Talk:Penta Water

Untitled
Can someone tell me if I'm doing the right thing with the trademark on the first occurence of Penta in the article.Christianjb 02:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The &trade; doesn't do any harm, but as far as I can tell is unnecessary in this context. Although corporations get very anal-retentive about its inclusion, prestigious independent style guides say different:
 * Medical Library Association: "Although owners of trademarked names may suggest otherwise, publishers are not obligated to denote the trademark status of a name when that name is mentioned in text".
 * ACS Style Guide from Oxford University Press USA: "In ACS publications, do not use trademark (&trade; ) and registered trademark (&reg;) symbols".
 * IEEE: "We do not include the trademark symbol in articles published in IEEE Computer Society periodicals and proceedings. Trademark law does not apply to the press because using a product name in the headline or text of an article does not constitute an attempt to capitalize on the reputation of the company or the product".
 * Chicago Manual of Style, quoted here: ".The symbols &reg; and &trade;, which often accompany registered trademark names on product packaging and in advertisements, need not be used in running text".
 * (Besides, you only need to look at a few newspaper websites - eg Ben Goldacre's articles or this USA Today piece - to see they don't use it. Raygirvan Apr 21 2005
 * Cool! Thanks.  I suggest leaving the trademark sign in the first mention anyway so that people know that Penta Water is a brand-name.Christianjb 04:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also- if anyone has a pdf/ps copy of the Raman paper on Penta, can they send it to me. I've written to the lead author but have (surprisingly!) received no reply. Christianjb 03:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Update. I finally got Penta UK to give me a copy of the paper.  I'll be writing a subsection about the paper in the next few days.  Let me know if anyone needs a copy.
 * Update. This page is now available for download from the Aquaphotonics website.  (See main article.)

Suggestion
After reading the paper by Gvozdev et al., it seems at least possible that the faster rate of dissolution of COM crystals may be due to impurities in the penta water (as the same paper pointed out that addition of iron or aluminum chlorides quintupled the dissolution rate). A look through Scifinder Scholar reveals no information pertaining to the purity of this product. Have there been any independent assays relating to the purity? If the purity cannot be verified, then it would seem reasonable to point out in this article the various conclusions that can be drawn from that paper.

-Will

James Randi Discusses this page!
See. BTW, yes I know this isn't just 'Christian Burnham's' article- it's a collaborative effort and I'd like to thank all the people who have corrected my poor spelling and have improved the article! Christianjb 20:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

delete this entry ?
I think this entire entry should be deleted altogether. It does not add anything to anyone's understanding of the world, except for fraud, which is presumably best understood by reading the entry for fraud.

This page does however, provide a service to the company and product it ostensibly exposes as fraudulent, since the old adage "any PR is good PR" is certainly true in many, even most, instances. Since no right-minded person would want that to happen - this page should be deleted!

I read the discussion about the last time deleting was discussed and was surprised to see apparent unanimity in voting to keep it. I worry that keeping this entry opens the door to too much rubbish that does not belong in WP. If it wouldn't ALL be welcome, then NONE of it should be.

TimProof 04:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Once notable, always notable. — Omegatron 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As water only has memory on the order of femtoseconds, any claim that their water is different from distilled water is fraud. It is like claiming that sea salt is better than table salt. bad science. Dan (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference to sea salt in the article is rather misleading and unnecessary. I have no strong opinions on deleting the whole article, but I think the salt reference should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.114.214 (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FDA
It appears Penta Water is still being sold. What has apparently been overlooked is that the FDA has authority over bottled water. What the FDA has to say about the claims of Penta Water (via Wikipedia) would definitely be a public service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Rosa (talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source for the FDA commenting on Penta Water that we could use? --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)