Well - conversely - A link to another thread here is not really a 'reference' or 'research'. I haven't seen many people here posting links one way or the other. There are lots of data out there what the ammonia does during an aquarium cycle - as well as data out there as to how toxic ammonia is. If you use bottled bacteria, following the instructions, there is as close to zero risk as any other method - IME
I do not think links to other threads on R2R are argument support unless they contain links to documented research, especially peer-reviewed or published. We are probably all familiar with the idea that we need to prove reliability for any given information on the internet. More links to more peer-reviewed and published articles and more research are always helpful if we learn better ways to keep a reef.
It is obvious that ammonia is toxic. It is also a given fact that following the instructions on bottled bacteria as well as the traditional nitrogen cycle for a tank is a reliable method.
Neither of these are directly related to the original question of this thread: Is Nitrite (specifically) toxic to marine life at levels typically observed in aquariums?
Obviously also, all substances are toxic at high enough levels. I wish this discussion was less about counter-arguments presenting extremely high levels as toxic and more about whether nitrite is a significant enough concern that it should be measured and observed during or after cycle.
This question is very relevant to me because I just set up a quarantine tank recently, thought it was cycled (albeit quickly) by using some live rock from an existing tank, one of the fish I added had troubles that looked like possible ammonia burn, ammonia tested zero with a few different methods (Seachem alert badge, API dip strips, Salifert reagent), but nitrite showed up on API 5-in-1 dip strips. I would like to understand if the nitrite toxicity could have been the likely cause of death for the fish or if it was likely from conditions before shipment or just general stresses from shipping. I fully understand that high nitrite could be an additional stress and wil still try to limit it, but I want to know whether this is one of my greatest concerns in a new tank or if it is a minor health concern.
They don't oppose the others. Any compound, nitrite , nitrate, copper, iodine, anything in excess can increase stree levels in fish. That was my point. If anyone can't find links about excess chemicals and nutrients causing stress I'm not wasting my time to compile data for well established truths. For some reason your opinion matters to me . I said I'd keep my opinion to myself and I will . I'll stay away from the chemistry discussion. My biology degree is insufficient to discuss things with most of these people.
I understand this and even see that this was your original point. This thread is about nitrite toxicity, so it should be about answering the question more specifically about what levels are toxic, what levels are a minor health concern (if any), and what levels are safe/natural/needed (if any).
Just from my observation of this discussion, I think that sharing opinions is not the hazard, nor do I want the sharing of opinions to cease. It is just important to share opinions as possible counter-points while being willing to be countered unless there is enough data to support an absolute statement. Posing opinions as questions or conceding points where the data is not absolute is better than stating an opinion as an absolute (i.e. "Nitrite is poison"). If the only justification for such an absolute is that a high enough level is harmful, then I should be able to say also that "H
2O is poison" since it would be lethal to fish at a high enough concentration. These threads are discussions with the intent of determining best practices for advice for those uneducated on the topic, so absolutes are not beneficial. It is probably harmful if "nitrite is poison" causes a panic response for someone new who measures some nitrite. What is better is to be able to say at what level nitrite is a concern while also recommending a longer cycle time and eradication of measurable nitrite whenever possible.
I don't think your opinions are invalid or should not be shared. My observation of this thread is that your issues with others came from your initial absolute statement ("Nitrite is poison") and consecutive attempts that seemed to be defense of the absolute when others have data that they think goes against the absolute. If instead your statement was "Nitrite is toxic at "x" level" and you could share any documentation of cases that support the statement, it would have been received much better. This is exactly why I think these challenges were posed to your opinion after the initial absolute statement.
Hopefully some of this makes sense...
