Talk:Water ionizer/Archive 1

October, 2004

This link explain in detail whether a water ionizer works or if it's snake oil on tap:[1] It includes an exhaustive list of clinical studies.

Perhaps the best link of all is at www.ionlife.info. It's practical, comprehensive and well researched

This link [2] doesn't seem to be all that informative, eh? Krupo 00:04, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC) Perhaps the site with the most practical and comprehensive information about water ionizers and alklaizers is www.ionlife.info

Perhaps not. There is useful information on the site, but not really on the main page. I will replace it with a link to a more specific page. CyborgTosser 01:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Cool, much better. Krupo 19:22, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

The more legitimate products in this area properly describe themselves as water electrolyzers, which make the water more alkaline (or acidic). They either rely on the incoming water having enough minerals already to make this electrolysis possible, or they contain a method for adding a mineral to the water (typically calcium).

It seems worth distinguishing this from the more outlandish and inaccurate claims. The article as written makes it sound as if it's impossible to produce alkalinized water from tap water alone.

(Signing above entry) --Njl 16:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will have to look into this. If there are indeed legitimate products that bear some similarity to water ionizers, it certainly deserves mention in this article (and probably its own article). CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 00:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Advertisement tag added

This page is ridiculous. I like how all the recent edits are from anonymous IP addresses... I'm tempted to just revert to a few months ago, but perhaps there is something useful there amongst all the drivel. I'll leave the tag up for a little while and then just revert unless someone can make it just a little npov. -postglock 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

After a bit of tug-of-war, I've reverted to the version from 5 May, and added the category again. If I've deleted any actual objective information, I apologise; It's a little hard to seperate the real edits. -postglock 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

???

It is nice to see a positive description about water ionization (after the edits). It is a serious technology and a few salespeople include things they don't understand.

The world was flat in the past... -Unsigned post by 84.92.207.141

Your self-lauded edits have again been reverted. Please stop adding POV material (Water ionizer), stop deleting material that does not fit with your commercial interests (Chronic cellular dehydration), and stop adding linkspam (Water). I will continue to revert any invalid edits made. -postglock 08:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We are not adding spam and it is not for commercial interest - we are promoting the discovery of water ionization. Who funds your interests? Ioniized water works and there is no question about it. We will continue to revert to the correct version as it is positive, rather than negative like yours. What software do you use for audio editing? -Unsigned post by 84.92.207.141

Ionized water does not definitively work, and until you can provide some scientific basis for your claims, this speculation does not belong in wikipedia. The fact that my edits are "negative" are irrelevant. It is obvious that you have some kind of commercial interest as you have added numerous commercial links on different pages to http://www.thewaterionizer.co.uk. These have all been removed (and not just by me). Here is a summary of the speculative claims made that I consider imprecise: removal of the clustering effect of hydrogen bonding in "ionized water" with no explanation, except an external link to an NMR spectroscopy site which contains no more information; a claim that ionized water will hold its properties for half a day with no clarification; an unsubstantiated claim that when dehydrated "drinking ionized water is thought to work better than drinking normal water"; various anecdotal claims by doctors to support the cause. Also, alkaline water is not negatively charged, and this conflicts with your earlier implication of what "ionized water" might be. I am also unsure of the antioxidant properties of alkaline water anyway. If it had a standard reduction potential of -0.2V it would not be a very strong oxidant at all, and hence not a very effective antioxidant. -postglock 00:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to say that ionized water doesn’t work? Hospitals in Japan use water ionization for treatments, companies are starting to use ionized water for swimming pools instead of chemicals, hospitals across the UK and in other companies are now using industrial water ionizers to sanitize their water, farmers use ionized water as an alternative to using harsh chemicals in Japan, doctors and practitioners use ionized water on their patients across the world, and millions of people across the world drink ionized water for its health benefits. This is not speculation.

The technology is so new in the western hemisphere that we need some sort of link to more information for water ionizers, so I used a website – there are plenty of links across wikipedia that have similar links, why are you picking out a technology which is helping people?

It is relevant that you’re being negative, as you’re giving a bias description of an appliance that helps so many people.

Why don’t you tell us all who funds you, and what your interests are? I will tell you want mine are, to make as many people aware of water ionization as I can before my time is up.

“removal of the clustering effect of hydrogen bonding in "ionized water" with no explanation, except an external link to an NMR spectroscopy site which contains no more information” First of all, nobody claims that the bonding is removed, do not twist words. No scientist can claim that they fully understand water and its properties! So don’t try to make people believe you’re an expert, when you’re not – before you say it, I’m completely humble to the power of water and do not claim I’m an expert! Through NMR spectroscopy, and not just by Acorn, scientists have proven that the water is reduced, here is the link [3]. You cannot say it doesn’t exist. The link was put there to show people the organisation who did the research.

“ionized water will hold its properties for half a day with no clarification” It is correct that the water will eventually return to its normal state, we need no clarification. I will retract that statement to be correct.

“an unsubstantiated claim that when dehydrated "drinking ionized water is thought to work better than drinking normal water” Are you familiar with this type of comment? People can make what they will out of that statement. It reads, that some people do believe from their experience that ionized water is better to drink than normal water. But in fact it is, due to the water being filtered, filtered tap water is better for you due to the containments in the water. I have edited the statement.

“various anecdotal claims by doctors to support the cause” You are assuming the evidence is anecdotal. You can contact the doctors or their organisations and obtain specific research that they’ve obtained. The mentioned doctors are well respected in their field and they wouldn’t put their reputations on the line for an appliance that doesn’t work.

“Also, alkaline water is not negatively charged, and this conflicts with your earlier implication of what "ionized water" might be” I’ve edited the entry to minimise confusion. Alkaline water produced by a professional water ionizer is negatively-charged. Just borrow a professional ionizer and you can test it yourself.

“I am also unsure of the antioxidant properties of alkaline water anyway. If it had a standard reduction potential of -0.2V it would not be a very strong oxidant at all, and hence not a very effective antioxidant.” I’m glad you’re thinking about this issue. Fresh orange range juice measures around -200mV. A professional water ionizer will go to around -300mV to -500mV, and there is a massive increase of OH- in the water. Do not confuse this as evidence, it is an example. When you look at a fresh jug of ionized alkaline water, you will see millions of tiny bubbles as a mist, this is the increase of OH- and can be measured using scientific apparatus. I think when you’re talking about an ‘oxidant’, you are correct in a sense, a very effective oxidant will measure above +400mV.

Why don’t you read more about what real doctors and scientists are talking about, rather than reading all the rubbish water ionizer commercial sites? -Unsigned post by 84.92.207.141

Well, if you truly have no commercial interest with this subject, I apologise for the accusations. My interest is with keeping wikipedia as objective as possible, and if this comes across as negativity, then this is a necessary evil; I don't believe in condoning dubious content just to be positive! I have various technical issues with your reply (e.g. alkaline water is not negatively charged – the cations balance out the hydroxide ions; "mist" is no indication of the alkalinity of water; your statement about drinking ionized water when dehydrated is convoluted – obviously any water is good to rehydrate, but then you link this to filtered water being better than unfiltered, but then imply that the "ionized" status of water is the defining characteristic), however I think the main root of the problem with this article is the lack of definition of what ionized water is! What is it? The first sentence of the article implies it is either acidic or alkaline water! Is that it? What precisely differentiates ionized water from regular water? Even if you cannot say scientifically, then what defining step does the ionization process involve? I have reverted once more until this is addressed. -postglock 01:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ionization can be looked up on wikipedia so people can understand what it means. The entry is water ionizers and the entry is about water ionizers, not specifically 'ionization'.

I feel you need to look at how you’re bringing in emotive language, which is interpreted as a negative outlook. I believe the content isn’t dubious; it seems you’re just basing your opinions on past experiences with other websites.

Why don’t you help in making the entry clearer, as we both have the same objective? So, please explain water ionization as you understand, but write it in a language that a normal person would understand.

The entry about dehydration is straight forward and you’d have to be pretty stupid to make the connection that ionized water is the only water that works effectively against dehydration. But you know and I know that filtered tap water is better for you than unfiltered tap water! If you note, I haven’t put things which we’re talking about into the entry as there isn’t too much to back it up and I’m happy to thrash out the ideas in this page.

The ‘mist’ is an indication that the ionizer is creating the desired effect, as they are tiny hydroxyl ions. But can you explain why the bubbles are created?

I’d really love to create an accurate and explorative entry for ‘water ionizer’ with you. This is an incredible technology which needs to see the light of day, we are decades behind the Japanese on this technology. -Unsigned post by 84.92.207.141

I would also love to create an accurate article about water ionizers, but unfortunately neither of us appears to have a grasp of what these machines do precisely! They claim to ionise water, but if this is true, then there is simply no basis for any lasting effect. The ionization of water suggests the breaking down of water molecules into OH^- and H⁺ ions (technically hydronium ions), but how is this achieved and sustained? You cannot seem to give me a clear answer for what these machines do, and this is necessary for any intelligent discussion. If we cannot clearly define what these machines do to water then the whole article is pointless. If this article is to treat the subject "positively" and seriously then we need to clearly define how these machines process water and what the "ionised" water product is. I have added an OriginalResearch tag while we discuss this. -postglock 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Think of being objetive

I give you a great link. Both check it out. [4]

Postglock: I do have a definitive description of what water ionization is, it's just I thought you may have had an idea through your chemist background.

I will work on it soon as this is not my day job!

Objectivity is something that needs to be taken onboard by the person who written the copy in the website link provided, the langauge is just as emotive as a salesperson's, but for the opposite arguement!!!

First off, you're being pedantic by saying the term ‘Ionization’ is meaningless, it should say electrolysis – yes, the term wasn’t invented by chemists, but by marketers, does it matter? Maybe it does for the wikipedia entry but for common usage, why not? Without marketing where would you be?

I am familiar with the link you've provided... And you cannot ionize pure water as you say, but tap water is not pure and it contains minerals to help seperate the water. But I must also add the water isn't 100% seperated, so unionized H20 still remains in the streams. So, please explain what would happen when normal water with minerals such as zinc, calcium, magnesium, sodium, chloride, sulphur an phosphorus? If water ionizer's do not work why does the pH and mV move so dramatically and stay like it for hours? I've tested the water and -300mV is average for the alkaline water and +400mV is average for the acidic water.

You make this statement...

'... so if your water comes from a well and contains dissolved salts or "hardness ions" such as calcium or magnesium in medium concentrations, electrolysis might be possible, but it will not be effective in removing impurities. It should be noted that groundwaters are usually somewhat alkaline to start with.'

Water ionizers use tap water that will generally have a full range of minerals, so why are you making such a fuss about pure water when it's never used by the majority of water ionizers? You then talk about removing impurities, ionization is not used to remove impurities, the filters do that. You also mention about well water being alkaline, I need to point out that the alkalinity is not anywhere near as important as the ORP of the water.

Please can you explain this statement...

'To characterize such waters as having"antioxidant" properties is incorrect; both HOCl and OCl– (hypochlorite ion) are quite strong oxidizing agents.'

From this extract I have to ask you what the difference is between an oxidant and antioxidant? I believe there is a clear difference and you're not addressing as far as I can gather as hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite acid are both oxidising and niether are antioxidants.

'Groundwaters containing metal ions such as calcium and magnesium can be rendered slightly alkaline by electrolysis, but after it hits the highly acidic gastric fluid in the stomach, its alkalinity is gone... Further, the enzymes that digest proteins in the stomach require a low pH in order to function properly.'

You should never drink any type of water during digestion as it will hinder the process and be swallowed up as you say. But you haven't addressed the issue of when your stomach isn't producing acids. I'm curious whether you agree with my statement.

I have to add at this point, what do you think of the placebo effect? I find it fascinating that the power of thought can solve physical conditions. Imagine if we developed the techniques at children’s schools whereby the students undergo training to cure themselves with their mind!

‘The amount of oxygen that water can hold is very limited, and it is not significantly absorbed by the gut anyway. You can acquire far more oxygen by just taking an extra breath.’

Extra oxygen isn’t produced by the water ionizer, it is concentrated by the split of the water around 55% alkaline 45% acidic. The oxygen is produced inside the body when the water reacts with the free radicals producing H2O.

'Alkaline water is important for maintaining proper body pH and preventing acidosis'

Japanese hospitals use electrolysed alkaline water to cure acidity within the body, professional water ionizers do the job!

‘It should also be pointed out that evolution has allowed our bodies to develop anti-oxidant enzymes such as peroxidase that are millions of times more efficient than anything that an electrolysis device could produce even if it did work!’

So how long will it take for our bodies to start adjusting to the massive increase in processed foods, microwaved foods, fried foods, pollutants in water, agricultural chemicals in food and pollutants in the air? My understanding is that, our bodies aren’t equipped to deal with these problems and that is why cancer and diseases are severely increasing in the population. If you’re statement is correct our bodies will soon become invulnerable to things such as agricultural chemicals. I believe our bodies will never cope with the type of things it’s having to deal with today, that is why giving your body an extra defence is vital.

‘Cancer does not thrive in an oxygenated and alkaline environment while health does.’

It is proven that cancer thrives in an acidic environment!

‘Acid water should never be consumed.’

Unless you want to die early!

You say the following is propagated by hucksters:

‘Natural astringent for improving complexions. It removes skin oil and greasy dirt without harsh chemicals.’

It does due to it being an astringent look at www.charmenew.com. As you’ve said in your website ionizers are used to sanitize water, and in hospitals it’s used as an astringent.

‘Natural hair conditioner.’

Nothing is proven scientifically, only theoretical, but you try and you will feel a difference – there are many things we use and don’t understand, if we didn’t use everything we didn’t understand properly, where would we be?

‘Highly antiseptic for cuts, abrasions, and wounds’

It’s used in hospitals, look at the charme website again!

‘Soaking in warm acidic ionized water improves healing from athletes foot, rashes, nail fungus infections and insect bites’

You try it! It gets rid of all types of fungus.

I'm in agreement with you on the rubbish that the salepeople put on their sites, but there is truth in what they say, it's just hyped.

I’d love to enter into a discussion about all the points I’ve raised and you’ve raised. Please come back with your answer without calling me names!

Neutrality and factuality dispute

From the state of the current article, it appears that it is undisputed that water ionizers work to some extent, even if not in the ways described by scammers. If this were the case, then leaving in a few sentences casting doubts on their effectiveness would probably be sufficient for neutrality. However, this is far from the case. The fact that water ionizers work at all is disputed; I, for one, dispute it, as do I believe should anyone who has taken a few chemistry classes. The case for water ionizers should probably be presented in the article as well since some people believe in them, but balancing the opinions is going to be tricky. I am afraid that most people like me that know these machines don't work are only marginally interested in the phenomenon of pseudoscience and marketing that goes into most of the websites promoting water ionizers. Perhaps the notice will draw more traffic so we can get this article more on the path to neutrality.

As for factuality, the article will never be encyclopedic (and will continue to sound like an advertisement, regardless of the actual commercial interests or lack thereof of the editors involved) unless the claims made here can be backed up with evidence. Here I think there is going to be some difficult in making the article both neutral and factual, considering that one of the viewpoints has science on its side and the other does not. But we could still attempt to get both neutrality and factuality, as many other articles with the same problems have done with more or less success.

I don't want to get involved direct in trying to fix this article because I am biased and I don't want the fact that I am an admin to unduely influence the process, but I think my case for a neutrality and factuality dispute is pretty clear cut. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. Your comments are fair, but wouldn't half the content on wikipedia disputed? For example, entries about ancient civilisations, religons, dinosaurs, the universe, dark matter, whether the world is round, communism, captilism. As I've said before in the comments, we do not know how everything works but it works.

You cannot say that water ionizers do not work. Do you have an ionizer? Seriously respected doctors know ionizers work, and Japan have been using them since the 1960s. The technology is used by NASA and many orgnisations for a number of things. So please clarify what you mean about whether ionizers work - as I think that if it turns on and changes the water to the designer's specifications then it works!

The information I've put on the page is verifiable and easy to find. I don't understand why hospitals and staff would use something that doesn't work.

Just because water ionization isn't to prominate in western science, it is in Japan and Korea - the western world is more than 20 years behind! You will find (if you can speak Japanese) that there is a wealth of information written by scientists in Japan and many tests have been conducted over a number of years. For instance, tests have been conducted on rats and their DNA, the rats lived on average 25% longer than normal, if you need me to show you the abstract, I can give you a link.

I reverted your removal of the dispute notice. Just because you don't think that the neutrality and factuality of the article is in dispute doesn't mean that it is not. Generally, these notices should stay up until the parties in dispute reach a consensus, or failing that at least there should be more discussion than a single comment from one side. Having this notice is a good thing for such a hotly contested topic. Articles usually get more attention when they are flagged as in need of work. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I will listen to you on this occasion, but people need to discuss this issue. So I'll wait for people's repsonses to my questions.

Time is ticking... if nobody's going to enter into dialogue soon, then...

...I'll assume that there is no dispute.

No, that is not how it works. There is no time limit on a dispute, and it is clear that a consensus has not been yet reached. I agree that this should be resolved as quickly as possible. I personally would spend more time making changes to the article and suggesting what changes I thought could be made if I had the time, but I don't have a lot of free time at the moment. That doesn't mean that I (or the others who have made comments here) don't have a valid point about the factuality and neutrality of the article. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I also have chosen a poor time to enter (or continue) this debate, as I have just moved house (interstate). I do feel strongly about this issue, and I have only had a chance to skim quickly over the above arguments, but I will be most keen to continue contributions to this article in a week or so. I apologise for the delay. -postglock 11:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're so passionate about it then you can find the time.

84.92.207.141, improperly removing dispute tags is considered vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism). If you do not follow Wikipedia's policies, you will be blocked. As I said above, there is no time limit on a dispute. Some disputes take months to resolve. Hopefully this one will be resolved more quickly, but in any case the dispute tag should remain until a consensus is reached. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 20:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys make me laugh. Does an ionizer work? Doesn't it work? Are you MAD!? My tap water has a 7.4pH which I test with an electronic pH tester. For the uneducated, it is a device that measures the amount of hydronium in water. When running the water through an ionizer the pH then raises to about 10.52pH, which again I measure with a pH meter. I then store the water for 24 hours in a plastic jug - afterwards, I get a reading of 9.67pH. So, what does this mean? I guess it means an ionizer works. No matter how many morons insist it doesn't work, it does. The next thing ya know, this dult will insist a microwave oven doesn't work.

Now, as a matter of health? It works. How do I know? Because I OWN ONE. I've sold thousands of ionizers to people who also OWN ONE. Jupiter Science in Korea has sold millions of ionizers to people who OWN ONE! What is the question here? Does increased hydroxyl in the stomach cause more bicarbonates to enter the bloodstream helping the body discard more metabolic waste? Is THAT the question?

Here is what should be in the definition page. An ionizer is an electrical device that uses polarized plating to ionize water. Many people believe, including almost all of Asia, that drinking high pH water has an antioxidant effect on the body, regulating the very delicate acid/alkaline balance of the body. Don't think there is a balance? Try reading a medical textbook for once in your life, if you can understand it. Done! Machine... what it does... how it works... why people buy them. Do people buy them because they are pretty (and they are)? No! They buy them for the health benefits. So, WRITE THAT! What's the dispute?

There is a fine line between what is commercial, and what is fact. But, fact wins out on this one. Ionizers ionize water. People buy them for health purposes. People drink alkaline water because they believe it will help their health. Whether it does that is no concern of postglock. The fact that an ionizer ionizes water, people drink alkaline water for health, and many people swear by them (including me) is quite enough of a definition. There's no need to add words like "supposedly" or "unsubstantiated". Are you KIDDING ME??? You will have to edit the whole section on vaccines because there has never EVER EVER been any substantiated proof that they work... only that they don't. Have fun correcting THAT section postglock.

The funny thing is, that most people that sell ionizers make 10 times more in income than people who go around policing Wikipedia pages. So, whether or not this page goes on in battle, I will still earn a great living from helping people, rather than being a negative, lonely, sarcastic, lifeless free-site editor.

Thank you!

No Effect on Water

Water ionizers almost certainly have no pernament effect on water. Water spontaneously self-ionizes with an equilibrum constant of 10^-14 under normal conditions. If the concentration of these ions is increased (hydroxide and hydronium), then they will react with each other to restore the original concentration. The reaction is very rapid ( strongacids and strong bases completly react with each other in seconds, so hydronium hydroxide (or ionized water) should have a half life measured in fractions of a second (or, at best, a few seconds)). If the water is removed from normal conditions (ie. heated) the concentrations may be increased slightly, but not very much, and are reversed when the water is returned to standard conditions. Therefore, unless some mechanism is found that stabillizes ionized water, this article should not make claims that they work. Polonium 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING!!!

I have said and the other man who sells ionizers that ionized water does not stay ionized!!! But it lasts long enough for people to drink it. I am glad that the ionizer salesmen has given me backup on this one, as you would need to be editing all sorts of pages all day long.

Do some proper research and stop talking out of your textbooks, ionizer work - test one for yourself. Why would a major electronics company be making washing machines using ionization technology or hospitals use ionizers to clean their water and use it to treat digestive disorders?

Please will you lot tell us why you insist on calling us porkie pie tellers? I have reverted back as you are being biased and not looking at the global picture.

Why don't you want to enter discussion?

I stated, "If the concentration of these ions is increased (hydroxide and hydronium), then they will react with each other to restore the original concentration. The reaction is very rapid (strong acids and strong bases completly react with each other in seconds, so hydronium hydroxide (or ionized water) should have a half life measured in fractions of a second (or, at best, a few seconds)). If the water is removed from normal conditions (ie. heated) the concentrations may be increased slightly, but not very much, and are reversed when the water is returned to standard conditions. Therefore, unless some mechanism is found that stabillizes ionized water, this article should not make claims that they work." I clearly stated that hydroxide ions and hydronium ions react with each other very rapidly. Unless you can show evidence of a metastable state in a reputable, peer reviewed journal, claims of a metastable state with a long half life should not be made, except as being referenced to manufactures and front groups. Polonium 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I will find the information you require. Here is one for starters: http://www.foodproductiondaily-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=65497-electrolyzed-water-cleaners.

Why don't you try testing an ionizer for yourself with equipment. There is testing all of the world and the internet about the water changing.

YOU STILL ARE NOT LISTENING! Water ionizers ionize water and the water stays like it for a while in an open environment.

YOU ARE STILL NOT LISTENING! I have said they work in the discussion not in the article, please read.

If you haven't noticed, scientists get their funding from commercial companies, please tell me the difference please?

There are plenty of peer reviewed journals in Japan but not in the West.

Actually, the kinetic problem still remains, acids and bases react with each other in less that half a day. In fact, the H₃O⁺ ions and OH^- ions will react with each other in seconds. The half life could be one second, and if that is the case, the amount of ionized water left after 20 seconds is 953.67*10^-9 mole fraction, and after 1 minute it has reached equilibrum. Not enough time to drink it. Polonium 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

WHY ARE SCIENTISTS AFRAID OF WATER IONIZATION IN THE WEST?

I believe that there is a reason why scientists in the West are slow to pickup the ball of water ionization. Imagine if water ionization was commonplace, how many people would be out of a job? What I am doing to trying to take things forward and show ionized water does work and there is plenty of proof it works. Are you calling the late Dr Kelley, Dr Baroody and many others liers? If you are a chemist, why don't you test the water?

I'm sorry that I've not been more active on this article, after my original comments, but I have been frustrated by the lack of any substantiated claims, and overwhelmed by the glut of (mostly) irrelevant sophistry. Ionised water simply does not exist in the sense that is mentioned. Who are "the late Dr Kelley, Dr Baroody and many others?" Can you provide some links to articles by them? The one link provided above appears to claim that electrolysis of water would create acidic and alkaline solutions. This simply does not work. Any electrolysis requires the connection of a salt bridge or membrane, in order to allow ions (and thus charge) to complete the circuit. In the electrolysis of water, the H⁺ ions and the OH^- ions will combine to provide ongoing current. The link to the "no washing detergent" washing machine in the edited article has absolutely no information about what ionisation actually does, and the link to the pdf file babbles on incoherently about how a low oxidation potential equates with low reactivity. This is not true, as the lower the oxidation potential, the higher the reactivity, as its ease in being reduced increased. The aricle also claims this oxidation potential is brought around "by increased active hydrogen concentrations." This makes little sense, as the H₂ → 2H⁺ + 2e^- reaction is right in the middle of oxidation and reduction potentials (E° = 0V, as any high school student will tell you). Also, high concentrations of the H⁺ ion would result in acidic solutions, not alkaline! -postglock 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Postglock needs to look into the mechanics of a water ionizer

There are plenty of substantiated claims.

If you do not know who Dr Kelley and Dr Baroody are I don't understand why you're commenting on a technology that you obviously know little about, and it seems you are not doing any research on.

A water ionizer has two chambers inside which are bridged with a membrane, and the machine uses the minerals such as sodium works as an electrolyte to sustain the ionized water's temporary structure.

You go on about water ionizers are not able to produce alkaline and acidic solutions, you are wrong. There are many companies who are now switching to water ionization to clean with. Do some research.

I'm wondering how skilled you are and whether you're a practising chemist or scientist? It seems you just studied a little chemistry at school. Your narrowmindedness as well, knocks me back.

You make this comment about the article: "by increased active hydrogen concentrations." This makes little sense" How do you know it's H+?

Why are you so against water ionizers and why are you denying their exsistence? You are really making yourself look silly. -- unsigned post from 86.10.38.226

Like I said, the kinetic problem still remains, acids and bases react with each other in less that half a day. In fact, the H₃O⁺ ions and OH^- ions will react with each other in seconds. The half life could be one second, and if that is the case, the amount of ionized water left after 20 seconds is 953.67*10^-9 mole fraction, and after 1 minute it has reached equilibrum. Not enough time to drink it. As for the claims that electrolytes stabillize the water, sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid (both electrolytes) react with each other rapidly (short half life, large rate constant), so that cannot stabilise the solution. The rate of decomposition of the ionized water is determined, very simply, by the equation $r=k[H3O+]^{A}[OH-]^{B}$ (The math equation editor cannot use subscripts and superscripts the way I wanted it to use them) This shows that the rate constant cannot be decreased by increasing the concentration, and no mechanism is given as for how sodium ions stabillize the solution (and the fact that NaOH and H₂SO₄ react with each other fast shows that they do not do that). Polonium 21:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you could provide links or external references to the works of the good doctors? I understand your description of the mechanics of the water ioniser, and it appears to work exactly the same as an electrolytic cell which both of our descriptions appear to agree on. Could you please explain how the additional salt ions such as sodium "sustain the ionized water's temporary structure?" Also, please describe how the fluid maintains two chambers with opposing charge, and how electrolysis continues despite this. You appear to be skirting around the topic. -postglock 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you answer all my questions first? Then I'll answer yours. I have changed the article back as I believe it is biased and negatively portraying a device which helps people everyday. -- unsigned post from 84.92.207.141

Which questions specifically? I'm sorry, I am kind of losing track of who is asking which questions. In any case, I am asking my questions because I am attempting to reach some kind of informed state of mind about what water ionizers actually technically do. As is, my understanding is that they belong in the realm of pseudoscience. I am not attempting to enter into a "I'll share knowledge if you do" trade-off, as I don't see how this is possibly beneficial. Regardless, if you point out which questions I have missed, I will attempt to reply. -postglock 08:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

And also, could you please sign all entries with -- ~~~~ which will help us (me) keep track of the conversations... Thanks. -postglock 09:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You know and I know that water ionization is not pseudoscience! They work and are gaining a foothold in the west. Water ionization has been peer reviewed in Japan, does that not count?

I'm inclined to agree with postglock and everyone else... unsigned 84.92.207.141, you are a bull-headed idiot. You skirt around all of postglock's reasonable questions and continue to babble on and on about meaningless things. This is coming from a person who actually owns a water ionizer

POV and style

I think the article now is much better than earlier versions at including both sides of the debate, but I am still not convinced it is thoroughly NPOV. Here is what I think the average reader coming across this article for the first time would get from it:

• There is overwhelming scientfic evidence that water ionizers work
• "Some chemists" (from the context of the article, they would seem to be in the minority) dispute the first claim. Although it doesn't come out and say it in the article, these chemists are made out to be a disgruntled fringe group.
• Each of the applications of water ionizers listed in the article are successful in practice.

I claim that the article is still non-NPOV because one side's POV is underrepresented/misrepresented.

My other complaint, related in a way to the first, is that the style is unencyclopedic.

I have some suggestions for improving the article, which I may get to myself if and when I find time. My biggest concern is organization, because good organization can help give each POV a chance to be heard. IMO, something like the following would be acceptable:

Intro

Brief overview of what ionizers are, what they are used for, where they are (predominantly) used, how they work (brief summary). It would be prudent to mention in the first paragraph that they are controversial, but no specifics yet.

How they work

This should start with verifiable and uncontroversial statements about the technology of water ionizers, such as a water ionizer consists of components X, Y, and Z. A schematic would be a good addition. I imagine that as there are multiple manufactures of these devices, there is enough information out there that isn't trade secret to write this part of the article. From here, we could get into the more controversial parts of how water ionizers work, with little or no interruption from the critics. However, even though the information in this section would not need to be uncontroversial, it should still be verifiable, which is to say it is backed up by good, non-commercial external references.

Claimed properties of ionized water

This could actually be collapsed into the previous section, depending on length. The key thing to mention is that these are claimed properties of ionized water, but again, this is not the place in the article for in-depth refutations of the claims. Something like "The following are claimed properties of ionized water:" would be sufficient.

Criticism of water ionizers

This section would have the common criticisms of water ionizers and the claims made about them by their proponents. A couple layouts are possible. Responses to the criticisms could be saved to the end of this section or be in a following section, or they could be inline with the criticisms. I personally prefer the second layout because I have seen it work well in other articles. The important thing for preserving NPOV is that each criticism should be stated in its entirety without interruption before any response is made. The same goes for the responses. If necessary, a counter-argument from the anti-water ionizer side could follow each pro-water ionizer response. Both sides need references. This is not to say that anything uncorroborated should be cut from the article, but rather that as long as one side is unhappy with the verifiability of the other side's claims in the article, there is valid reason for a NPOV/factuality dispute tag on the article or that section.

Applications of water ionizers

Depending on the scope of this section, it may or may not be appropriate for there to be criticisms here. I have the feeling that the previous section will be sufficient to get both POVs, but I could be wrong.

Other info unrelated to the disputed aspects of water ionizers

This could include notable manufacturers, statistics on how many of these devices are sold...

External links

There are plenty of links out there, but the most important thing is no commercial links.

Feel free to comment on my suggested organization. I feel it is fair to both sides, and would make the article easier to read and more encyclopedic in style. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 01:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. The article does actually read much better now. Good work. I accept your arguement in this discussion and when I have a moment I shall work to your suggestions adding my own too.

How dare you?

Why do you feel the need to edit what I put above... 'OK...'? That was before all this nonsense! What is your problem? Are you some sort of idiot? Why did you move my comment to the bottom you FAKE!

The way it looks now is bias and doesn't discuss the points properly. Try looking at how other people write... without bias.

Page reverted.

More biased edits

Reverted biased and very unscientific edit by anonymous, although older version is far from perfect either. From what I know ionizers work perfectly (that is, separate non-distilled water into acidic and alcaline water), however effects of drinking such water are not well researched. It is true that they are quite popular in Eastern countries, and I`m sure there are research results somewhere on Chinese/Japanese sites.
I think I can dig something up on this topic, since here in Russia people have been using diy ionizers since 70s, and theres ought to be something about them. However I`m no expert at this topic (and my writing english is quite bad), so I`ll wait for a ~week before starting any research. Maybe someone more confident in chemistry will turn up... Pdfourteen 20:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ionizers are well researched and they are more than popular in Japan, they are used in hospitals. There is no lies or hype in the version that I've reverted back to and it is more in depth than the most recent one added by the 'bunk' chemist. I'm wondering what commercial interest Mr Bunk has in all this? Is he afraid of the truth about what ionizers can do? I know the conventional health industries are! unsigned anonymous 82.45.213.116 19:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, you already said that a hundred times before, I don`t see any point of repeating it over and over again (unless you are here to advertise ionizers, but then any conversation with you would be just pointless). If you have facts, preferrably statistical data from these hospitals in Japan - you are more than welcome to post/link to them here! However just saying unproven "facts" isn`t helping anybody, you are only forcing others to reverse your edits. "No lie" and "no hype" may be valid arguments on some forums, but they just don`t fit in wikipedia`s articles.
Btw, as promised, I searched for info on them on russian sites, and din`t find any independent tests. There were some articles, but most of them were written by companies, manufacturing ionizers, and remaining few just copied those. :( I`ll see if I have better luck at the library. Pdfourteen 21:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you say that the article there is unbiased? It is not balanced and the external link is to a site which use emotive langauge and sometimes almost racist langauge. I believe you are here to promote the interests of the website. Data and articles are found all over the net and I'm sure if you are dedicated then you will have seen them.

Why don't you answer my questions? Who funds you? What are your interests, why aren't you changing all the other pages that aren't exactly 'correct' in your eyes on wikipedia?

You are yet again using emotive language and you seem to be trying to put words into my mouth and making people believe what you want them to believe with your comments... So what are your interests in all of this?

Obviously, the page will be reverted as it is far too bias!

Also, please confirm you have conducted experiments that qualify your conclusion in this paragraph:

Critics argue that water ionizers almost certainly have no pernament effect on water. Water spontaneously self-ionizes with an equilibrum constant of 10-14 under normal conditions. If the concentration of these ions is increased (hydroxide and hydronium), then they will react with each other to restore the original concentration. The reaction is very rapid ( strongacids and strong bases completly react with each other in seconds, so hydronium hydroxide (or ionized water) should have a half life measured in fractions of a second (or, at best, a few seconds)). If the water is removed from normal conditions (ie. heated) the concentrations may be increased slightly, but not very much, and are reversed when the water is returned to standard conditions. Therefore, water ionizers cannot increase the concentrations of these ions for a significant time. 82.45.213.116 16:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(I will answer in separate paragraphs, corresponding to yours. In future please refrain from discussing so many topics in one post - it will confuse others, who may be following our discussion. Also please write 4 tildes (~~~~) after your every post, this will automatically insert your signature to differentiate between our posts.)

1.This is not true. I never said that current article is unbiased or balanced. On 8 May I wrote here, that it " is far from perfect either". 2.Current source is not a scientific article, so the language used there doesn`t have to be strictly academic. However, I didn`t find any use of racist language there, please prove your claim with exact quote. 3.About my personal bias, promotion of anything etc. see the bottom of this post. 4.Data and articles found all over the net are mostly nothing more than advertisements, made by companies, manufacturing these ionizers. Again, I would like to ask you to share any specific information you have on this topic (preferrably scientific data or statistical data about the usge of ionizers, with the name or link to the source) here, in the "Discussion" of the article, so that anyone could review and approve/disapprove it.

1.Previously you indeed asked me 2 questions I ignored ("I'm wondering what commercial interest Mr Bunk has in all this? Is he afraid of the truth about what ionizers can do?"). These questions are about a person I don`t know. If you really want these answered, you`d better ask this "Mr Bunk" you are mentioning (whoever he is..) himself. 2. Your new questions have nothing to do with the previous ones, and are questioning my bias now - again, see bottom of this post.

1.In my opinon I didn`t use emotive language. "A hundred times" is just an expression meaning "many" (probably it isn`t as popular in English as it is in Russian). I never put words in your mouth. "No lie" and "no hype" are quotes from your post - "There is no lies or hype in the version that I've reverted back to" - and were used in the same meaning you used them.

1.The paragragh you are talking about was not written by me, nor this is my conclusion and I suppose you know it. However, as a matter of fact, I *can* confirm that I conducted the experiment described, I think it was on chemistry lessons in school. Needless to say, that results confirmed this claim. Distilled (pure) water in normal conditions indeed cannot be separated for any significant amount of time.

Now, about my personal interests. I read this article on wikipedia because of curiosity - I heard that in Europe & America most water cleaning solutions for home are based on reverse osmosis. However here, in Russia, reverse osmosis sytems are still fairly rare and quite expensive (and by some even considered dangerous for health), comparing to other alternatives, one of which are different kinds of water ionizers and electrochemical activators (not sure if this is the correct translation) - that`s why I wanted to find out western point of view on them.

So I don`t think you can blame me in any bias againts ionizers - if there is any, it would be only towards. Neither you can prove your claim that sombedy funds me - like who? The whole water-cleaning industry except manufacturers of water ionizers? :)

Your version of this article is far too biased, contains several obvious factual errors and written in non-encyclopedic style. Furthermore, you even posted direct links to a shop selling these ionizers. Thus any of your attempts to replace this article with yours are useless - it will just be reverted back to its original state. If you really want to help - post information you have here first. Pdfourteen 15:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Your questions are without substance...

Where does it say that water ionizers change water on a perm. basis? Nowhere! I don't need to prove to you anything, as everything is on the page which was written and approved ages ago.

The Mr Bunk is biased and his link onto the page is 100% out of line. Where is his evidence? Has he tested water ionizers himself?

Would love to come to an agreement on how to word the article, so can you fuse the two together? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.213.116 (talk • contribs) .

Nothing on Wikipedia is "approved ages ago." This is not how it works, Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, really. Proof is most definitely required. The testing of water ionisers is not necessary, as the complaints have been ones directed at the claims of manufacturers. From a legal perspective, these are problems of fact, not of evidence. About wording the article, which two are you talking about? -postglock 17:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the 'approved' issue.

So you say proof is required. What are manufacturers claiming that you have trouble with?

Also, proof is also required on your end. You cannot rely on theories to conclude your views on a product without testing them yourself.

Why don't you try to look beyond what's in front of you and do your own research if you're that keen. Please don't just use those rubbish USA websites to form opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.213.116 (talk • contribs) .

What are manufacturers claiming that I have trouble with? Are you serious??? The rest of this page is filled with issues and questions that I have! Almost none of them have been answered! All my previous "proof" is contained in earler discussions, unless you have more questions. This proof is indeed based on scientific empirical evidence – science is the basis of electrolytic cells, acid/alkalinity, electricity, self-ionisation of water, equilibrium, etc, etc... As I said, I don't need to test the water ioniser myself, because I am not disputing the premise, I am disputing the logic! In any case, I am still yet to be told what water ionisers do exactly. Do they pass a current throught water? The whole thing is so vague! -postglock 04:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know what Ionizers do then why are you bothering with this effort you weirdo. Everything I have said is in the previous bits too if you can be bothered to look back or even work out what ionizers do.

Biased, Non-NPOV, and factually incorrect article

I have added the Totally Disputed tag for several reasons:

• This article is quite obviously an attempt to debunk a particular technology, not written in a neutral tone
• This article contains flawed and misleading factual content
• The only external link provided is to a site that has many factual flaws, copyright infringements, and is riddled with slander, defamatory and libelous statements, and should probably be looked at by an attorney

I am requesting that another editor, other than the one assigned to this article, should be contacted. There has been dozens of attempts by many folks trying to neutralize the article. But, those attempts have been constantly blocked by an obviously biased and non-qualified editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.18.188 (talk • contribs)

Okay, I think we've been pretty tolerant, and I'll leave the tag up for a little while, but I feel we are going over old ground here. Firstly, there is no editor "assigned to this article"; this is not how wikipedia works.

You are correct in that there have been dozens of attempts to reword the article in a more pro-ionizer sense, however, as you mentioned yourself in a personal attack at GraemeL's talk page:

Also, I can change my ip address at will, in seconds, and insert the links over and over and over and over again from different ip addresses until you and other lonely free-speech site editor morons like you get tired. Try me.... I make money while I write this... I can do this all day until you get sick to your stomach!

Even if we forgive your personal attacks and your constant posting of linkspam, the most important point is that you have never explained how a water ioniser works! How does the article contain "flawed and misleading factual contact?" Please provide technical alternatives! -postglock 00:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Blah Blah Blah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.233.39 (talk • contribs)

You need to look at the language of the people who you're talking to. You know from the way I write that I wouldn't write this:

Also, I can change my ip address at will, in seconds, and insert the links over and over and over and over again from different ip addresses until you and other lonely free-speech site editor morons like you get tired. Try me.... I make money while I write this... I can do this all day until you get sick to your stomach!

You know I'm reasonable. So you want me to explain how an ionizer works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.233.39 (talk • contribs)

I am confused. I was initially responding to someone at 24.168.18.188, and here is a response from 82.35.233.39. So, 82.35.233.39, I was referring to the edits made by the former IP address. This is the first post from the latter IP address. I do not know you are reasonable as I cannot associate your IP address with any previous edits! I would really suggest you register so that we can attempt to maintain some continuity in our converstion. I don't know who you are! In any case, as I requested in numerous posts: yes, I would definitely like a technical explanation of how an ioniser works. -postglock 07:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the version I have put up is bias? It explains clearly the arguements on both sides. The other is bias all the way!

Pulling the piece apart...

Function It is claimed that water in an electric field will self ionize. Pure water at room temperature and pressure always self-ionizes to 10-14 M, and it is impossible to force water permanently into a higher state of ionization without the addition of other chemicals (for example, by creating an acidic or basic solution).

It is not claimed that the water is changed permanently. The ionization occurs and if the water is left out in an open glass it will revert back to its usual state without so many acidic minerals. Ionized water can last for around 1 day in a sealed bottle and longer stored in a sealed dark glass container. You also note that water ionizers use tap water with minerals in, not pure water!

Some manufacturers of water ionizers often claim that their products can break these laws of equilibrium. Others claim that the ionized water forms a metastable state.

Useless comment - it shows little research.

Claimed Properties These manufacturers also make various claims about the chemical properties of ionized water. A common claim is that in non-ionized water, water molecules form tightly bound clusters, and that ionizing water breaks up those clusters.

This sentence doesn't even make sense. But I understand the point. The water clusters are kept separated by a tiny membrane once the water has current passing through it. The thing here is that an ionizer is instant and the ionized water exits very quickly. It is not claimed the cluster are broken up but changed through electrolysis, the clusters become more condensed - this is proven by using NMR.

Manufacturers claim that ionized water is more readily absorbed by the body than ordinary water, and that minerals in ionized water are more readily available to the body.

It is a fact that when buying a water ionizer you must consult your doctor if on medication, as it increases the absorbtion rate of things such as tablets. It is also the case that ionized water has a lower surface tension.

There is an element of truth to the first part; water molecules are held together by hydrogen bonding, and (especially in the presence of cations) can form clusters (see chelation).

Useless again - why the ignorance snips?

Criticism Critics argue that water ionizers almost certainly have no permanent effect on water.

Nobody says otherwise, if they do then they are foolish. Please try to read things instead of dismissing them in a pathetic school teacher huff!

Water spontaneously self-ionizes with an equilibrum constant of 10-14 under normal conditions. If the concentration of these ions is increased (hydroxide and hydronium), then they will react with each other to restore the original concentration. The reaction is very rapid (strong acids and strong bases completely react with each other in seconds, so hydronium hydroxide (or ionized water) should have a half life measured in fractions of a second (or, at best, a few seconds)).

Well it's all well and good saying that, but you should try reading the results using an mV meter in the water. The meter will show a negative reading until you're bored of watching it.

If the water is removed from normal conditions (ie. heated) the concentrations may be increased slightly, but not very much, and are reversed when the water is returned to standard conditions. Therefore, water ionizers cannot increase the concentrations of these ions for a significant time.

Again, why don't you try testing one!

However, even if it were possible to ionize water, the claim that such water would be free of these clusters is illogical; it would be more logical to expect more of these clusters in ionized water.

Again, please research properly instead of using one source. I see you're assuming in this part, how ironic!

Many claims about the chemical properties of ionized water are made to support claims about the health benefits of consuming such water, and are often made without scientific basis. Hence, most chemists would consider these claims as pseudoscience.

Only chemists I'm afraid. 99.5% of the population aren't luckily! They are open-minded and willing to try new things.

A link is often made between consumption of non-ionized water and a sensationalized medical condition known as chronic cellular dehydration. Another claim is that ionized water is an antioxidant. Water ionizer makers claim their product treats chronic diarrhea, Indigestion, Gastrointestinal abnormal fermentation, and Acidosis. These claims are, again, not usually based on empirical evidence, but rather testimonials about individual health benefits.

Idiot.

What is wrong with you ancient-thinking wannabe chemists?

???

Dispute Water Ionizer Article Information

Stephen Lower, the owner of the chem1.com website, has presented a factually incorrect and emotional description of "water ionizer." I have contacted this individual and asked him to put his theories to the test by actually testing my company's water ionizer, or water electrolyzer, however you want to call it. He has refused. His theories are incorrect because his opinion on how an ionizer works is wrong. He has failed to factor in the membrane that every ionizer uses to separate alkaline from acidic water. If it weren't for the membrane, the electrodes wouldn't be strong enough to pull acidic minerals from alkaline minerals. The membrane makes it possible by keeping alkaline and acidic water separate.

Since Stephen Lower is a person who refused to run tests on an actual ionizer/electrolyzer, it doesn't make sense to me that it is his opinion that gets published. His opinion is also a minority. I can provide Wikipedia with hundreds of case studies published in peer reviewed publications both here in the US, Japan, and Korea that demonstrate the benefits of water ionizers. The fact is ionized or electrolyzed water is currently used in hospitals throughout Japan and Korea because of its increased oxygen and the presence of hydroxl ions. You can even view video footage from such hospitals on my company's website, http://www.waterforlifeusa.com .

I know these points have been made before, I fail to understand why this misinformation continues to be allowed. And now this page is ranking as the top page when you search for water ionizers on Google. I believe that this page has been mismanaged and the misinformation that continues to exist is damaging to all the businesses, doctors, nutritionists, and health practioners in this country that try to educate the general public about the importance of preventative health care with products such as a water ionizer. I also question why the opinions of hundreds of Korean and Japanese doctors aren't taken seriously, but when an American chemist forms and opinion, he is given top billing.

The bottom line is after three years of discussion, the appropriate changes aren't being made to this page, the changes that are backed by the most scientific opinion and evidence. This is a moral issues as well as a scientific one. Why aren't the editors of Wikipedia listening?

I extend my offer to Wikipedia; I will send you our company's product. I will even buy you the tests you need to verify the increase in oxygen and the increase in alkalinity.

What else can I do? Please tell me. The "water ionizer" page is simply wrong, its damaging legitimate business, it's misinforming the general public. This has got to stop.

Waterforlifeusa 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)waterforlifeusa

Proof

I reread many of the posts from the "water ionizer" page manager and he keeps saying "prove it to me." The best way I can prove it to you is send you a water ionizer and tell you how to test the water yourself. If you are unwilling, I have worked hard to put together a resource page on our company's website: http://www.waterforlifeusa.com/index.php?page=Resources

There you will find classic articles such as those by Dr. Hayashi (there's video of him, too), Dr. Stanley Bass, Dr. Otto Warburg, Dr. Barody, and even the entire book by Mr. Kim Young Kwi, owner of the KYK Research Co. of Korea, whose research on water ionizers is endorsed by the mayor of Seoul, a former scientist. He designed our company's product.

In our company's testimonial section, you'll find testimonials from Dr. Steven Miller and Dr. Ken Kaufman, American doctors who have bought, tested, and now sell the KYK water ionizer for us.

Honestly, I don't want to hear any more excuses about proof. You can read numerous peer reviewed research articles in our resource center, you can read testimonials, you can even watch footage from a Japanese hospital as a man's diabetic sores are healed by ionized acidic water. And then you can even test our product yourself, see the results, and stop this rediculous battle of theory.

The only responsible action to take is to remove the entire "water ionizer" description and describe an ionizer for what it actually is "a medical substance producer" (KFDA and Japanese Ministry of Health).

Anything less is grossly irresponsible.

I expect the changes to be made within one week's time.

Waterforlifeusa 04:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)waterforlifeusa

Unfortunately, this is not how Wikipedia works. There is no "page manager." You can check out the FAQ for more information. Sending editors water ionizers is unfeasable for numerous reasons. Firstly, convincing even one editor would be not helpful to your cause, as there are several editors opposed. Secondly, as stated over and over again, the issues with the usefulness of water ionizers is not a practical one, but a theoretical one. This has been repeated all over this page, however I did check out your link, just in case there was something I missed. On the "what is ionised water" link, I ran into an error immediately, where you claim OH- is "alkaline water" (not quite correct anyway), and HO is "acid water." I don't have the time or energy to read much further, nor do I wish to proof-read the resource page for you, but elementary errors such as these immediately cast doubt upon the validity of the argument. -postglock 23:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Final Warning

Postglock,

I don't care if you don't have the patience for this discussion. I demand immediate action on your part, and I will not stop until that action is taken.

You want this to be a battle of theory. It is not. Your opinion on the "elementary errors" contained in one of my resource page's articles does not matter to me. I never asked for your opinion, I doubt you are an expert in anything to do with this field. Your opinion does not matter. Your actions, however, do matter. Very simply, your actions in posting, or allowing to remain posted, false and misleading statements about my company's product is inexcusable and won't be tolerated any further.

You can bring this discussion out of the realm of theory into reality by simply testing the pH of the water that comes out of our water ionizer. If it changes, becomes alkaline, then you have no other choice but to remove the false information posted.

I also don't care how Wikipedia is set up, one editor, mulitple editors, it does not matter. What matters is the damage your page is doing to our company, our reputation, and the integrity of our market and product. And from what I've read, you are obviously calling the shots. If you won't take responsibility for doing what is necessary to posting factual information about our company's product, I will have not other choice but to hold you and Wikipedia responsible.

I am willing to work with your company. Like I said before, tell me what you want -- studies, research, video, our product to test, a call from Mr. Kim Young Kwi (the lead designer for our product), anything you want. I will even have our lead technician write an appropriate description of water ionizer so you can post something true and factual. I will even fly out to wherever you are to demonstrate the product to you personally.

But if you respond in the way your responded to my last post, arrogantly and dismissively, you will leave me no other choice.

The KYK Co. line of products is a company of 25 years, one of the pioneers in modern ionized water research. Give us a chance and we will prove to you we have not spent the past twenty-five years spinning psuedoscience and creating placebo effects.

I highly suggest you pass this on to your superiors before you respond.

Waterforlifeusa 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)waterforlifeusa

Hi, please do give us links to studies in peer-reviewed journals, and an explanation of how exactly the product works. It shouldn't be difficult to refute most of the scientific arguments put forward if, as you say, your ionisers do indeed produce acidic and alkaline water; really, this is the way you should proceed rather than making demands of individual editors, issuing 'final warnings' and suggesting they pass your requests on to their 'superiors'.

Anybody can edit this article; you could even do it yourself, but given the dispute I would strongly suggest that you begin by explaining on this page exactly where the doubters have gone so wrong in their analysis. If you provide convincing counter-arguments, particularly if backed up by scientific journals, it will be a simpe matter to have the article corrected. I am no chemist myself and hadn't even heard of water ionizers before today, but these Google Scholar results, for example, tend to lend some plausibility to some of the claims made here, anyway - unless I am misunderstanding something, which I easily might be. --Oolong 08:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessary to be an expert to know that adding a proton to OH^- simply gives you a water molecule. And again, personal demonstrations are not necessary. Furthermore, Oolong does not 'call the shots'; no one person does (except for perhaps Jimmy Wales). And keep in mind that you seem dangerously close to making a legal threat, which is strictly forbidden. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed

The tone of this article, and the apparently imbalanced weight given to criticisms of these devices does not seem consistent with the neutral perspective expected of a Wikipedia Entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zupreme (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the tone is imbalanced; however, I would argue that the 'Support from Medical Doctors' needs balance with a 'criticism from medical doctors' or some such. I also think that the 'function' section needs rewriting to sound less like an advertisement. Veinor ^{(talk to me)}

Lets see the truth on water...

Some "Real" expert water information is now availible courtesy to a few hours of my time. More to come... this is going to be the next generation of water, and the generation of the mind. --Mrz1818 20:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

References

All the references are from companies selling water ionizers. Where are the independent third pary research? Gillyweed 00:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The information is not easy to come by in medical journals inside the United States. The FDA does an excellent job of keeping these ionizers from the public. It's not a pill, therefore the FDA dosen't think it works. The information about & concluding water ionizer studies are conducted in Japan or China, making it near impossible for a non bi-lingual person as myself in finding these studies on a reliable medical journal site. I will consider converting my text in a translator in order to find these documents somewhere else. Realize I am not trying to spam or soliciate, only educate. We are dealing with a highly over ignorant america and people need to start realizing whats really important for them, like the water they consume. Please write back if you still have questions! Thanks! MrZ1818 01:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP is an international encyclopaedia. There are many legitimate science journals published in Australasia and Europe as well. Proponents need to find evidence of efficacy. Skeptics do not need to prove their position. I think your comments about the FDA are made without a sound basis. Claiming Americans are ignorant because they do not support a particular product is spurious. I look forward to reading third party independent research. Thank you. Gillyweed 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[5] seems to be about an electrolysed water product, for what it's worth. More a news item than a research report, but still... --Oolong 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one day they can invent a Japanese to English translating machine so that Japanese peer-reviewed studies can be properly referenced for English readers. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.160.4.34 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry MRZ1818

I am sorry but your version is non-encyclopaedic and doesn't meet WP:NPOV. It sounds like an essay or WP:OR This article isn't too hard to write:

1. What is a water ionizer? 2. What is the theory behind it? 3. How does it work? 4. What are the claimed benefits? 5. What are the criticisms of water ionization?

With each section backed up with third party independent and verifiable references. Gillyweed 09:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So i need third party references? The material was written correctly...and if u didn't like it - well who are you to judge someone's point of view in writing - thats very communist like eh?

Nope not my policy. It's Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:Cite. Please sign your posts. Gillyweed 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Information Suppression

User: Gillyweed writes: "Being on PubMed provides no credence to the research"

Scientific Quality Standards for PubMed Journals accepted into the National Center for Biotechnology Information database.

Gillyweed's edits and comments are understood as information suppression and will be deleted as spam.

The external Snake Oil link must be removed as it contains no references to actual studies about ionized/electrolyzed water. However, some untrue claims have also been made by water ionizer marketers as well. As a result, the subject of ionized water and water ionizers must feature research findings as published in peer reviewed academic journals. Water Ionizer Research (talk)

i completely agree with the above. the article is far too negative and is one persons point of view over masses of research. the ionbunk man doesnt understand quantum psychics, only chemistry. just a simple point in his website that water ionizers cannot change the pH of water is insane, it DOES! what else has he got wrong? the way ive changed the article is more balanced and doesnt interfere or try to manipulate people either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.168.219 (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)