Bayer pesticide as a coral dip...stop it! smh

[Daniel@R2R]

Misrepresentation?
So please tell me how a picture from a camera shows nerve damage? Cellular dysfunction? How about bioaccumulation of toxins? I could go on, but you get the point.

Your misrepresentation of my words was your inference that I said pics of tanks proves that Bayer doesn't cause unobserved damage (as in the things you mention above). I said no such thing. A pic of a thriving tank, does count as evidence of a thriving tank and reflects the fact that long-term negative effects are not observed. Therefore, it does work as data that backs up the claim that damage has not occurred (though not as conclusive proof...conclusive proof is only possible through extreme experimentation with scientific instrumentation on large samples...and that's not likely to happen). However, pictures do prove conclusively that successful, healthy, thriving reef tanks are kept by those who use Bayer.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

That statement is for us to assume you did what you said you did, but it has a lot of grey area IMO.
But for now to make it easy to all we assume and it didn't work out for you.
Lets move on, Bayer isn't for you, to bad but there are other methods you can use.

Let's assume that everyone here chiming in pro-bayer is telling the truth and they've not had deaths? Let's assume it's 100% passive towards corals? Let's assume there's no possibility that arthropods can become resistant despite genetic evidence to the contrary? Let's assume pro-bayer folks are actually in the conversation to investigate and not bash someone who doesn't agree?

Obviously we already have all the answers about corals right? And their pests?

Please point me to the direction of that info. Also, I hope it's not based entirely from pictures of tanks.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Your misrepresentation of my words was your inference that I said pics of tanks proves that Bayer doesn't cause unobserved damage (as in the things you mention above). I said no such thing. A pic of a thriving tank, does count as evidence of a thriving tank and reflects the fact that long-term negative effects are not observed. Therefore, it does work as data that backs up the claim that damage has not occurred (though not as conclusive proof...conclusive proof is only possible through extreme experimentation with scientific instrumentation on large samples...and that's not likely to happen). However, pictures do prove conclusively that successful, healthy, thriving reef tanks are kept by those who use Bayer.

You're making more assumptions. 'thriving', 'healthy', 'successful'?
Those words describe things that cannot be seen with a camera. Maybe successful. But it doesn't even prove they're not plastic!
It certainly does not prove bayer is ok.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

I'll ask you again MD:

So please tell me how a picture from a camera shows nerve damage? Cellular dysfunction? How about bioaccumulation of toxins? Reduced growth rates? Photosynthetic degradation? Abnormal skeletal structure? Abnormal tissue growth?
Symbiont interactions?

 

[Shep]

I'll ask you again MD:

So please tell me how a picture from a camera shows nerve damage? Cellular dysfunction? How about bioaccumulation of toxins? Reduced growth rates? Photosynthetic degradation? Abnormal skeletal structure? Abnormal tissue growth?
Symbiont interactions?

Ok right here right now post proof that clearly shows nerve damage, cellular dysfunction, bio accumulation of toxins, reduced growth rates, photosynthetic degradation, abnormal skeletal structure, abnormal tissue growth ,symbiotic interactions! If you can not show any HARD PROOF of these things then you can no longer ask for evidence from anyone else. End this conversation right here and now by posting journal articles, experiments, published work, heck I'll even take a meta review.

 

[happyhourhero]

Will bayer kill these crickets?

 

[dbrewsky]

Kungpaoshizi- Not jumping on the bash wagon here but my input on the subject is this: Its one thing to try and make a sound argument that ____ is detrimental to _____. But if the overwhelming response to your argument is countering your hypothesis and there are numerous examples and users over time who have never noticed an issue with Bayer, then you might need to re-think your argument.

Better yet, do as @twilliard has and create scientifically designed experiments to test your hypothesis. Build these tests well and report your findings and that way everyone on R2R get to benefit from your research.

I will look for your results

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Ok right here right now post proof that clearly shows nerve damage, cellular dysfunction, bio accumulation of toxins, reduced growth rates, photosynthetic degradation, abnormal skeletal structure, abnormal tissue growth ,symbiotic interactions! If you can not show any HARD PROOF of these things then you can no longer ask for evidence from anyone else. End this conversation right here and now by posting journal articles, experiments, published work, heck I'll even take a meta review.

Look into what neurotoxins do.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Kungpaoshizi- Not jumping on the bash wagon here but my input on the subject is this: Its one thing to try and make a sound argument that ____ is detrimental to _____. But if the overwhelming response to your argument is countering your hypothesis and there are numerous examples and users over time who have never noticed an issue with Bayer, then you might need to re-think your argument.

Better yet, do as @twilliard has and create scientifically designed experiments to test your hypothesis. Build these tests well and report your findings and that way everyone on R2R get to benefit from your research.

I will look for your results

I've been contemplating different ways to test exposure, wish more people would get off their high-horse and try to come up with ways of testing.
I do not believe though that 'because a lot of people use it' it's ok.
That follows under the arguments as alcohol, cigs, drugs, asbestos, bpa, etc... There's a lot out there that doesn't show any visible effects to our eyes. They had to be investigated with tools other than a single picture that's not micro/macroscopic, cellular analysis, etc.
If I wasn't so logical and scientific, I would just dismiss anyone who uses bayer as completely ______ as I tried it, under the dosages suggested, and some of my corals died.
It's an unexplored area, but just as corals can survive quite a few things, it doesn't mean it's ok.

I keep trying to tell the others, you could dip your coral in tap water, oil (ocean!), all sort of compounds, and I bet the majority would be just fine in appearance.

 

[happyhourhero]

I've been contemplating different ways to test exposure, wish more people would get off their high-horse and try to come up with ways of testing.
I do not believe though that 'because a lot of people use it' it's ok.
That follows under the arguments as alcohol, cigs, drugs, asbestos, bpa, etc... There's a lot out there that doesn't show any visible effects to our eyes. They had to be investigated with tools other than a single picture that's not micro/macroscopic, cellular analysis, etc.
If I wasn't so logical and scientific, I would just dismiss anyone who uses bayer as completely ______ as I tried it, under the dosages suggested, and some of my corals died.
It's an unexplored area, but just as corals can survive quite a few things, it doesn't mean it's ok.

I keep trying to tell the others, you could dip your coral in tap water, oil (ocean!), all sort of compounds, and I bet the majority would be just fine in appearance.

Are you ignoring the fact that your coral deaths could have been from user error or another factor aside from the bayer?

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

On another note, who's good with math? If you want to prove anything, try.
Bah, it won't paste correctly, look at the toxicities here, and translate that into ppm. (which is very minute)
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/ehipm/pdf_insect/insecticide actives/beta-cyfluthrin.pdf

Though it doesn't display invertebrates specifically, those levels are low. It coincides with the research posted before that speculates to accurately measure toxicities, we'll need to measure in the ppb or ppt ranges. (I would bet my life savings on it that at least 1 ppm makes it into the tank even after rinsing 10 times because of it's waterproofing affect)

 

[Obsessed]

I had my tank up and running a few months before adding any coral. Fish, inverts etc with no problem. I added some corals that I dipped with Bayer, rinsed in 3 different clean containers of water and I immediately started losing inverts. Both my pistol shrimps and numerous crabs kicked the can within a day or two, the others almost went into a hibernation but have since recovered. I've stopped using it personally.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

Are you ignoring the fact that your coral deaths could have been from user error or another factor aside from the bayer?

Not at all. But I did see a trend while using bayer as compared to not.
For a good 3 to 5 frags, they closed and started necrosis within a day or two.

Though again, as much as people want to say nothing happens, or it was my fault. They're ignoring the other possibilities such as, 'I went to the LFS, bought a coral, dipped it, it died'. Whereas I might think my dip or procedure had something to do with it, who's to say it wasn't fresh in the store, had a bayer dip the other day, and then I dipped it again? Only further compounding the stress, resulting in death.

Then, if after identifying these types of things, we could say 'no! bayer did not cause the death. A double dip did!' (but yes, you could speculate that same scenario with other dips)

There's a lot of scenarios like this people are dismissing.

 

[happyhourhero]

I had my tank up and running a few months before adding any coral. Fish, inverts etc with no problem. I added some corals that I dipped with Bayer, rinsed in 3 different clean containers of water and I immediately started losing inverts. Both my pistol shrimps and numerous crabs kicked the can within a day or two, the others almost went into a hibernation but have since recovered. I've stopped using it personally.

It absolutely will kill inverts if not rinsed properly. The purpose of using it is to kill unwanted pests on corals.

 

[Kungpaoshizi]

It absolutely will kill inverts if not rinsed properly. The purpose of using it is to kill unwanted pests on corals.

How do you rinse it if it's inherently creating a waterproof layer?

How do we know when red bugs will become resistant? (I posted a link to a genetic marker that flips in arthropods, that's a question of 'when' not 'if', does it apply? I don't know, neither does anyone here, the chance is not 0%)

It's tough questions like this people need to be looking into imo. I would hate to see new 'super bugs' created. But I guess that would resolve the situation because people would have to stop using it.... lawl..

 

[Rybren]

Look into what neurotoxins do.

Neurotoxins is a pretty generic term and is meaningless in the context of this discussion. Your argument would be more effective if you could show that compound x,y, or z in Bayer has a detrimental effect on corals a,b, or c when applied using the protocols employed by reefers.

So far, you have been unable to do so. All you have done is taken generic studies and or articles and applied them to this specific situation. There is no direct linkage or proof.

If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

 

[Shep]

Look into what neurotoxins do.

And there it is, you have the chance to post all the actually proof you want and yet you do not post a single piece of evidence. Until you do you have nothing to stand on

 

[Obsessed]

It absolutely will kill inverts if not rinsed properly. The purpose of using it is to kill unwanted pests on corals.

What's the proper way to rinse it?

 

[hybridazn]

Under that premise a picture of a car that is not damaged proves it's a better car than one's that have been in an accident.

A undamaged car IS better than a damaged car. Basically your saying a totalled and unusable Ferrari is better than a running, pristine ford fiesta.....

 

[Rybren]

How do you rinse it if it's inherently creating a waterproof layer?

It only becomes waterproof if left to dry for at least one hour (it says so right on the label)

Since the Bayer is never left to dry on the coral, it is not waterproof.