Nitrite Toxicity

[Soren]

How many books and articles do you need. This forum is not the only source of knowledge.

As many as possible, so I can look at the different studies, try to understand and learn from the information, and make my own informed decision on which opinion I hold.

...but we need to be careful how we get information, because that Fritz information seems to be primarily for freshwater considerations (at least far more than for saltwater) based on other studies by other researchers.

I still see no harm in leaving the cycle until nitrites are no longer present in order to be safe, but this does not answer whether or not nitrites are toxic, which was the original question.

 

[Duncan62]

I haven't seen you post any evidence. You posted something from fritz saying it is harmful but where is their research? We have the research that suggests it isn't as harmful as we once thought, let's see the evidence that says it is. (evidence is not someone simply saying that it is harmful btw)

I can see that who posts the most links is the winner. I I've done research and testing for a while now. I enjoy lots of things on here but not this. I just wanted to talk about aquariums. During a face to face conversation do you ask for links?

 

[Soren]

When I started doing this in the 70s nobody dosed ammonia to cycle. It was either some cheap fish or the dieoff from live rock that started it. In these methods the ammonia reaches toxic levels for only a short time. Then nitrite and so on. It's a proven way to cycle and is done by thousands of people around the world.

Yes, I understand. It is a tried-and-true method that is now being overtaken by a new method after more research in order to avoid stressing fish, even cheap and hardy fish. It does work, though, but that does not answer to the criticality of nitrite measurements or its toxicity...

Again, the arguments relevant to the original question are not about whether or not that method can cycle a tank but rather whether or not it can be proven that nitrite is toxic. This seems to me to be the exact reason this thread is headed the way that it is: Instead of addressing the original question with backed-up arguments, many of your responses are rather to defend the efficacy of the old method.

 

[Soren]

I can see that who posts the most links is the winner. I I've done research and testing for a while now. I enjoy lots of things on here but not this. I just wanted to talk about aquariums. During a face to face conversation do you ask for links?

I think the requests for links come after different opinions are brought head-to-head and the only answer at the moment is my word versus your word.
This follows the exact definition of "arguing" versus "argument": Arguing is the heated discussion based only on opinions. Argument is presenting why that opinion is held with back-up/research and being willing to address the counter-arguments directly.

...anyhow, this is a topic about nitrite toxicity (a question I would like to better understand), and not about presenting argument or logical fallacies. This discussion is going way off-topic.

 

[Duncan62]

Yes, I understand. It is a tried-and-true method that is now being overtaken by a new method after more research in order to avoid stressing fish, even cheap and hardy fish. It does work, though, but that does not answer to the criticality of nitrite measurements or its toxicity...

Again, the arguments relevant to the original question are not about whether or not that method can cycle a tank but rather whether or not it can be proven that nitrite is toxic. This seems to me to be the exact reason this thread is headed the way that it is: Instead of addressing the original question with backed-up arguments, many of your responses are rather to defend the efficacy of the old method.

Does anybody really think elevated levels during run in are good for fish? Some things are learned from trial and error. Trying different stuff. Links to something else has postulated and theories that aren't proven helps but it's not the only way to learn.

 

[keithw283]

I can see that who posts the most links is the winner. I I've done research and testing for a while now. I enjoy lots of things on here but not this. I just wanted to talk about aquariums. During a face to face conversation do you ask for links?

You just came here to argue. that much has been clear. And yes, typically whoever presents the most evidence backing their claim is the "winner" You still haven't provided any evidence. Also, I almost always ask people to present their evidence or to prove it when talking to them face to face. Since every one of us is almost always walking around with a device in our pocket that can do that. There is no reason to not be informed if the information is out there on any subject. It is really fun when someone tells an obvious bs story about something and rather than arguing with them about whether or not it is possible I can simply look up the information myself and just show them it's not possible.

 

[Duncan62]

I think the requests for links come after different opinions are brought head-to-head and the only answer at the moment is my word versus your word.
This follows the exact definition of "arguing" versus "argument": Arguing is the heated discussion based only on opinions. Argument is presenting why that opinion is held with back-up/research and being willing to address the counter-arguments directly.

...anyhow, this is a topic about nitrite toxicity (a question I would like to better understand), and not about presenting argument or logical fallacies. This discussion is going way off-topic.

Thanks for the level head.

 

[Duncan62]

You just came here to argue. that much has been clear. And yes, typically whoever presents the most evidence backing their claim is the "winner" You still haven't provided any evidence. Also, I almost always ask people to present their evidence or to prove it when talking to them face to face. Since every one of us is almost always walking around with a device in our pocket that can do that. There is no reason to not be informed if the information is out there on any subject. It is really fun when someone tells an obvious bs story about something and rather than arguing with them about whether or not it is possible I can simply look up the information myself and just show them it's not

 

[Duncan62]

I'll bet people hate to see you coming. I can't imagine having a talk with a friend and having to prove every word with Google. How miserable.

 

[Soren]

Does anybody really think elevated levels during run in are good for fish? Some things are learned from trial and error. Trying different stuff. Links to something else has postulated and theories that aren't proven helps but it's not the only way to learn.

No, I do not think anyone, especially not those on this thread, think that elevated levels are good for the fish. That is the opposite of the original question, though, which is if nitrites are toxic.

There is a big difference between lethally toxic and mildly unhealthy. (I don't personally know which nitrites are, or anywhere in-between...)

I understand trial and error, but still support trying to understand if nitrites have ever been the issue or if other factors were truly the issue or at least the more major contributors to the issue. I really do not know the answer to this which is why I continue to read, research, and try to understand rather than just stating my own experiences anecdotally as the answer.

 

[NeonRabbit221B]

@Randy Holmes-Farley

..sorry to call you back to this.. I know loudwolf used to produce Sodium Nitrite but it is no longer listed.. Not sure of a reputable source for it... Currently looking at a curing salt with the only questionable ingredient is FD&C Red #3. Any ideas?

 

[keithw283]

I'll bet people hate to see you coming. I can't imagine having a talk with a friend and having to prove every word with Google. How miserable.

You are dishing out a lot of personal insults on this thread. Shows your character. Also, there is nothing wrong with being informed. When you are informed you don't have to waste your time waiting on Nitrites to hit zero

 

[Duncan62]

I'll bet people hate to see you coming. I can't imagine having a talk with a friend and having to prove every word with Google. How miserable.

You are dishing out a lot of personal insults on this thread. Shows your character. Also, there is nothing wrong with being informed. When you are informed you don't have to waste your time waiting on Nitrites to hit

 

[Duncan62]

Your condescension is the original insult. I wish I could be as informed as you.

 

[Duncan62]

As many as possible, so I can look at the different studies, try to understand and learn from the information, and make my own informed decision on which opinion I hold.

...but we need to be careful how we get information, because that Fritz information seems to be primarily for freshwater considerations (at least far more than for saltwater) based on other studies by other researchers.

I still see no harm in leaving the cycle until nitrites are no longer present in order to be safe, but this does not answer whether or not nitrites are toxic, which was the original question.

If you ask 500 reef keeper I'll bet the vast majority would say nitrite by its chemical nature is toxic. At what levels for different animals I dont know. I'll keep following the majority and consider it a compound to avoid. I realize this makes me a poria on this forum but that's OK.

 

[Duncan62]

If you ask 500 reef keeper I'll bet the vast majority would say nitrite by its chemical nature is toxic. At what levels for different animals I dont know. I'll keep following the majority and consider it a compound to avoid. I realize this makes me a poria on this forum but that's OK.

P.S. I ve read so many aquarium books. They have common truths but many different approaches to the same issues. Just like this forum. The book aren't condescending is the main difference. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this without judgements. Thanks

 

[Duncan62]

P.S. I ve read so many aquarium books. They have common truths but many different approaches to the same issues. Just like this forum. The book aren't condescending is the main difference. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this without judgements. Thanks

Everyone go look at your tanks and just enjoy them. Forget chemistry for a minute and enjoy.

 

[Soren]

If you ask 500 reef keeper I'll bet the vast majority would say nitrite by its chemical nature is toxic. At what levels for different animals I dont know. I'll keep following the majority and consider it a compound to avoid. I realize this makes me a poria on this forum but that's OK.

...but would any of the 500 reef-keepers have documentation of issues that are known to be directly related to or made worse by nitrite toxicity specifically? The general belief of hazard may be due to carry-over from freshwater tanks where the toxicity is certainly more documented/researched. It also may just be from the idea that it is not measured in natural seawater much at all, so it should not be in aquariums. This is a good baseline, but not a final answer to the discussion.

Also, there may be false beliefs that are generated by other causes. I do not know this to be the case with nitrite, but it is possible that something else causes an issue but it is blamed on a different cause. This happens all the time when people assume that the last fix applied to an issue is what fixed the issue when sometimes the issue goes away due to a different reason and is noticed as resolved during the last fix.

For nitrite toxicity, it would seem to me that it is not clearly defined how toxic it is in marine environments but is not a serious primary focus when there are other likely issues, especially for new and uneducated reefers who are beginning their education.

Everyone go look at your tanks and just enjoy them. Forget chemistry for a minute and enjoy.

I agree that we should look at and enjoy our tanks. I also agree not to fix what is not broken.
...but I do not agree that we should forget chemistry or other learning necessary when our system does not go the way we want it to. (I do not think this is what you mean, but this thread is specifically about answering the questions of chemistry, so it is not the place to forget chemistry). How many reefs have ever been set up with a basic maintenance schedule of cleaning the glass and feeding the fish/corals and went on to never have major issues? Each step of complexity requires 1 of 3 solutions I can think of right now:
1. Research the issue, formulate an informed opinion, apply the opinion, measure results, keep/change opinion accordingly (when pursued long enough, this usually fixes the issue and maintains a successful tank)
2. Pay someone else to fix the issue (sometimes this fixes the issue, but you have to do research on the reliability of who you hire to fix the issue; this method does not benefit personal education as much unless questions are asked and answered with education in mind)
3. Give up, quit the hobby, get rid of reef (this obviously is the least-educating method, but is guaranteed to eliminate reef-related issues [other than, maybe, debt from setup cost])

I personally choose the first option due to my desire to learn and understand the issue myself, but the other 2 are valid options that some people choose.
Those who follow the first option will have the most useful information to pass on to new hobbyists, especially by keeping record of scientific studies and long-term experiences of those who have been in the hobby and been successful for years. Information shared by me needs to be verifiable and able to assess and answer to counter-arguments and should never be just passing on things I've heard but cannot justify.

Thanks for the discussion. Hopefully we can all continue to learn more about these issues while also maintaining successful best practices as determined by our current information.

 

[Duncan62]

...but would any of the 500 reef-keepers have documentation of issues that are known to be directly related to or made worse by nitrite toxicity specifically? The general belief of hazard may be due to carry-over from freshwater tanks where the toxicity is certainly more documented/researched. It also may just be from the idea that it is not measured in natural seawater much at all, so it should not be in aquariums. This is a good baseline, but not a final answer to the discussion.

Also, there may be false beliefs that are generated by other causes. I do not know this to be the case with nitrite, but it is possible that something else causes an issue but it is blamed on a different cause. This happens all the time when people assume that the last fix applied to an issue is what fixed the issue when sometimes the issue goes away due to a different reason and is noticed as resolved during the last fix.

For nitrite toxicity, it would seem to me that it is not clearly defined how toxic it is in marine environments but is not a serious primary focus when there are other likely issues, especially for new and uneducated reefers who are beginning their education.


I agree that we should look at and enjoy our tanks. I also agree not to fix what is not broken.
...but I do not agree that we should forget chemistry or other learning necessary when our system does not go the way we want it to. (I do not think this is what you mean, but this thread is specifically about answering the questions of chemistry, so it is not the place to forget chemistry). How many reefs have ever been set up with a basic maintenance schedule of cleaning the glass and feeding the fish/corals and went on to never have major issues? Each step of complexity requires 1 of 3 solutions I can think of right now:
1. Research the issue, formulate an informed opinion, apply the opinion, measure results, keep/change opinion accordingly (when pursued long enough, this usually fixes the issue and maintains a successful tank)
2. Pay someone else to fix the issue (sometimes this fixes the issue, but you have to do research on the reliability of who you hire to fix the issue; this method does not benefit personal education as much unless questions are asked and answered with education in mind)
3. Give up, quit the hobby, get rid of reef (this obviously is the least-educating method, but is guaranteed to eliminate reef-related issues [other than, maybe, debt from setup cost])

I personally choose the first option due to my desire to learn and understand the issue myself, but the other 2 are valid options that some people choose.
Those who follow the first option will have the most useful information to pass on to new hobbyists, especially by keeping record of scientific studies and long-term experiences of those who have been in the hobby and been successful for years. Information shared by me needs to be verifiable and able to assess and answer to counter-arguments and should never be just passing on things I've heard but cannot justify.

Thanks for the discussion. Hopefully we can all continue to learn more about these issues while also maintaining successful best practices as determined by our current information.

I meant forget it just for a while and just admire the beauty and detail if all these creatures. I believe that chemistry of our tanks is important. I also take advice from all successful keepers. Most times their experience is enough evidence for me. It's OK to trust knowledgeable people without insulting them by saying " wheres you link".

 

[Cell]

This is a chemistry forum. The reason for its existence is to discuss reef tank chemistry. If a claim is made, asking for actual evidence is not an affront, it's a necessity.