No Sick Fish, No QT, No water change

[Randall_James]

Thanks Bill for the info on the MSDS.

As a business owner I am bound with the outraqeous demands of OSHA and the dreaded book. Not to mention having to "assign" an staffer as "OSHA Compliance officer"

The problem would fall however on the commercial entity using the formula in the business without the MSDS. I would question the wisdom of any shop owner using the product without this MSDS on file. Although prosecutions are very rare, they are very expensive and virtually impossible to win.

I doubt as a commercial entity, using NSF products that I would be very eager to post such information in the wild. Any employee that fell ill, could point to this product and I am afraid the employer would have a big problem on his hands regardless of who or what made this person ill.

[BrianD]

I am sorry to hear about your house Anthony

[Vintage_Fish]

Originally posted by Anthony Calfo
I may still be licking my wounds next weak and in no mood to babysit boorish posting. I just had my home broken into while I was away travelling (to a hobby club, as always) and it was badly vandalized... so when I get back, I'm really hoping nobody has volunteered to be the first person I've ever banned or made this the first post I've ever closed I'm quite proud (on the reason why, not just the stat) that neither has happend yet and would very much like to keep it that way.

Anthony.... Deeply sorry to hear this, man. I do hope all will be well with time.

Best of life to you.

-Sabrina

[rbaker]

I'm sooo sorry to hear about your house Anthony...

Ryan

[Sicklid]

Anthony, I too have been a victim of vandalism within the past couple of months in a supposedlly gated, safe community. I am sorry for you and I feel your pain my friend.

[number8]

Sorry to about your home, Anthony, am glad you are safe and hope everything works out

Adam

[billsreef]

Originally posted by Randall_James
I would question the wisdom of any shop owner using the product without this MSDS on file.

Your quite right. Which raises the next question.

Tyler, do you have MSDS sheets for your products?

[Anthony Calfo]

I very much appreciate the kind words, my friends.

But no worries, now.

It's really all water under the bridge already. I was indeed angry/violated/hurt on day one... but am thankful for many things. No one was hurt above all. Just another stat at that point. I do have insurance... and my two most fav antiques were untouched. Actually... most all the larger furniture were untouched. Its rather silly the damage they did and things they chose to steal.

OK... OT diversion over
'
Much thanks for caring That's the sort of kindness that is so inspiring

[graveyardworm]

C'mon Tyler 157 posts and 3690 views alot of which are undoubtably following this thread. Thats alot of sales if you can answer some of the most basic questions posted here.

[GTR]

Originally posted by billsreef
Your quite right. Which raises the next question.

Tyler, do you have MSDS sheets for your products?

Just like everyone else here I have no idea what's in this stuff. But just because it's in a bottle that's being used by an employee does not mean it must have a MSDS supplied. That is only required for products that fall into the catagory of being hazardous.

(d) "Hazard Determination."

(d)(1)

Chemical manufacturers and importers shall evaluate chemicals produced in their workplaces or imported by them to determine if they are hazardous. Employers are not required to evaluate chemicals unless they choose not to rely on the evaluation performed by the chemical manufacturer or importer for the chemical to satisfy this requirement.

(d)(2)

Chemical manufacturers, importers or employers evaluating chemicals shall identify and consider the available scientific evidence concerning such hazards. For health hazards, evidence which is statistically significant and which is based on at least one positive study conducted in accordance with established scientific principles is considered to be sufficient to establish a hazardous effect if the results of the study meet the definitions of health hazards in this section. Appendix A shall be consulted for the scope of health hazards covered, and Appendix B shall be consulted for the criteria to be followed with respect to the completeness of the evaluation, and the data to be reported.

Trade Secrets

(i) "Trade secrets."

(i)(1)

The chemical manufacturer, importer, or employer may withhold the specific chemical identity, including the chemical name and other specific identification of a hazardous chemical, from the material safety data sheet, provided that:

(i)(1)(i)

The claim that the information withheld is a trade secret can be supported;

(i)(1)(ii)

Information contained in the material safety data sheet concerning the properties and effects of the hazardous chemical is disclosed

I'll spare you and not insert the remainder of this here but it can be found at....
http://www.ilpi.com/msds/osha/1910_1200.html#1910.1200(i)


Getting an attorney involved in detirming what the regulations require should help support our economy and add a substaintial amount to the retail price of the product.

SteveU

[Anthony Calfo]

just about three weeks now since it was pointed out that Bob F from WetWebMedia is falsely cited as giving a testimonial when it really was another chap not even giving a testimonial about a NSF product...

...and the bogus Bob F testimonial is still on the NSF page. I wonder if Bob needs to threaten NSF with a lawsuit before they'll change it.

Interesting.

[Randall_James]

Originally posted by gtrestoration
Just like everyone else here I have no idea what's in this stuff. But just because it's in a bottle that's being used by an employee does not mean it must have a MSDS supplied. That is only required for products that fall into the catagory of being hazardous.

SteveU

Yes but you of all people owning a business in CA would know that all a employee has to do is sneeze foul and defending yourself will easily cost you his years wages. Even in AZ in my auto shops, we had to keep MSDS on every compound in the shop by the requirements of my insurance carrier.

[puter]

Anthony -

I'm disappointed (but, as you might imagine, not at all surprised) that Tyler hasn't responded to the legitimate questions raised here. According to the Federal Trade Commission (here), advertisers are required to have a reasonable basis for their claims and testimonials are not sufficient:

What kind of evidence must a company have to support the claims in its ads?
Before a company runs an ad, it has to have a "reasonable basis" for the claims. A "reasonable basis" means objective evidence that supports the claim. The kind of evidence depends on the claim. At a minimum, an advertiser must have the level of evidence that it says it has. For example, the statement "Two out of three doctors recommend ABC Pain Reliever" must be supported by a reliable survey to that effect. If the ad isn't specific, the FTC looks at several factors to determine what level of proof is necessary, including what experts in the field think is needed to support the claim. In most cases, ads that make health or safety claims must be supported by "competent and reliable scientific evidence" - tests, studies, or other scientific evidence that has been evaluated by people qualified to review it. In addition, any tests or studies must be conducted using methods that experts in the field accept as accurate.

Are letters from satisfied customers sufficient to substantiate a claim?
No. Statements from satisfied customers usually are not sufficient to support a health or safety claim or any other claim that requires objective evaluation.

Therefore, customers who feel they've been misled do have recourse.

I'm also disappointed, given this exchange, that Reef Central continues to list No Sick Fish as a sponser given the endorsement one might infer.

[GTR]

I'd be more concerned if Reef Central had cancelled the sponsorship!!! We don't need the powers that run RC to decide what it is we see and don't see. Were would you suggest the line be drawn?

There are many products here that RC, it's general membership or it's list of "experts" would not endorse.

That's what this discussion is for.

SteveU

[puter]

Steve -

If you investigate the "real world" of publishing (newspapers, magazines, journals, etc.) you'll find nearly all of them have acceptable advertising policies that limit the types of advertising they accept for their publications. You'll also find the requirements for "sponsors" are typically quite a bit higher because of the implied association.

You may not agree that NSF's actions warrant RC ending the sponsorship relationship. If so, we've identified the point of our disagreement and can leave it there.

Best,

- Mark

[Anthony Calfo]

I see your point and understand (even largely agree with) your sentiment, Mark... but I agree with Steve strongly here.

it would be concerning to me if RC or any benevolent overseer (seriously... RC acting as a free content provider only here) passed judgement on merchants as well. It's not their place, duty or "speciality", if you will. Instead, the very machine that is RC is the means by which educated hobbyists get the information they need to be educated consumers. This thread is but one example. And its not an example of what to buy or not buy, but rather a consensus of experiences and (mostly) opinions by which each potential customer forms their OWN individual consensus.

Free will... free market... and NO censorship please

I'm a big boy... have a few smarts, and can make my own decisions without yet another entity excessively shaping what I see, hear or read. I trust that others are competant to do the same... though I realize not all are: hence my personal efforts on (hobbyist) consumer advocacy and education.

That all said, if a sponsor was deemed in fact to be fraudulent, somehow a risk to RC members and/or (of course) in violation of some aspect of the RC User Agreement, then they are gone. Period. But its a serious decision that must be given thorough examination and consideration before action.

[puter]

Then, may I respectfully suggest that you and I, Anthony, have a different point of disagreement. For you've brought in the rather inflammatory word "censorship" and equated it to a publisher's decision to decide whom they choose to accept funding from. The newspaper publishers I work with, who weigh this issue heavily, would cringe at your associating the two. I am not at all for censorship.

NSF has the right to say whatever they wish, but they do not have the right to use RC's microphone to say it. RC is choosing to reap financial gain from an organization that is being blatently disingenuous. That does not reflect well on RC...

[Anthony Calfo]

Mark... you do realize that NSF has scarcely posted at all? In their forum or outside.

I'd hardly call it using RC as a microphone.

Instead... we (hobbyists) have gone offsite mostly in regards to the points raised here. And all as fodder for our discussion on a reef hobby topic. That is the way this machine called RC works. Public forum.

I also think you are way off base on the analogy between your/the newspaper business and RC as publishers of content.

Unless your newspapers are free... then the difference is that your publishers take pay for all of the content they dole out. It is required (payment for the newspaper) before one can read the new/today's news, etc. As such... they are answerable to their customers for the product offered. That is to say... they have obligations and responsibilities (by law even).

But here on RC... it is free content for any/all. Regular membership is free and the overwhelming majority of members choose not to contribute to the site operation by buying a premium membership.

They just sign on for free... just like you, Mark (as of this date 12/26/05)

And RC as a privately owned free content provider technically owes you nothing.

You are, in fact, getting more than you paid for here at RC.

[puter]

The seventh logo up on this page respresents paid "sponsorship" does it not? I didn't ask that Tyler in any way be banned or prevented from posting.

Would you be interested in NSF sponsoring your posters? IMO, it doesn't reflect well on RC... I'll leave it there.

[Anthony Calfo]

I can't speak to whether the sponsorship has been paid or not. That is, in fact, a huge problem with many message boards as others with experience will attest.

As far as NSF sposoring my posters... I don't see how that would be possible. I don't take advertising monies from anyone... for anything.

Furthermore, my books any posters are produced for very little profit (others have hard/read this rant before). Yet, ignorant (as in not knowing) folks always presume that if you are a book author, it must be profitable. Ah... not so. Not even close

When you pay your layout folks/friends the same share as you (the author), print in the USA and keep your price points lower than industry average so that more content can reach more hobbyists more affordably... you have situations where it costs over $120K to make only $5K for floating the cash for several years... taking two years to write and several in promotion to follow, its hardly profitable by any definition. So again we are at a place where the "publisher" (me) really owes you little to nothing. If you don't want to buy a book, point me to your local library if it does not have one to lend. Go see any of the lectures I give... I've never once asked for a dollar of profit to give presentations and rarely been given an honorarium. Or... people can just reach me for free on RC, RF, WWM, SRC, SARC, etc.

I write books and make posters for several reasons including but not limited to information sharing, pride in accomplishment and vanity. But I do so at a significant profit risk for my efforts.

What exactly is your point here Mark? I think I'm missing it.

[puter]

What exactly is your point here Mark?

• That if I owned RC, I wouldn't accept advertising/sponsorship from firms shown to have acted as NSF has
• just as I doubt (if you ever did accept such an arrangement) that you would welcome an offer from NSF to, for instance, sponsor a booth at IMAC featuring your books/posters because of how it would reflect on you

But, I regret my participation in taking this thread off topic so I'll end it here.
FWIW, I did collaborate on a book, and I remember the cup of coffee it afforded me well.

[Anthony Calfo]

ah... understood then. As a hobbyist/consumer I share this sentiment largely. It would be nice to see (and we often expect) the organizations we support to in turn not support entities that do not seem to support us (not help, or hurt).

It certainly is not an unreasonable expectation either! And even as an RC mod, I am not wholly on one side of the argument or the other.

After things settle down (holidays, personal difficulties among some of the RC powers) I do expect this issue and others to be revisited. Spring cleaning perhaps

re: your book collab - I do hope that cup of coffee you earned was at least good coffee Amen

[NSF]

If anyone has questions email me. My email address is Tyler@nosickfish.com. I apologize to any users that were respectful and asked direct questions, and I didn’t respond to your question.

I am not participating in this thread! Everything I say is altered, attacked, ignored, etc. etc…….I don’t have the time for it.

Email me, and I’ll do my best to respond. Feel free to forward my response on to the forum!

Tyler
No Sick Fish

[ReefDiver]

Tyler: Not for anything but if you are willing to rspond to emails then why aren't you also willing to answer posted questions on this site? I am also very curious as to the "How" & "Why" your product does what you profess it to do.

Reading this entire thread has taken some time (I'm a slow reader I guess) but has been a real eye opener. Much of the discussion appears to be focused on how your company can make such claims but not have the backup research to substantiate them. Not to take sides but to me your argument that it "works" just does not hold water. I am sure that someone on this site, i.e., Dr. Randy Holmes-Farley, would be more than willing to at least evaluate the effectiveness of your product, or lack of as may be the case.

I am also in the camp of not wanting or caring to place anything in my tank that does not list the ingredients and/or is not backed up by any research studies. Mere "testimonials" do not fit the bill either as has been planely noted in this thread.

I wish you well with your product but I believe that "buyer beware' in this case has a lot of merit. Nuff said!

BTW, IMO Anthony has been more than fair regarding the contents of many of post/comments herein.

[Steven Pro]

Does anyone have a free sample that they picked up at IMAC or MACNA that is still unopened? If so, please send me a PM or email.