

I don’t think many people intentionally try to give bad info. Using vetted information can crash a tank along with misinformation. Trying to diagnose a problem through pictures and text can be difficult at times. Also, info seekers sometimes don’t use the info entirely, and piece together their own solution into one that is more convenient. It’s not always the info, but the application of it. But yeah, bad or misinformed info certainly doesn’t help. But who is the judge of what’s right?

I tend to agree that most people genuinely want to help and I also agree that a lot of the problems could simply come down to innocent user error rather than the advice itself.

 

[Jimbo327]

Happens all the time.

I’ve crashed my 1st tank based on misinformation. Crashed it using Flatworm Exit back in early 2000’s. Product just came out and was told it was reef safe.

Dosed per instruction. Mind you the instructions were to dose and leave it until the red planarias died. My tank quickly went into a chain reaction shock, and it wiped the whole tank.

 

[sixty_reefer]

So a good example is on reef central there was so much advice telling people DSB's will fix nitrate issues. That led to a ton of of people tanks crashing when they (or newly added livestock) later disturbed the sandbed.

Early on switching from Halides to early LEDs we thought "LEDs run cooler" so blast the intensity. That led to a lot of bleaching events

ULNS were pushed here a lot years ago and while changing methods many people ended up with dino outbreaks and color loss in SPS.

Even the "Rip clean method" you brought up is a good example it worked fine in the creators tiny vase aquarium. People trying to institute the same method on larger tanks ended up with a huge amount of work and it often didn't work. Especially for people with DSB that rinsed their sand and put it back in.

Misinformation has led to a lot of problems in this hobby over the years and it's why some people push so hard for information to be verified before being passed off as useful information.

To me, most of those examples seem to be cases of incomplete information rather than misinformation.

Are there any more recent examples that you think are genuinely misinformation rather than a lack of information or misapplication?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Could you elaborate a bit? I’d be interested to hear some real examples where “misinformation” led to a tank crash.

The quotes are adding context here worth noting, the question appears to be loaded by them in context to this and associated threads.

Why does misinformation have to result in a tank "crash" to count as misinformation or to be damaging? It comes in many forms and causes many kinds of harm.

Here, "misinformation" gets quoted, as if the word itself needs scrutiny. It doesn't. But "crash" isn't quoted and treated as self evident, even though it is the actually vague, undefined, unfalsifiable term in this context. Misinformation is the plain one being framed by quotes to look uncertain.

If nothing counts as "misinformation" unless a tank dies, which is what is being implied here, then vague, unfalsifiable, or misleading claims just get a pass. They become misinformation that gets repeated, treated as accepted wisdom, and built on by people who never questioned their origin. That's why substantiating claims, or retracting them when they can't be substantiated, matters so much.

 

[Gregg @ ADP]

Did people have success and failure? Sure.

The method itself, mechanical cleaning of rock, all at once, or used as a tank transfer has been practiced for decades with varying levels of success depending on how it was applied and the systems in question.

Most of the controversy surrounding the method came from the primary proponent's unsubstantiated scientific claims, dressed up in scientific abstraction (word soup) and his refusal to substantiate, retract, or abandon those claims. The mechanism that gave them authority was dogged repetition and deflection, no matter the pushback.

I remember the word soups

I’ve been ‘rip cleaning’ reef tanks for decades (something I did for clients every 3 years or so). If people did not have success with it, it was probably in how it was implemented. I don’t remember how our friend did it or proposed it be done, but I’ve never once experienced an issue over a very large sample size.

At the same time, I can easily see how trying something like that can go sideways quickly, especially for reefers who do not have a lot of experience.

This thread and others like it remind me of why I rarely give advice here. What I do and how I do those things are not necessarily ‘transferable skills’

 

[sixty_reefer]

I never paid much attention to it, or what it was supposed to accomplish, but a method that works in some tanks and not others is not necessarily misinformation, unless the claim is made that it works in every tank to accomplish some goal.

I think that’s where I struggle to separate misinformation from incomplete information. A method working in some systems but not others doesn’t necessarily make it misinformation imo. It may also simply come down to the conditions under which it’s used or to user error/inexperience in how the method or task is interpreted and applied.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I think that’s where I struggle to separate misinformation from incomplete information. A method working in some systems but not others doesn’t necessarily make it misinformation imo. It may also simply come down to the conditions under which it’s used or to user error/inexperience in how the method is interpreted and applied.

Randy's point was direct: "a method that works in some tanks and not others is not necessarily misinformation, unless the claim is made that it works in every tank."

The reply: "A method working in some systems but not others doesn't necessarily make it misinformation imo."

That's not a paraphrase, you inverted what he said by directly dropping the condition "unless the claim is made that it works in every tank", which was the entire point being made, dragging us right back into unfalsifiable abstraction. This is just more "it depends", worded to never be wrong and directly changing the meaning of what Randy just said.

You asked Keagan for examples and then dismissed them. Why ask for examples if each is going to be dithered as not quite real misinformation? "Hypothesis" and "crash" are being wedged in between unsubstantiated claims and misinformation, creating enough distance that unsubstantiated claims never actually have to be called misinformation.