Some things to think about:
1. The s-15 tests were done by an independant lab
2. The interpretation and the "rating" scale were done by Aquacraft
3. There was one other salt that compared favorably to the Aquacraft salt but was critisized for inconsistant manufacture (aquacraft interpretation.
I have no boubt that people can and have been very successful with the many and various salts out there.
There should also be no doubt that a captive environment is no where near as good as the real thing, and that all our tanks are sub-optimal to some degree for all the organisms we see.
The testing Dr. Ron has done of late suggest that one of the reasons our tanks are sub-optimal is high concentrations of heavy metals.
look at the body of evidence:
1. numerous scientific studies (peer reviewed and all) have shown that heavy metals in concentrations much lower than in our aquaria are toxic to a number of organisms
2. All the tanks waters Dr. Ron tested were extremely high in heavy metals.
3. Urchin larvey reacted poorly to salts high in heavy metals and well to those low in heavy metals.
4. The actual test results from the s-15 report corroberate the values Dr. Ron published in his latest test ( nothing to do with the aquacraft interpretation).
While there is no smoking gun (anyone got $25,000 laying around to produce one?), the evidence continues to build that heavy metals are the culpret (or at liest one).
Should everyone switch salts? Not likely.
Are the two salts Dr. Ron had success with in the urchin tests an improvement over the other salts? Probably.
If I were involved in breeding fish or trying to keep fish or critters that were known to be sensitive to water quality would I switch. Yes.
I may even switch salts to see if it helps out with critter diversity in my tank. After all, the two salts were better for urchin larvae and any critter that reproduces in my tank will go through a larval stage.
Fred.
__________________
Fred
|