novaqua_warn
Contents:
- (Chemicals) Kordon Novaqua = 5 ppm phosphates
by jimh/ultra.com (Jim Hurley) (Tue, 17 Mar 92)
- (No Title)
by ()
- Response from John Kuhns #1
by patti/hosehead.hf.intel.com (Patti Beadles) (26 Mar 92)
by jimh/ultra.com (Jim Hurley)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92
Newsgroup: rec.aquaria
I sent a message to John Farrell Kuhns on Compuserve
about Novaqua. He is the inventor of both Amquel and
Novaqua. He replied and gave me permission to post as long as I forward
any followups back to him.
--------------------
by
To: <jimh/ultra.com>
Jim,
Wow! Those InterNet messages are sure full of extraneous "stuff"
aren't they? <grin>.
As you suspected the information about NovAqua using a phosphate
buffer is "old news". In addition, we remain, basically, unrepentant in
this regard. That is, since phosphate is not toxic in aquariums, and since
it is one of the best buffering systems and it adds to alkalinity to the
treated water, we have chosen to not change the formula after all of these
years. The phosphate buffer system has been a feature of NovAqua ever since
I first invented it way back in early 1974.
You are correct about the fact that phosphate, like nitrate, is a
nutrient for both vascular and non-vascular plants in aquariums. However,
the approximately 5 mg/L concentration produced by NovAqua (when used as
directed) causes so few problems (anxiety about adding phosphate to one's
aquarium, of course, is one of the major problems <grin>) that we have
chosen to keep it as part of the formula.
The formula of NovAqua is proprietary, and if it were not for the
fact that every major manufacturer (and most of the smaller ones) in the
aquarium industry has attempted to copy the formula then we would willingly
reveal the formula. Since NovAqua is non-toxic (as stated on the label)
there are no regulations that require us to list its ingredients; the
evaluation of its non-toxicity is based upon the U.S. Gov't's requirements
for determining and subsequently labeling consumer products as such. That
is, toxicological evaluations have been performed and the data and results
are available upon request (from Kordon, our exclusive distributor for this
product). Kordon has a private message board in the Aquatic Data Center (GO
AQUADATA) here on CIS; I strongly encourage you to communicate with them
there.
AmQuel contains no phosphate (as I am sure you know from your own
testing). Since this product is patented its formula can be revealed; its
active ingredient is hydroxymethanesulfonic acid, sodium salt, dissolved in
water.
I sincerely hope that you continue to use NovAqua especially since
there are no other formulas quite like it available to the aquarist. When
you contact Kordon, please ask them for their latest Product Data Sheet on
both NovAqua and AmQuel (and on any othger Kordon products you use).
==John Farrell Kuhns==
==Inventor: Novaqua & AmQuel==
==Kansas City, MO==
--
Jim Hurley --> jimh-at-ultra.com ...!ames!ultra!jimh (408) 922-0100
Ultra Network Technologies / 101 Daggett Drive / San Jose CA 95134
by patti/hosehead.hf.intel.com (Patti Beadles)
Date: 26 Mar 92
Newsgroup: rec.aquaria
Dustin (thanks for including a "signature"...some InterNET postings seem to
be missing them and I can't often tell who has written the message):
The reitteration of _my_ messages is thoroughly unnesccessary...if
being done for my benefit please stop...if being done as part of the
normal practice on InterNET then please send me a paired-down version.
Thanks.
Just to augment my past comments. I don't work for Kordon; they're
the distributor for my company's products. I'm not involved (in the usual
sense) in the sales or marketing of the products.
Moe, Thiel and Tullock. I call them the "big three". If you'll
critically review their books as I (and others) have. I think that you'll
find that without exception that those recommendations for maximum phosphate
levels are _not_ documented. Publishing personal opinions and anectodal
"evidence" is the usual practice in the aquarium hobby, unfortunately
without real, controlled, repeatable experimentation to demonstrate the
facts these opinions and anecdotes are sort of like noses...everyone has at
least one, and for the most part (even given the differences in color, size
and shape) they all smell as sweetly <grin>. Now if you had cited Webb and
Wiebe, or Franzisket, or even Spotte (which is a secondary source to the
peer-reviewed literature) then you would have demonstrated that you have
been a serious student of the "phosphate controversy".
This controversy smacks of some of the other long-held 'beliefs' in
the aquarium hobby and industry:
(1) letting tap water 'sit' rids it of chlorine, or 'ages' it
(2) a fish only grows to a size determined by the size of tank it is
kept in
(3) adding drugs to the water is usually a viable way to treat
diseases
(4) adding salt to freshwater aquariums keeps the fishes disease-free
I think we can reject their beliefs out of hand. If majority opinion
had anything to do with the facts of the situation then we have no argument
about NovAqua's use in marine aquariums <grin>. The beliefs of the majority
are to be considered when trying to sell them something, but unlike bringing
Tinkerbell back to life these beliefs and opinions can't change facts.
I have _no_ beliefs with regard to "proper levels" of phosphates for
"reef tanks". I can tell you that in our laboratory that years of controlled
experimentation (where both control and test tanks are used) have clearly
demonstrated that phosphates and nitrates are required for algal growth in
both marine and freshwater environments. Our experiments have also shown
that lighting is critical. Our experiments have also shown that when
phosphates and nitrates are present that these substances are rapidly
scavenged from the water by photosynthetic organisms and are depleted if not
continuously added. When we want to grow algae we routinely utilize
phosphate levels at about 30 mg/L.
There are several problems with your question. Each tank is
different unless care is taken to duplicate a given set-up and design. What
constitutes a "reef tank" is in the mind of the beholder. Some believe that
it is defined by the type of filtration (a tank w/o a wet/dry "can't
possibly be a reef tank"), others believe it is defined by the presence of
live corals, others take a more general approach and define it as a
collection of plants and animals (vertebrates and invertebrates) that
naturall occur together (I, for instance, have a Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi
Sound rock reef tank in my home...I collect the plants and animals
personally) in a "reef community". One such community can be, but doesn't
have to be, a _coral_ reef community.
I _only_ recommend the use of NovAqua (no matter what kind of
aquarium or pond) when it is warranted...this is my recommendation for every
aquarium chemical and device. [For instance...the use of REDOX measurements
(as commonly practiced) isn't warranted]. It could very well be that the
use of NovAqua, in your situation isn't warranted...with or without its
phosphate buffer.
Regarding the label of NovAqua. Given that it hasn't been
demonstrated to be toxic, dangerous, useless, or just decorative, and that
it has been demonstrated to be non-toxic to humans, other mammals (pets) and
aquarium animals, and that _every_ competitor in North America has tried to
buy, duplicate and/or counterfeit the formula there are compelling reasons
for _not_ revealing too much on the label.
I am not trying to get you to "buy into" my reasoning. I have
accomplished what I wanted to you to do...that is...read my response and
allow me to make my case for the use of the phosphate buffer. That fact
remains, the knowledge of the phosphate buffer in NovAqua is old news.
Given the fact that the product I distribute through Kordon are some of the
most informative, label-wise, on the market your choices, rightfully so, are
extremly narrow. The majority of the products sold into the marine aquarium
hobby have far less useful information, especially those that are marketed
for the supplementation of calcium, molybdenum, strontium and iodine. Those
products of mine that are toxic or which are drugs are all clearly labeled
with the ingredients _and_ they tell what concentrations of the drugs are
produced in the treated water...nobody else does this (as far as I know).
Never use products in which you don't have confidence. If your level
of confidence is reduced by products that don't reveal their ingredients
then, certainly, don't use them. I agree with this concept. If you find
that this reduces your field of products, and you'd like to know more, then
you're almost forced to call or write...or communicate with them on FISHNET
<grin>. Kordon's toll-free number is 800/877-7387...you're aquarium
inhabitants are worth the effort.
Kordon does set examples in the aquarium hobby. I am distressed that
you're unaware of this. We package all toxic substances (Rid-Ich, Formalin
3, Malachite Green, etc.) in child-resistant packages...and we get our
"chops busted" for it by irrate customers who don't like it (they don't care
that it is the law, and the we are the only ones adhering to it).
==JFK==
==Water Chemistry, Instructor==
--
patti-at-hosehead.hf.intel.com | I don't speak for Intel, nor vice-versa.
75555.767-at-compuserve.com |
(503)-696-4358 | A1: Yes, I'm the one with the big fishtank.
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | A2: A lot, a lot, yes you can see it sometime.
The Krib
Marine/Reefs
The Krib