Jump to content

dasaltemelosguy

Members
  • Posts

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

dasaltemelosguy's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Dedicated
  • Reacting Well
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

72

Reputation

  1. My brother and I were both 16 when we hopped a train into New York City in the vain hopes of trying to see The Rolling Stones in 1972. Their 1969 tour caused much disruption in NYC; People set up tents and camped outside of Madison Square Garden for as much as 3 WEEKS prior to the tickets going on sale. Streets were impassible, even by NYC standards. Trains were so full, regular commuters could not get to their jobs. Tens of millions from all over the country and the world simultaneously vying to get tickets. In fact, Stones shows caused such massive temporary population movement, crime statistics literally dropped when they were in the city! Nonetheless, weary of the massive traffic and police requirements for their shows, in 1972, NYC mandated that: "Tickets to Rolling Stones shows will be sold via lottery only" in an effort to reduce the crippling effect their shows had on the city. NYC sought to avoid this chaos by lottery-only ticket sales but that didn't stop two 16 year old's from saving $ all year and roaming from scalper to scalper around Madison Square Garden to try to 'score' a pair of tickets (Riots occurred outside of a Boston arena when scalpers began selling counterfeit tickets). But we left disheartened. Scalpers were selling tickets from $1600-$10,000 and you could not be certain they were even real. Even at $1600, for a 16 year old in 1972? Needless to say, two dejected 16 year old's went home and played Exile on Main Street instead. (Most Stones historians will argue over which of their two tours is their greatest. It's almost inevitably one of two: 1969 vs 1972). Fast forward to 1974. Apparently, The Stones and Hollywood felt 1972 were indeed their greatest shows. Up until the official release on BluRay, the bootlegs we found of the 1972 shows revealed an almost superhuman performance, even through the abysmal bootleg quality. What we heard was absolutely electrifying speed and energy and a tightness that only a band that has played together for a very long time would have. This IMO is arguably the highest energy Stones performance of all time. But it gets better. The 1972 Tour was recorded in the best fidelity of the day in the embryonics of quadraphonic sound. When this recording is compared with almost any other from the early 70's, it's immediately apparent there was extraordinary care in recording the visuals and the fidelity. Only select theaters could show it as a FULL sound system for a live Rock show traveled with the film! Monstrous, thunderous, quadraphonic sound shook the theater and it's inhabitants to their core. It was rightfully billed as "The Rolling Stones Filmed Concert-NOT a Concert Film". it is IMO an extremely successful attempt to convey the power and feeling of a front row seat to that show. Not a second is dedicated to commentary or interviews, it starts as a convert, dark and background noise until the band EXPLODES on to the stage in an unrelenting assaults on your energy levels until you, the audience, well, everyone but the Stones seem exhausted. Masterfully filmed, the direction is so slick as the director laser focuses on every high energy moment and displays it fully, visual dynamics are timed with audible dynamics to augment both, awesome direction to be sure. The concert is astounding. It's EXTREMELY high energy. By the end you're exhausted! But they aren't. Jagger appears as if he could do it all again. The audience appears in near hysterics. IMO they were never as good prior to this tour (as they are here) and were never as good again. Even if you are not a fan of them or their music, this performance is worth experiencing as it's both electrifying and it recorded them at their zenith. Jagger is at his best where he is clearly both the singer and 'the conductor' of the band's tempo, rhythm and speed. I love 1969 tour with it's gritty, sloppy but hard rock playing but this is electrifyingly tight and fast, far higher in energy and speed than any of their other performances. More so than in 1969 or most certainly their later shows, this vividly demonstrates Jagger's position as one of the greatest performers ever. BTW I can still remember the marquee on Madison Square Garden as we roamed the streets trying to buy tickets from scalpers (our first attempt in 1969): "This week: The Rolling Stones! Next Week: Muhammad Ali vs. Oscar Bonavena!". At the time, I had no idea how historic that was.
  2. Although these two are hardcore Blues numbers, this is really a variation on the theme of this topic as these are not music videos per se, these are REACTION VIDEOS. If you've never watched a Reaction Video, initially to many it sounds absurd. At my advanced age, I must admit, it sounded like a strange if not absurd idea...watching someone else watch a music video? Weird. Most of them are by amateurs and as such, the quality is highly variable. Some however are made by professional musicians or producers and watching a track you think is exceptional, being watched by a professional with commentary, especially when the Reaction is virgin (the Reactor has never heard or seen it previously so the commentary is more emotional and spontaneous), can yield surprising if not shocking reactions and provide a plethora of information, often bringing to light many virtues and nuances you may have been missing for years in songs you've perhaps heard 100X. These are just two such "Reactions" but are two of the best of this Reactor genre. The first is by opera singer and vocal coach Elizabeth Zharoff (she is NOT reacting to Opera here, this is a Blues number) who analyzes a cover of the Blues classic "I'd Rather Go Blind". As she watches the video, she's literally speechless and pauses to explain the shocking virtuosity she's witnessing for the first time. Even though it's an old Rock/Blues cover, the techniques she illustrates in her Heavy Metal and Blues performances are commonly employed in Opera. It shows astounding technique and voice and mic control that many argue is the best they've ever seen. She transforms from Etta James to an operatic soprano to full blown Janis Joplin within the same track. The Reactor is astounded yet details how she hits extraordinary notes by dropping her body to push air with astounding power and suddenly returns to near whispers with her unprecedented vocal control and simply remarkable mic control (she waves it around continuously to control the volume of her voice) to linearize her insanely powerful vocal volume. But this one is really wild. It starts deceptively as if it's a quiet, calm and frankly, boring Blues number. That all suddenly and shockingly changes by the first chorus and only builds to an energy level that at times seems almost dangerous! Jacqueline Van Bierk is a songwriter and singer with several albums and a long history of composing for much more famous musicians and for television. Jacqueline Van Bierk's Reaction is to a Blues song "Am I the One". The Reactor is literally speechless from the beginning. She starts to comment a dozen+ times only to stop with jaw dropped as the song builds what ultimately becomes one of the highest energy Blues performances ever recorded. If you love the Blues, these are both a lot of fun and can be very educational. Excellent Reactions can at times change your appreciation for something you thought you knew exhaustively for many years. Even if you don't like Blues, these are still really worth watching for the above reasons. And should you like them but not the artist or music, there's obviously many more Reaction Videos that cover many more artists as well.
  3. Amen. Awesome guitar work. I always liked them best with Bon Scott too. Great voice!
  4. Guppysnail, I'm so glad you've raised that point about Prazipro as that very product is integral to the embryonics of this discussion and I had completely forgotten about it! There seems to be some consensus as to the potential toxicity of the solvent used in Prazipro on very delicate species, at least in marine tanks. In any event, this particular discussion locally began due to an incident at an LFS near me over the use of Prazipro in marine aquariums. Apparently the solvent used in Prazipro, Oxybispropanol, exhibits some 400%-600% higher toxicity than DMSO which would normally still be considered quite safe as it's still very low but in this case, it killed off all of his feather dusters. According to Humble Fish, it is the toxicity of the Oxybispropanol as opposed to the praziquantel as they had sited multiple 3rd party anecdotes but had similar results with tubeworm die-off but suffered no die offs when using DMSO. Oxybispropanol has also been known to damage the cycle in marine aquariums filters causing small ammonia spikes. I don't know if the detriments of Prazipro's solvent Oxybispropanol, is as much of a detriment in freshwater. But at least amongst reefers, it seems to be toxic enough to avoid use when invertebrates are present per Humble Fish: "Prazipro is generally considered reef safe, although it may kill any tube worms/feathers dusters you have. It may also eradicate bristle worms. This is important because the Oxybispropanol (solubilizing agent) Prazipro contains will sometimes cause a bacterial bloom (cloudy water) when mixed with other meds. If using a protein skimmer post-treatment, be advised that it will “over skim” for at least a week or so." I had 5 marine tanks in the 1970s before canisters, protein skimmers and sumps - It was all sub gravel and carbon in those days and few ever heard of the nitrogen cycle. To paraphrase The Producers: "I used the wrong filtration, the wrong equipment and had wrong information of the nitrogen cycle for years....where did I go right?!" It's hard to believe our tanks ever survived back then!
  5. Some medications never fully dissolve but they seem to dissolve well enough to function so I'm uncertain how much actual value my post has! Certainly nitrofurazone and praziquantel always leave a good amount of particles and residue. Even with very hot water, they leave enough undissolved residue to question the actual dosage. With DMSO, they become completely soluble. I've since read this method assures greater dosage accuracy in that virtually 100% of the medication is in solution. What the actual value of that is in practice, I really don't know. If nothing else, the DMSO makes it substantially easier to mix into the tank water.
  6. Thanks so much. That's really very nice of you to say. I rather like your term "Nitrate Pigs"! What a great name for a brand of filter media!
  7. I use both pothos and Lucky Bamboo. The nitrate reduction, especially with the latter is astounding at some 80% down in 2 weeks:
  8. This may not apply but this was how I supported a 'forest' of Lucky Bamboo with plastic lighting grid: BTW the nitrates plummeted some 80% in 2 weeks!
  9. Using DMSO To Dissolve Difficult Aquarium Medications With a recent outbreak of columnaris, I found myself using medications I had been previously fortunate enough not to need! In doing so, I used an organic solvent, DMSO or Dimethyl Sulfoxide to “pre-liquify” if you will, relatively insoluble (in water) medications like praziquantel and nitrofurazone. In my case, I used nitrofurazone and kanamycin powder as opposed to prepared remedies that employ them such as API Furan-2 and Seachem’s Kanaplex although I have dissolved Furan-2 with DSMO in the past. I like to dissolve fish medications in DMSO before administering it as it makes the solution linear and without any particulates. Highly insoluble medications like praziquantel and nitrofurazone ‘vanish’ into a clear, thick fluid if placed in DMSO upon which it’s adding to the tank. I had a recent batch of fishes for QT and grow-out develop severe columnaris. My guess being it was the 2nd strain as it killed all fish with lesions in 24-48 hours after they first appeared. They began dying with no visible symptoms at a rate of about 1/day until one developed what appeared to me, to be a classic columnaris ‘patch’. I began a nitrofurazone/kanamycin treatment immediately and fortunately it stopped the deaths just 2 days into medicating. Eventually all the lesions cleared up and they are growing out well. I used nitrofurazone in DMSO as it becomes a clear, liquid ’syrup’ if you will with no particulate at all present. It apparently finds itself in use with praziquantel as well: DMSO Dissolving Praziquantel I used this DMSO: NO ODOR DMSO - Dimethyl sulfoxide liquid (3.4 Oz - 100ml), Pharmaceutical grade, High purity, by Heiltropfen: DMSO However, I was originally concerned about the efficacy. That is, if using DMSO to dissolve medications, which results in essentially no particulate, but dissolved in normal water shows particulate, would the dosage be different in the DMSO dissolved medications as more of it is in solution? In addition; DMSO easily absorbs into skin and according to the findings below, the fish absorb it as well. So then would we need be concerned that medicated fish with DMSO-dissolved medications may see still more medication than had it been administered in water? My recent experiences would suggest otherwise-though this is far from scientific! I used the recommended dosages but used DMSO to dissolve the nitrofurazone and all went well. I witnessed no fatigue in the fish and the infection cleared up. This of course only tells me that I did not reach any toxic levels BUT, did I effectively increase the dosages by using DMSO or did DMSO simply make it go into solution better? The following however is much more scientific. This excerpt from the document below would suggest DMSO does not alter the dosage and only improves solubility in water for many medications that are difficult to dissolve in water. It’s an old study (1966) of using an antibiotic dissolved with DMSO vs. simply in water, and testing the fish for various levels and it found almost no difference between the DMSO medicated fish and the default. This would suggest the DMSO’s value is almost exclusively for medication solvency. It has been my experience that I’ve never seen a negative effect from using DMSO to dissolve aquarium medications and it unquestionably makes medicating the tank MUCH easier when the medications are difficult to dissolve in water. I do wish this could be more comprehensive and less anecdotal but it’s most definitely worth trying if you find yourself in the unfortunate situation of needing to utilize the likes of nitrofurazone, praziquantel or other medications that exhibit difficult solubility in water. This old study from 1966 suggests it will not affect the dosage by improved solvation nor by direct absorption by the fishes: Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Fish Control Laboratory, WI. EFFECT OF DMSO ON TOXICITY OF ANTIMYCIN (1966) A preliminary test was performed to determine what, if any, influence DMSO has on the toxicity of antimycin to bluegill. Various concentrations of antimycin were added in combination with enough DMSO to produce 1.0 p.p.t. of DMSO in the test vessel. A comparison test was run using only acetone as solvent for the antimycin. The 96-hour LC so of antimycin and acetone alone was 0.089 parts per billion (p.p.b.), while antimycin in combination with 1.0 p.p.t. of DMSO produced a 96-hour LC 50 of 0.084 p.p.b. These results reflect biological variation and indicate that DMSO has no effect on the toxicity of antimycin at 96 hours. It is possible that in a bioassay designed to yield toxicity with shorter exposures, DMSO could enhance the absorption of antimycin sufficiently to affect toxicity. Ball (1966) compared the relative toxicity of 0.05 p.p.m. p,p’-DDT to goldfish when used in combination—with 6 and 18 p.p.t. of either DMSO or acetone. His results indicated that DMSO does not significantly affect the median survival time of goldfish when compared to acetone. He further suggested that DMSO may be a better solvent than acetone for pesticide toxicity studies. Rabinowitz and Myerson (1966) were unable to show a significant difference in the uptake by aquarium fish of radioactive labeled dyes when used in combination with 1.0 p.p.t. of DMSO. CONCLUSIONS 1. The acute toxicity of DMSO to fish is of a very low order. 2. When the level of acute toxicity is reached, DMSO is abruptly and non-selectively toxic to the nine species tested. 3. Various water qualities at 120 C. have little effect upon the toxicity of DMSO to rainbow trout. 4. Increases in temperature cause a definite increase in the toxicity of DMSO to rainbow trout. 5. Preliminary results indicate that 1.0 p.p.t. of DMSO has no effect on the toxicity of antimycin to bluegill at 96 hours.
  10. So sorry. I have a bad habit of abbreviating! DMSO or Dimethyl Sulfoxide is an organic solvent I have used for years to dissolve medications with poor water solvency. Oxybispropanol is similar and used in the popular product PraziPro. Unlike using alcohol (Vodka) or even Oxybispropanol-based products, DMSO exhibits very low toxicity such that it is suitable for very delicate species. It's often the only choice for reefers as even Oxybispropanol can kill tubeworms and feather dusters and similarly delicate species whereas DMSO is safe even for these and for shrimp. The video below is about 5X longer than it needs to be to demonstrate that it will totally dissolve nitrofurazone or even praziquantel into a clear, water soluble liquid. To quantify it in some measure, praziquantel will dissolve at a rate of 0.4mg/ml of water. Praziquantel in DMSO dissolves at a rate of 20mg/ml or some 50X the efficacy! Therein lies my question. With the solvency increased some 50X (there is no visible residue of the praziquantel nor the nitrofurazone once dissolved in DMSO, it's near 100% solvency) I am concerned that the dosage recommended by the manufacturers is likely based upon "water solubility" (0.4mg/ml) such that; might there be an efficacy increase with improved solubility of DMSO (20mg/ml) so would the actual dosage now be different? Thanks again.
  11. I don't think you did anything wrong. It really does sound like PH shock to me. The osmotic damage from PH shock can take days to a few weeks to manifest, depending on it's severity. I believe Aqua Huna's PH is about 6.8 and yours is 8.4 so there may have been shock. I had nearly the same situation when I bought fish twice from dealers with vastly different PH's than mine (mine is 8.2). In two instances, fish I bought from dealers in Florida had PH's around 6-7 and I lost 50% of the population over a 1-2 week period. I've done it somewhat successfully with a drip but frankly it's easier to verify with the dealer what PH they're fishes are acclimated to and stick with dealers with similar PH's. As Torrey said previously, shipping is so stressful on them, I try to buy from dealers near me in Southern California so they have similar water parameters.
  12. Hi, I was wondering if anyone has used nitrofurazone with an organic solvent like DMSO? I have always used the latter to dissolve it (and other medications that are poorly soluble in water) prior to introducing it to the larger body of water but I was wondering if it's necessary or if others find it an asset or not? In particular, there was a suggestion that it may increase the efficacy of solvation such that the dosage may change from the default in water to needing less as it's near 100% solubility with DMSO. That would suggest that "poor solubility" of some medications (nitrofurazone in this case) is factored into the dosing recommendations. Does anyone know if this is true or not? Not that using less is the goal but if it does indeed increase the efficacy, I am concerned the dosage may then be different with a greater percentage of dissolved medication?
  13. Well given that read, I can't exactly say you've cheered me up! But you've taught me a great deal so THANK YOU for all of your help.
  14. Thank you. Since they're all eating, I can continue kanaflex/focus in their food and add a second UV. I definitely kept my other tanks isolated with new siphons and such but only once the first fish developed sores as I didn't know I had an issue until then. May I ask, is the viral version common or rare? I ask because I've never seen a pathogen kill this quickly, in my limited experience that is. Also if it proved to be viral (not that I'll ever truly know), does that have 100% fatality or might some form some immunity to it? Sorry for all the questions. I'm just trying to prepare for how bad this might get. Thank you again for the help.
×
×
  • Create New...