Vodka Article Rejected - Page 2

wasp · #26 11/06/2004, 11:06 PM

I just wonder about the balance here.
Reefkeeping has published the Rebuttal, but in fact denied their readers the chance to read the actual study itself. Rather odd, when the rebuttal contains numerous references to the article.

Also, I hold Eric in high regard, but in his own words (sort of) no one is omnipotent, and in this case i believe his article contains flaws. One example, out of several, is in the paragraph immediately below the sub title "Critique of the Method and Discussion" where it is more or less implied that high phosphates and nitrates are not detrimental to corals, and you could even read it that they are beneficial.
I regard this article as an opinion rather than good science.
But my main complaint is the lack of balance, one side of the discussion being published for all to read, and the other side being suppressed.

gtrestoration · #27 11/07/2004, 11:44 AM

Real nice to see the other side of the story.
I can't quite put a value on it not knowing the other side. It's nice to be protected.
SteveU

Jens Kallmeyer · #28 11/08/2004, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wasp
I just wonder about the balance here.
Reefkeeping has published the Rebuttal, but in fact denied their readers the chance to read the actual study itself. Rather odd, when the rebuttal contains numerous references to the article.

Dear wasp et al.

Your post really sums it up. There is nothing to add to it.
The editors of Reefkeeping Magazine should reconsider their attitude towards potential authors and their rules of conduct (or the lack thereof) in terms of editoral handling

Cheers

Jens

invincible569 · #29 11/08/2004, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wasp

I regard this article as an opinion rather than good science.
.

Thats what I got out of it too. Especially when they were talking about "germans". I dont think that had anything to do with Vodka. More of an opinion.

Big E · #30 11/08/2004, 02:27 PM

The whole two part series is nothing but biased opinions & close minded attitude.

gtrestoration · #31 11/08/2004, 09:08 PM

I think the author has a good overall reputation in the industry. I also have no idea who makes such decisions. He is entitled to his opinion on the method and I respect it as just that. Just not sure how I can decide for myself.

As an aside... the other day a good friend asked my opinion on what I thought the best "Reef Book" available was now. In the past I've had a solid answer for that but nowadays I think you simply must read many books and opinions and then be able to decide on your own how you will proceed. That may still mean trial and error but at least you will have another idea of how to proceed. So much of the "Book" literature is several years old and these new or re-visited old ideas may be missing.
SteveU

571958 · #32 11/09/2004, 02:59 AM

I think this whole Article by Reef Keeping is BS.

I doubt Eric did anything more than putting words as such that he do not have to be accountable of review Vodka method and protecting commercial interest

Look at the amount of junk out there, junk additives, junk snake oil to remove nitrate, phosphate and whatever and commercially availability.....................so how come no commends on those crap.

SHAME.

gregt · #33 11/09/2004, 05:14 AM

Let's keep the profanity out of it, ok?

wasp · #34 11/09/2004, 08:19 AM

I just wonder if it's fair to Captive Oceans to be having this discussion on their forum?
Perhaps it should be moved to another forum?

gregt · #35 11/09/2004, 08:25 AM

[moved]

gtrestoration · #36 11/09/2004, 11:10 AM

Max...
You have strong opinions on commercial products. I think most of those sold in the hobby were developed with some care to produce an indented result. Yes, of course they are being developed to create revenue for the creator/manufacturer. Without these companies producing these products we would be pretty much on our own to come up with just the right mix in our tanks.
In the past I've tried many products and in time I've been able to decide which I THOUGHT were good or bad, at least for my use.

As for the article in question the statements of the author are in fact his opinion and Reefkeeping is a common place for his views to be voiced. I'm very interested in other opinions on the method but it's difficult to make my own decision when at this point I've seen only the rebuttal.
I'm sure the time will come when the "Rest of the Story" will be made available to us.

SteveU

Anemone · #37 11/09/2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wasp
I just wonder about the balance here.
Reefkeeping has published the Rebuttal, but in fact denied their readers the chance to read the actual study itself. Rather odd, when the rebuttal contains numerous references to the article.

Quote:

from ReefKeeping Article

Upon finishing the results section of this article, and progressing to the discussion, barely a sentence existed which could be taken as correct. I would urge those so inclined to read this article to completely skip the discussion section. Virtually every statement concerning disease nutrient processes, and microbial ecology is conjecture and, in many cases, simply wrong. This is unfortunate, because if the authors had a better grasp of the processes occurring, had done adequate work to confirm their speculations, and focused diligently on a good experimental protocol, the effects noted in terms of such mismanaged aquaria that have high nitrogen and phosphorus levels (that admittedly are common enough) and their response to carbon inputs might lead to valuable developments (though I doubt a dosing schedule for vodka across all reef aquariums with such issues would be possible).

It seems pretty obvious that one of the science-content editors for ReefKeeping felt the article was not up to the "science" standards of the magazine. His education deals specifically with coral biology. If he says there are numerous errors in the non-published article in his area of specialization, I'll believe him.

People can complain all they want to, but quite frankly, the magazine has standards on what they will and will not publish.

The title of Eric's article is "the old becomes new, yet again:..." It's true, Vodka addition isn't a new method - I remember discussions about it as far back as 1998. Just because it has returned again as a potential reef-keeping method, doesn't make it "publishable" in a science-based magazine.

Offer real, repeatable experiments with measureable outcomes and controllable variables and I'm sure it would be published. Otherwise, ReefKeeping Magazine will end up looking like a subscription to the "Eco-Aqualizer of the Month" club.

FWIW,
Kevin

gtrestoration · #38 11/09/2004, 02:19 PM

IMO RK offers some very good information some of which I would not consider science but opinions and experiences.

I think though that we have all made our position clear an there is no possibility that anything will change as far as seeing it posted online here.

Kevin,
I just don't understand the need to print a rebuttal article when the original was declined. I think that's what most are saying now and why the thread was brought to the top again.

From your quote...

Quote:

I would urge those so inclined to read this article to completely skip the discussion section.

Skipping that section seems to be any easy task.

SteveU

Anemone · #39 11/09/2004, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gtrestoration
Kevin,
I just don't understand the need to print a rebuttal article when the original was declined. I think that's what most are saying now and why the thread was brought to the top again.

It's not an unmcommon practice. AA did a rebuttal to Dr. Schimek's urchin study. I've read "rebuttal" articles in the print mags (back when I was still subscribing to print mags

...) several times when that mag didn't print the original...

FWIW,
Kevin

Skipper · #40 11/09/2004, 04:07 PM

Moved to RK forum.

Skipper · #41 11/09/2004, 04:09 PM

Steve: did you miss the statement from the author that it will be published in Conscientious Aquarist soon? Also, that it had already been published in a German magazine?

gtrestoration · #42 11/09/2004, 04:58 PM

The Homeless thread.

Skip if you mean this...

Quote:

Well, the article has been acepted by wetwebmedia where it will soon be published.

Yes I did thanks.
As for using an on-line, on-the-fly-translator, my experience with them is you may get the idea that you should be dosing your tank and not your glass, but little more. So much is lost in a word-for-word translation without grammer being corrected.
I visit a few German boards and can get the idea but also if in doubt I just PM a couple of members who said they would help.

Thanks...
SteveU

571958 · #43 11/09/2004, 07:30 PM

Tell me guys.....Don't anyone of you find the article emotionally written. Read proper is my advise and u properly see there's no objective in the article.

I can only find commercial interest at heart.

Skipper · #44 11/09/2004, 07:42 PM

I fail to see any involvement of commercial interest. Could you please enlighten me, 571958?

gtrestoration · #45 11/09/2004, 08:10 PM

I don't think it's commercial at all at least don't see what the author would have to gain. Though to be honest I see no point in reading it thoroughly as I don't have a clue what it's being critical of. There is no way for me to make my own decision reading only this side of the story.
But then I'm not fond of Jeopardy either and prefer to know the question.
SteveU

shred5 · #46 11/22/2004, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 571958
I think this whole Article by Reef Keeping is BS.

I doubt Eric did anything more than putting words as such that he do not have to be accountable of review Vodka method and protecting commercial interest

Look at the amount of junk out there, junk additives, junk snake oil to remove nitrate, phosphate and whatever and commercially availability.....................so how come no commends on those crap.

SHAME.

Eric does not endorse anything...

I do think that if this article got published the other one should have got a chance too....

Pure bull...

Dave