I am not willing to accept what either Tcasmos nor Donya is saying about science.
But you all want to turn this into an absolute fact thing. I would be foolish to make that sort of an an argument.
I linked to the description of the scientific method which clearly indicates that science has and will always rewrite itself. The facts are always those which are the best we have at the time. When one talks about new science replacing old, what is the point if neither can be used in any practical way?
I gave some great examples of how one can use some of the information in the temp study. I asked a few people to comment on how I indicated one could use it, what I think can be done with some of it in relation to the hobby and I asked for anybody to comment on the observations I made about how such science could used. No reply.
But I am going to do this the way you all say is advisable.
Tcamos you state that the age of the fish in the bag make a difference to acclimation. Pick and species you like and tell me what the difference would be if that fish wre one year old or 2 years old vs thee years old, What does the addition of one year more or less mean relative to how it should be treated at both ends of the shipping process. Prove to me that what you say is true in how. You stated "Sex of the specimen (in some species the males are more hardy and others the females)" how do you know this? How much hardier, what conditions kill the female vs the males? I say you are wrong in this. Sex has no effect at all. Which one of us is correct? For any given species you wish to select to show this can be true, I will simply say no it is not- an nothing I have ever done in my 20 tank fishroom over the last 13 years shows that sex matters in terms of hardiness.
How are you going to show you are likely correct and I am not, if it isn't scientifically based? We can start a war of anecdotal evidence I suppose. But even if you come up with a few dozen studies which indicate this is strongly the case and that most biologist believe it to be true based on that research, if all I need to do to dismiss what you and they have said is that future research might come along to supplant this so I can ignore what you and science are saying. I have no way of knowing if it will or if it wont. But I can use this as a argument as a cop out, And this is exactly what Donya has advised me to do. Ignore the best info science has to offer at the time in favor of something that sounds good. And lord help us if an ardent feminist hears you say that females are weaker than males.
Please bear with me while I quote from the page about this subject I linked-
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2.
Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis
to predict the existence of other phenomena, or
to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental
tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.
What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.
There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
The next part of the scientific method that is essential, as noted by Donya and a few others, and which I have known myself since my early days as a Psych major is that experimental design improves in quality the more uncontrolled variables the design can eliminate. For example, if researchers want to know what level of NH3 is toxic to all tropical fish and what level they can survive for some time, they need to conduct experiments which insure that is what is being measured/tested and only that
In simple terms- lets look at cycling a tank with fish where no water changes will be done so and the fish die over the course of the process. But there were five fish and they died days apart. The first fish died on day 4, the next one on day 10 the third one on day 17 and the last one on day 27. Now in this example we were fortunate enough to keep numbers for ammonia and nitrite and nitrogen
Day 4 ammonia 1.5 ppm Nitrite 0
Day 7 ammonia 3.0 ppm Nitrite 0
Day 10 ammonia 1.0 Nitrite 0
Day 14 Ammonia .5 Nitrite 1.5
Day 17 Ammonia 0 Nitrite 3.0
Day 23 Ammonia 0 Nitrite 5.0
Day 27 Ammonia 0 Nitrite 1.7
What killed the fish each time and how does one know. It is not a leap to say ammonia killed the first two- this would make sense using the method described by Donya that he best explanation is the one that makes the most sense and it would also be borne out by the science. But it can only really make sense if we are as sure as is possible that there was nothing else in the water that could have been involved in the death beside the ammonia. But as soon as nitrite begins to appear there are now two variables at work, neither is controlled so there is now no way to know what is killing the next few fish. Did the ammonia do it by damaging the fish so badly it was on its way out even had the nitrite not appeared. Did it died because the ammonia weakened it so that it could not handle a level of nitrite that otherwise would not have killed iton its own, or were these fish simply more resistant to ammonia than to nitrite? How can any of these questions be answered with any degree of certainty? How can we find if it was even ammonia that killed all the fish?
The scientific method tells us how to find the best answer to the question we can at this time. What one must one do to be able to get an answer regarding whether ammonia killed the fish is to design a method to test for it. If we want to test the effects of ammonia we need to insure that ammonia is the only variable. The researcher needs to make a best effort to insure there is nothing more than ammonia present. All of this can be tested. The researcher can measure the amount of ammonia present and can test to be sure there is 0 nitrite present. If it is not possible to do this, then it is not possible to know with any degree of certainty what killed the fish.
So curious scientists knowing ammonia is toxic to fish at some level set out to determine what levels that might be. They design experiments intended to place fish in "tanks" with controlled levels of ammonia. Ideally every tank will be identical in every aspect but how much ammonia is present. All will have the same temp., the same pH, the same kH the same water source etc. etc. All possible efforts will be made to insure there is minimal to no potential for contamination.
And then the "fun" begins. They test varying levels of ammonia and various exposure times for each. They can record what happens to the experimental fish. They can autopsy both those that did not die as well as those that did to determine the physiological effects of the ammonia exposure. They can measure gill damage, they can measure the amount of ammonia in the fish brain and blood.
The issue now is what the researchers do with all this data. There are a couple if pretty solid "facts" that can be stated with as much certainty as science allows. When ammonia levels are 0, ammonia doesn't kill fish. They can also find the number at which 100% of the fish die. I do not think we need research to tell us if we put a fish into a container filled from a bottle of commercial ammonia that it will kill 100% of the fish. What the science should be able to do is to find out at what lower level of ammonia the fish begin to suffer, they can test to see what levels cause what types of harm and where it starts to become fatal.
But this design is worthless if it doesn't result in the ability to predict the effects of varying levels of ammonia on fish. And the answer to that comes from the area of experimental design with which I have had the most experience in years past and which I used in my later career in the world of investments. And that is the science of statistical anaylysis. The purpose of the ammonia experiment is to yield predictive information about the entire population of such fish in general. And now suddenly it has moved out of the realm of chemistry and biology and into the realm of number crunching.
Now we are talking about means and averages, about bell shaped curves and distributional analysis. It involves correlations, limits of confidence, regression analysis all stuff that can make one's head spin. But the goal of it all is to be able to generalize from the sample group in the experiment to the general population. The basic principles here are insuring the sample population is representative of the general population. If the tests above were only perfomed on 3 year old male fish, it is not a group representative of the general population and thus it it not legitimate science to generalize information from the sample population to the general population. What we are talking about here is sampling error and bias.
But after wading through all of this science it really boils down to this. If the sample population ifsrepresentative, if the test methods were enumerated clearly and adhered to, if a number of things that are accepted as being good experimental design were followed, the end result should look something like this. Members of the genus Poecilia are more sensitive to ammonia-n than many other other fish which have been tested. Mortality of 100% of the test subjects occurred at exposure levels of .12 ppm of NH3-N after an exposure time of 63 minutes. No lasting effects were observed until levels exceeded .015 ppm even when exposure time was 30 days (the limit of this experiment). Of course I am making up the numbers for the purposes of this discussion, but in a lab they would be measured exactly with lab grade test equipment. The LC96 level where 50% of the test subjects died was .09 ppm. So exactly what use is this research, what can be done with it, how can it be confirmed?
The answer is other scientists should be able to replicate the research, if they use the same representative sample, the same methods etc. they should get pretty much the same results. I say pretty much because we are talking statistically similar vs identical. The second experiment may come up with results that find the onset of damage was at .0147 while another set of researchers doing the same thing get .0152. If the statistical analysis of the results of all three studies doing the same thing show they are identical within a 2.5% limit of confidence, the results of the two subsequent studies have confirmed/replicated the results from the first. The odds improve that the results and the ability to use them to predict the effect of ammonia levels on guppys represent the best info we have today, how can we ignore it?
The research should allow us to use the experimental results as long as new science has not come along and done new experiments that produce statistically significant results which differ from what is known to date and which challenge the conclusions of the currently accepted parameter information for the effect of ammonia levels on Poecilia. Until this occurs, fish keepers are best served by knowing that certain low level ammonia readings in their guppy tank, those which are underthe range of between .0147 and .0152 ppm, are very likely to be "safe" and therefore there is no immediate need for action. We have a good idea that this level should be safe for almost all, but not necessarily 100% of guppies. Some will fall at the outer ends of the bell shaped curve, they fall 2 standard deviations from the mean.
Now having read all three of the above studies I come here and find a post about this topic. The poster reports they have an ammonia reading on their API kit of .25 ppm of ammonia and the pH of the tank is 7.8. and the temp is 77 F (25 C). The next posted then states, you must do at least a 50% water change ASAP because that level of ammonia will definitely harm or kill guppies. Then I come along and read this and I ask myself, is that right. Will that level of ammonia harm or kill guppies. So the first thing I do it use the science to determine how much of a .25 ppm reading for total ammonia is actually ammonia-n as NH3. I need to do this to make the OPs numbers and those used by reserchers equate since they are using different scales- I have to compensate for the use of different scales and methods.
The science tells us that the API type kit measures total ions not just the -n ones, so the first step is to convert the .25 ppm total ion reading to an ammoinia-n ion only reading. Using the science I multiply the .25 by .8 (accept that I am using the right factor here) and I now know there is .2 ppm total ammonia-n. On to the next step. Most of that .2 ppm is ammonium not ammonia. So we need to determine how much of that total .2 ppm is actually NH3. And there is more science for that. At a pH of 7.8 and a temp of 77 F (25 C) there is .009 ppm of NH3-n. All of this is based on formulas that science has provided. The formulas I used to get from the OP's original test reading to numbers we can use in relation to the science always yield the same numbers no matter how many times one does the calculations. This is science- the formulas are only usefull if they give the same answer every time.
So now what I have are two distinct pieces of information. On the one hand I have three studies which investigated ammonia levels on guppies. I know that two subsequent studies by different researchers obtained the same results (statistically speaking). What their very stringent research showed in all three experiments was that .009 ppm of NH3-n is not a big enough dose to cause harm. I also am reasonaly certain (assuming the OP had accurate readings) that their ammonia level should not harm their fish. Do I know 100% for sure? No, bBut the odds strongly indicate this is the case. The odds any given guppy will die at that level of exposure are extremely small. If you understand statistics you know the odds are 1.25 in 100 that the ammonia will harm the fish. Pm;y One half of the 2.5% is a bad outcome, the other half is a good one and that cuts the numbers for harm in half.
So on the one hand I have all that science, which I know might be revised down the road due to "better" experimental results. But I do not have a time machine so I can't get down the road and find out. I have to make a decision now using the most accurate and up to date information at this time. So I post that the science shows us that the level of ammonia in the OP's tank is likely not a concern for the moment and try to explain why because this is what the best science we have today indicates.
We now have two competing pieces of advice being given to the OP. Somebody else has simply stated do a big water change as any level of ammonia is harmful to guppies and I have given an answer based on all that scientific study. If we listen to Donya, the OP should decide what to do based on whether what I have said or what the other person said makes the most sense to them. Nothing factual matters beyond what sound good?
???
But this poor poster has had their tank for for only a few months, its barely cycled. He has never heard of NH3 vs NH4, he has no idea that pH can determine the toxicity for any level of total ammonia. All of this information boggles their mind, but the advice of the other poster sounds the best because it is easier to understand. So that is the the one that is believed by the OP. And then all that other responder has to write is its better to be safe than sorry and all the science goes out the window. Because of the research studies which show results are good to within a certainty of 2.5% which means that if 100 guppys go into water with .009 ppm of NH3-n the odds are that 97.5 of them will not suffer any ill effect. It is not 100% however.
So now let me change course here and bring it down to a more personal level. you go to your doctor who reveals you have a condition which research shows is not a problem for 97.5% of the people who have it. However 2.5% of people who do have it experience complications and could become very ill and half of those die as a result. He then tells you that the best procedures available today have a 50% success rate so far and that the dangers of the procedure have caused 1.5% of those who undergo to died during the procedure. He advises you, in his opinion, that the best course of action is to do nothing at this time. What will you do? Being upset you go home and go to a website where this condition is discussed. Some poster states they had the condition and the procedure and that its not bad and it worked for him and three other people he knows who also underwent it and it helped them too. Because it didn't kill any of them them and it corrected the condition for all of them he kmows not only will it not kill you but it will certainly fix the condition. They further tell you that they do not know anybody for whom the procedure failed to fix the condition. Nor does he know anybody who died while having it.
What are the odds that either the doctor or the unknown poster is correct. Because you are going to have to make a decision what to do. The unknown poster who you have idea who they are, how or what they might know or the doctor with the research? Or the doctor whose data/information might be replaced with better information sometime in the future. The doctor says the odds are only 1 in 78, based on the best research to date, that the condition will kill you if its left untreated. So you must decide if that risk justifies the risk of having the procedure. The odds the doctor stated that 1/2 the people get no benefit from the procedure at all and that 1.5% die from it vs. the odds the no-name poster has stated that it works 100% of the time and that nobody dies.
If you decide based on what I believe is the value of scientific research, then you are going to do nothing. If you follow Donya's advice, you will probably listen to the poster. His info sounds good and you can not escape a personal bias that you do not want to have even a 1 in 78 chance of dying here plus and you would like to believe my condition can be "cured". Besides that all the complicated terms the doctor used confused you but you can understand what the no-name poster is saying very easilymd it sure sounds good.
I wonder what any of you would decide to do in light of the above- are you going to have the procedure or are you going to choose to live with the condition? Are you going to rely on the best science available or are you going to rely on anecdotal evidence? After all, the no-name poster sure sounds confident and what he says appears to make sense. So do you make an appointment for the procedure or not based on the information offered?
I know what I would do and I know why. I will go with the best science currently available and not with the anecdotal evidence. And I also believe the same rationale that would drive me to decide against having the procedure were it me can be applied just as well for arriving at a decision about what to do in that guppy tank.
Does any of this absolutely guarantee the outcome in every instance? No it doesn't. Could the numbers change down the road due to new information and research? Yes they can. Despite all of this I need to make a decision. I need to know to the greatest extent possible that my decision has the highest probability of being correct.
In a nutshell that is why I rely on the science, because at any given time it is the best information we have and it also seems to have reliable predictive value.
So I am going to stick with the best science available rather than the what ever sound sounds best method recommended by Donya.
As far as mama 's post above is concerned she has actually proved my point, perhaps better than I have ever done. She says she is going to make decisions based on science:
" I look at the methodology and decide if that sounds reasonable." So you are looking at science not anecdotal information.
I look at the methodology and decide if that sounds reasonable.' So you are looking at the science and trying te find the most accurate and up to date data.
"I shun conclusions that say they have "proved" a hypothesis or even a null hypothesis as that in my opinion is impossible." You looked as that science and you determined is was not good, that there was better science avalable.
"I read other research on the same subject and see what their conclusions say"
So far all I am seeing here is: I look at the science, I look at the science,I look at the science. And then I see "at the end of the day I take the very unscientific approach and decide by what feels right" but I would argue your approach was not in the least bit an unscientific approach. You relied on the science to show you all the options, you used your knowledge of scientific research to determine what course you would follow. The one thing you did not state is that you decided to follow the information provided by some no name on a forum site. You did not say you looked at magic spells, you did not say you consulted a religious cleric. You did not say you just tossed a coin to decide. You looked at all the available science and based on that you chose what you believed were the 'best" scientific results to guide your decision. But the key here is scientific results.
What I really wonder is had mama never looked at any of the science, if she had never seen one single piece of research- either what she accepted or rejected' could she possibly reached the decisions she did? How could one eve weigh alternatives they did not even know exist?
But let me offer you this. The theory of gravity, or law if you prefer, tells us that every time you step off that tall building the result will be kersplatt. But since we can not prove this is a certainty short of having 100% of the poplulation of the planet since the first human stood upright (they of course needed cliffs or tall trees from which to jump) and every human who will be born also must jump, it is impossible to say for sure 100% of the people who jump go kersplatt. In light of this I am going to offer you a bet. I will bet you $1,250,000 against one penny that if you step off the building you will fall. Please leave the penny next to my cash on the roof. If you fall I will pick up my money and your penny. If you don't fall, when you come back onto the roof, take your penny and my money and go home.
I am offering you odds of $125,000,000 to 1. Not good enough? My buddy Bill Gates just called and said he would be willing to bet 1 billion to your penny thay you kersplatt. Heck that is 100 billion to one odds. Will you take the bet based on the idea that eventually new science might come along an repeal the laws of gravity? And if there is no amount of odds you would accept? The law of gravity says that every time you step off the build you will kersplatt absolutely, no doubt if 100% its a proven fact. But then I remember your writing" I shun conclusions that say they have "proved" a hypothesis" So shun the law of gravity and take the bet?
This is a silly example, of course. But there is a more real life example of many people acting against their own best interest despite knowing the odds/sciencw. Its called the lottery. The science tells us the odds of winning are often they are in the 100s of millions to one range. Yet how many lottery tickets get sold every day? Why do folks waste their money then? Because the idea of winning sounds so good it makes them abandon all reason and plunk there money down anyway in defiance of the science. And they do this every week over and over. The science tells us not to buy, our hearts tell us to buy. But the fact is not buying will always be the best choice even though somebody has to win it. Dang science.
As for the example of the scientist and the forum story above. There are how many 100,000s of scientist the world over doing research into many many subjects. there are tons of scientific studies being conducted as well. Now you cite one example of one scientist on one subject and this means that all the work of those other folks is clearly not to be trusted or used because of this fact. Now had you said there were 1,000s of scientists all across the world where this had happened and that is is happening in significant numbers still, it would have some real meaning. So if i can find a physicist who says we need more research into gravity because there are some unanswered questions that now you will take the bet?
So here is my conclusion. you folks and I disagree very strongly on this topic. I am not going to abandon the best information available at the time simply because it is an imperefect method until something better and more reliable comes along. Since the mods, at least tcamos and Donya, feel so strongly about this, I see absolutely no point in bringing up science any further on this site and will refrain 100% from doing so. However. what I will do is when I see somebody state something as fact here, such as when somebody says that the bacteria die off at the rate of 10% a day, I will merely say can you offer any proof that this is the case and then leave it at that.
If nothing else if should force some posters to have to justify what they have stated to those people who feel more than just saying it is needed to show it might be the case.
So let me start with Tcamos and what he stated above
"Method shipped (truck, train, jet)" If the time in transit is the same, if the box has either heat or cold packs to maintain temp, if the boxes are all packed the same, how does train vs truck vs plane cause a difference? And how do you know this is the case?
"Type of bag (gas permeable or not)" Why does this matter, what are the differences between how it affects bag water in either case. If one method is better than the other, even if its just for specific species, what is the difference, why and how do you know?"
From now on I am Mr. Ignorant and I will need to know.
/nrac.umd.edu/files/Factsheets/fact170.pdf
