Can a Reef Tank Be Crashed by Misinformation?

[sixty_reefer]

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.

Were the instructions different from what they are now? I never used it so I’m not sure what the package said back then.

 

[Dan_P]

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’

HaHa, this ^^^^ is a gem. As advice givers, we likely underestimate how well we understand exactly what we are doing compared with what we think we are doing (implicit knowledge) . This might be part of the reason for nontransferable skills.

I will add. that the aquarist is likely the biggest and least studied factor determining the likelihood of an aquarium meeting expectations, e.g., everything not dying, not becoming an algae farm, or looking like a failed biology experiment.

 

[Reefer Matt]

On the flip side: when giving advice, don’t assume the person asking questions is correct on their assumptions. For example, “How do I get rid of dino?” when they actually have cyano. Be sure to ask for photos, and the story of how they got to the problem at hand. Information can turn into misinformation if the wrong assumptions are made.

 

[Dan_P]

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?

Incomplete information by definition is misinformation.

 

[Dan_P]

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.

Unsubstantiated claims of a method working might as well be misinformation because there are so many definitions of success, there is no reference to how long success lasted, and we certainly don’t know whether if nothing was done success would have been achieved anyway. Identifying misinformation starts with skepticism of all anecdotal information, even from the experts.

 

[Jimbo327]

Were the instructions different from what they are now? I never used it so I’m not sure what the package said back then.

I don't recall. It might have been just me being a newbie reefer back then, and reading the instructions quickly and jumping in both feet. But I definitely didn't get the feeling when reading the instructions that this was going to happen so suddenly. Like I might have left it in the tank for a little longer to make sure all the flatworms were dead...but the timing is quite subjective...the instructions were like "when the flatworms starts to die"....so I waited...but is it all the flatworms not moving...or when the flatworms were floating...etc etc...I didn't understand when exactly....all I knew was that fishes started dying and it started a chain reaction of death that I couldn't s top. This was like 2003-2004, so it wasn't as easy to get a ton of info. I think Salifert kind of left it a bit ambiguous because they wanted the product to sell and kill the flatworm...but they didn't want to make it so you pull the medication too early either. Not sure if this is consider misinformation. But I've known of a few people who have wiped their tank because of this product...some were very experienced reefers.

 

[KrisReef]

HaHa, this ^^^^ is a gem. As advice givers, we likely underestimate how well we understand exactly what we are doing compared with what we think we are doing (implicit knowledge) . This might be part of the reason for nontransferable skills.

I will add. that the aquarist is likely the biggest and least studied factor determining the likelihood of an aquarium meeting expectations, e.g., everything not dying, not becoming an algae farm, or looking like a failed biology experiment.

Yeah, I try not to advise on fish meds or my other specialty, "How to Rob 7-11 to Fund Your Reefing Hobby." So many people seem to really struggle to follow simple instructions, or they just run slow and smile for the camera when they should have ducked?

My lawyer has asked me to keep him busy with new clients while the Fish Squad has requested that I refrain from peddling medications.

Truely, clear written instructions without pictograms are a dying communication skill in the age of videos. How to drive in the snow training video:

What could go wrong?

 

[sixty_reefer]

This far into the thread, many of the examples seem to involve incomplete information, ambiguity or misapplication rather than information that was clearly false.

Given how often misinformation is described as a daily problem in this hobby, I’m surprised we haven’t seen many clear examples of actual misinformation that led to a tank crashing, which was the premise of the thread.

Could we add some genuine examples of misinformation to this thread so new reefers know what to look out for? By that I mean advice that was factually incorrect or materially misleading, rather than incomplete, ambiguous or applied in the wrong context.

Or are we simply not using the terminology consistently, with “misinformation” meaning different things to different aquarists?

 

[BeanAnimal]

This far into the thread, many of the examples seem to involve incomplete information, ambiguity or misapplication rather than information that was clearly false.

Given how often misinformation is described as a daily problem in this hobby, I’m surprised we haven’t seen many clear examples of actual misinformation that led to a tank crashing, which was the premise of the thread.

Could we add some genuine examples of misinformation to this thread so new reefers know what to look out for? By that I mean advice that was factually incorrect or materially misleading, rather than incomplete, ambiguous or applied in the wrong context.

Or are we simply not using the terminology consistently, with “misinformation” meaning different things to different aquarists?

You are the one using a narrow definition with an unfalsifiable hedge to fit a narrative. You opened the thread with it. Randy set a real condition on what counts as misinformation, you reframed him. I offered context, you ignored me. Dan dismantled your framing, and you repeated the same words and asked again.

Ask for examples, dismiss each one as not quite qualifying, repeat. Frame it all as just deep pondering and looking for insight. That's the structure of this whole thread. It was preloaded in the opening post. Nothing gets through because the standard shifts to whatever "it depends" needs to mean at the moment, so no example can ever qualify. This thread is framed with a narrow definition and an open hedge actively being used to protect the framing. It is a narrative where you get to define misinformation, not a conversation.

Misinformation comes in many forms. The effects of misinformation land in many forms. We are all using the terminology consistent with its meaning. You are the one putting quotes around it, trying to narrowly define it to fit your needs.

 

[exnisstech]

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.

Were the instructions different from what they are now? I never used it so I’m not sure what the package said back then.

Is the first post above misinformation? I've used flatworm exit several times. The last time I accidentally double dosed it and in addition to killing flatworms it killed all the bristle worms. No harm to coral inverts or fish. Reef safe, not reef safe or did Jimbo make a mistake?
PS I waited a week before doing a water change.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Is the first post above misinformation? I've used flatworm exit several times. The last time I accidentally double dosed it and in addition to killing flatworms it killed all the bristle worms. No harm to coral inverts or fish. Reef safe, not reef safe or did Jimbo make a mistake?
PS I waited a week before doing a water change.

I honestly don’t know. As I mentioned before, I’ve never used Flatworm Exit so I’m not sure what the instructions were back then.

From what I’ve read, I don’t think the product itself is necessarily what causes the problem. It’s the toxins released by certain flatworms as they die, which is why the current instructions recommend running fresh GAC and having at least 25 to 50% of the tank volume ready for a water change. I also believe the current instructions advise performing a water change within a couple of hours of treatment.

Another factor that may be worth considering is whether the flatworms were correctly identified before treatment. Different flatworm species don’t all carry the same risk and the red planaria commonly found in reef aquariums are particularly well known for releasing toxins when they die in large numbers. That could potentially explain why some aquarists experience major problems while others don’t.

Whether the instructions were different back then or whether they were simply interpreted differently, I can’t say.

Edit: the current instructions recommend removing as many flatworms as possible before treatment, which would presumably reduce the amount of toxin released into the aquarium.

 

[davidm777]

This far into the thread, many of the examples seem to involve incomplete information, ambiguity or misapplication rather than information that was clearly false.

Given how often misinformation is described as a daily problem in this hobby, I’m surprised we haven’t seen many clear examples of actual misinformation that led to a tank crashing, which was the premise of the thread.

Could we add some genuine examples of misinformation to this thread so new reefers know what to look out for? By that I mean advice that was factually incorrect or materially misleading, rather than incomplete, ambiguous or applied in the wrong context.

Or are we simply not using the terminology consistently, with “misinformation” meaning different things to different aquarists?

Here my 2 cents.
Maybe is not misinformation but a general lack of undertanding of what's really happening on the aquariums. Here just a few examples that come to mind.
- Dong and other says that All For Reef is a horrible product. That calcuim formade is a form of carbon that is preffered by vibrio. Proceeds to say where he got the information and says you should stay clear from that product. Yet I see a lot of very successful tanks that use nothing but AFR. I even have a local store that is all they use.
- Recently we had Salem come out with is article on DOC based on his obervations on the Bahamas. Saying that algee generates DOC and even goes as far as saying all algee produces toxins to dicrecly compete with corals for survival. Yet we see a ton of nice tanks with refigiums. We even have Triton that their whole method is base on the use of macro algee.
- Everyone keeps saying high phosfates is the devil. There are articles that say coral's growth is hinder at PO4 high levels. Yet Rich Ross has a talk on a tank he had with 1ppm of PO4 (not .1) and was very succesful. I know that when my tank was settling my PO4 was constantly at .5/.75 or higher. I came across Rich's article so I just let it ride. Eventually came down with no issues, but eople would tell me I "Needed" to do something about the levels of PO4.

I know these examples aren't about tank crashes but are exapmples of contradicting information.
Now days i see reefing as a cooking recepe as they say. And is where I think some advice not necesary translates from what one reefer is doing to another. But who knows? What are we to do? Not help? I still answer what I can from time to time. Ultimatly is up to the person to see all the answers and decide on a path. I don't think deciding not to give any advice is a good path people are reaching out for help.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Here my 2 cents.
Maybe is not misinformation but a general lack of undertanding

This thread is built to make misinformation and misunderstanding look impossible to tell apart, as if there were some clear litmus test being honestly sought. Read the opening post carefully, nothing can be classified as misinformation unless you can both show it caused a "crash" or "harm" and convince the OP that you are correct. He wants examples he can dismantle using a definition he never stated outright, smuggled in through the first post's questions instead of a claim.


The key is here:
This asks one question:
"This got me thinking, has misinformation ever actually crashed a reef tank?"

And then he ties it to another:
"Does that make the advice misinformation or simply unproven?"

And closes with a question that isn't really a question:
"So where do you draw the line between misinformation, opinion and hypothesis?"

It doesn't ask for an answer, it is a succession of narrowing that asserts that no clear line exists. This idea is reinforced in each response with reframes. It is reinforced by placing the word "misinformation" in quotes, as if it has no real context or definition, and by pondering again what it means after already being told.

Now go back and read the responses. Several people have pointed out the flawed logic in the loaded question, or clarified what misinformation is. He has either reframed those answers or ignored them and pressed for examples that he can dismantle using his own definition, smuggled in as questions in the first post. You are not having a conversation, you have entered a game of words where only the OP knows the rules.

By design, anybody who disagrees is wrong and anybody who agrees is treated as advancing the conversation. The first post already has the answer, the thread just seeks to enforce it through the appearance of a conversation that is asymmetrically loaded.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Here my 2 cents.
Maybe is not misinformation but a general lack of undertanding

Now that we have that out of the way, let's discuss some things misinformation can be:

Companies often use misleading marketing, exaggerations, or outright lies to promote products. That's misinformation. The effect often becomes part of the advice promoted in the hobby. Seachem Prime would be a simple example.

Some companies outright lie about a products ingredients. UWC Vibrant would be an example.

Industry personalities sometimes make claims that can't be verified or that contradict known science. Claims made by Claude Schumacher of Fauna Marin regarding the science behind "bolus dosing" would be an example.

Sometimes an error gets quietly fixed and the explanation doesn't add up scientifically or mathematically. Fauna Marin's Balling Light calculator is an example.

What is being steered away from in this thread may matter more than any of those.

Misinformation is also when someone with a misunderstanding keeps repeating it after being shown they're wrong. This type of misinformation also often works its way into the fabric of the hobby.

Honest mistakes happen, and that's unavoidable. Many of us have at one point or another been the source of, or passed on, misinformation. It's not the same as someone who keeps doing it after being told they're wrong, refuses to let corrections stand, and builds authority through repetition instead of evidence. Calling something an opinion or a hypothesis and wrapping it in hedges doesn't exempt it either, once it's been shown wrong and gets repeated anyway, the label stops mattering.

Most people who are informed that they are spreading misinformation take steps to correct both their understanding and the record moving forward. That correction is easy to spot when it happens. It's just as easy to spot when it doesn't.

Redefining it doesn't change what it is.

 

[13rodo]

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."

My favorite in academia is “I would argue…”. I always stop the person and say “No you are arguing, but trying to leave yourself an out in case someone proves you wrong. Either own your argument and learn to say ‘I’m wrong’ when you are, or keep it to yourself.”

 

[BeanAnimal]

My favorite in academia is “I would argue…”. I always stop the person and say “No you are arguing, but trying to leave yourself an out in case someone proves you wrong. Either own your argument and learn to say ‘I’m wrong’ when you are, or keep it to yourself.”

Yep, and context always matters. An honest hedge, framed as a hedge and open to being falsified, is a totally different animal than hedges used to smuggle in claims when there is no ability or intent to substantiate them or retract them once they are scrutinized and dismantled. Some people go to mind-boggling extents to promote their claims and never be wrong.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Now that we have that out of the way, let's discuss some things misinformation can be:

Companies often use misleading marketing, exaggerations, or outright lies to promote products. That's misinformation. The effect often becomes part of the advice promoted in the hobby. Seachem Prime would be a simple example.

Some companies outright lie about a products ingredients. UWC Vibrant would be an example.

Industry personalities sometimes make claims that can't be verified or that contradict known science. Claims made by Claude Schumacher of Fauna Marin regarding the science behind "bolus dosing" would be an example.

Sometimes an error gets quietly fixed and the explanation doesn't add up scientifically or mathematically. Fauna Marin's Balling Light calculator is an example.

What is being steered away from in this thread may matter more than any of those.

Misinformation is also when someone with a misunderstanding keeps repeating it after being shown they're wrong. This type of misinformation also often works its way into the fabric of the hobby.

Honest mistakes happen, and that's unavoidable. Many of us have at one point or another been the source of, or passed on, misinformation. It's not the same as someone who keeps doing it after being told they're wrong, refuses to let corrections stand, and builds authority through repetition instead of evidence. Calling something an opinion or a hypothesis and wrapping it in hedges doesn't exempt it either, once it's been shown wrong and gets repeated anyway, the label stops mattering.

Most people who are informed that they are spreading misinformation take steps to correct both their understanding and the record moving forward. That correction is easy to spot when it happens. It's just as easy to spot when it doesn't.

Redefining it doesn't change what it is.

I have to agree, at least to an extent, with the first part of your post. Misleading marketing, false product claims and demonstrably incorrect information can absolutely become misinformation.

The second part, however, starts to sound more like “if you don’t agree with someone else’s interpretation, then you’re spreading misinformation.” Science and this hobby often involve competing interpretations of incomplete evidence. Simply repeating a position that others disagree with doesn’t automatically make it misinformation. It becomes misinformation when there is clear, robust evidence showing a claim is false and it continues to be presented as fact while ignoring that evidence.

 

[13rodo]

Yep, and context always matters. An honest hedge, framed as a hedge and open to being falsified, is a totally different animal than hedges used to smuggle in claims when there is no ability or intent to substantiate them or retract them once they are scrutinized and dismantled. Some people go to mind-boggling extents to promote their claims and never be wrong.

Yup, something like “Based on my experience…” or “I don’t have much to base this on, but…”. Qualify the basis for your rationale without going overboard on the validity of the claim.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Yup, something like “Based on my experience…” or “I don’t have much to base this on, but…”. Qualify the basis for your rationale without going overboard on the validity of the claim.

I agree. That’s why I personally try to make sure that most of the views I discuss on the forum are supported by the available literature whenever possible. If I can help reduce misinformation being spread, then I’ve achieved something worthwhile. At the same time, I’m more than happy to change my position if stronger evidence comes along. By “stronger evidence”, I mean better data and better research, not simply the opinions of others, no matter how experienced or active they are on the forum.

 

[Bitter old man]

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.

It is reef safe. Of course anything used incorrectly can be harmful.