andywg
Bored into leaving
Congratulations. You have posted web pages from the internet to counter points made with the support of scientific research. Anyone could have written those websites, including you (though I am not aleging that here). If they don't refer verifiable research to back up their claims then they are just baseless claims.
You have also claimed you based your information on independant research, how about you post that?
It seems you have your own views which are not backed up by science and are unable to consider that your original views might be wrong. I note that you were intially unable to accept my post that fish can develop an immunity to ich (As shown by scientific research) but you have gone strangely quiet in that thread.
I used to think that nitrates above 40ppm was really bad (a search of my old posts will confirm this) until I came across science stating the contrary. There is nothing wrong with changing one's opinion after looking at new evidence.
Also, to help back up the sicentific posts with experience, I helped CFC with the set up of his fish house and giant tank. CFC keeps stingrays in London tap water where the nitrates are often 40ppm out of the tap. This means that CFC's 'rays are going to be living in higher levels of nitrates than that. Nowthere are few fish which are considered more sensitive to water conditions as stingrays, yet CFC's thrive, despite many websites in the recent past claiming you need RO water to keep rays (interestingly, Scott Michael's book on keeping stingrays and sharks notes that 100ppm is a good goal to keep your nitrates under, but admits the true toxic level is higher).
As a final note, is it perhaps possible that you are getting bored with the argument because you are unable to find scientific proof to show that nitrates are toxic to fish at numbers below 3 digits?