Again, I don't see how any of this really matters
Here's my take on this, and yes, this is my opinion, (the people paying me to do their research may not be happy about me wasting time on ending the AC debate - and even if I did, people will still probably fight about it):
This -SPECIFIC- (i.e this thread) discussion is more an exercise in logic than quoting studies, experts, or conducting your own experiments.
Lets present the knowns (or at least the accepted facts):
--------------------------------------------------------
Everyone agrees carbon takes in bad toxins right?
Everyone agrees that at a certain point carbon can not take any additional toxin in right?
If the toxins were -NOT- removed by the carbon they would still be there.
So if carbon released toxins they already absorbed, the tank is no better off than it would have been if the carbon was not there to begin with? If carbon is not releasing toxins then there's no problems.
I hope I was clear in my presentation?
So it comes down to: Do you need to change your carbon? If so, how often.
The answer to the first question is yes, why keep an ineffective product around? The answer to the second problem - have at it, debate that and quote whatever journals you want.
Also, I'll probably look up research just because I appear to be doing everything but studying for my finals... but if the carbon does release toxins back into the water, at what rate and to waht extent? If the rate is low and if there is a point where it stops releasing it then the negative outcome may be negligible.
Eric