Talk:Purified water

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kolvera.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Health aspects of drinking purified water
There is a common understanding that drinking a lot of purified water can be bad for you (ostensibly because it will absorb minerals that would otherwise be consumed by your body). However, I could only find one clear article describing this and it is widely disseminated, by Zoltan P. Rona MD, MSc. Unfortunately the vast majority of the web sites that contain this article are trying to sell water purifiers or water itself and therefore are suspect sources of material. Can anyone provide information about whether drinking purified water is good or bad for you in the short or long-term?

Note: I started this same discussion under "bottled water" as well. -- S. Gartner talk 02:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of any articles, but a basic chemistry class will teach you that truly purified or distilled water contains, well, nothing other than basic water molecules. A basic biology class will teach you that you need neurons firing in your brain to function properly, and for this to happen you'll need ions or electrolytes, which distilled and purified water don't have. You normally get the ions you need from standard bottled water or tap water. -71.104.92.157 04:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't get most of your electrolytes from the water, anyway. The vast majority of the electrolytes in your diet comes from your food.  The whole thing is nonsense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.83.70 (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * there is much controversy over drinking purified water, but my research led me to conclude that 1) we don't rely on inorganic minerals for mineral absorbtion, as we rely on the organic minerals in food to supply, and the absorption rate or inorganic minerals, as those found in water, are of little or no consequence as compared to, say, a bite of an apple, or an egg. Hard water consumption imports many unwanted guests in the water that purified water can eliminate from your body. I sleep better knowing that I do have a choice to choose distilled water for my hydration, and rely on good diet to provide add'l vitamins and mineralsSJR55 (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Distilled water carries both health benefits and health risks. Therapeutically distilled water can be used for short durations as part of a cleansing/detoxifying diet. As distilled water carries a negative polarity it leaches excessive salts, minerals and toxins from the body and is therefore very beneficial if used therapeutically in the short term. However, such is its ability to attract trace elements that, if used for prolonged periods, distilled water will strip the body of too many vital nutrients resulting in a detrimental effect on ones healthPoppydom3 (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Distilled water is not charged either positively or negatively, is chemically neutral, so the statement that it has a negative polarity is false. True distillation of water does not change anything about the water itself only separates impurities.  Absorption of water in to the body is the most important aspect to focus on and the effect of impurities on the small intestine.  Tap water, for individual consumption, does not contain consistent levels of any impurity and should not be represented as being predictable.  Localized, environmental conditions have a major impact on the quality of water and therefore making a discussion of 'tap' water vs. distilled pointless.  Perceived beneficial elements contained in tap water are in no way level, of consistent quality, or proven to be responsible for the presence of the minerals in the body.  The Minerals found in our food diet, for example, are much more likely to produce consistent levels in our bodies compared to the consumption of water.  How much water would you need to drink to get the sodium found in a french fry?  How much water would you need to drink to get the calcium found in a few sesame seeds?  Now, what else are you consuming with that water?  If you don't know you need to find out.  If you are taking a good vitamin and are consuming an average American diet and drinking distilled water where is the problem?  Tap water poses a much greater health treat due to a serious risk of local vulnerability to bacteria, pollution, or even missteps by the treatment facility itself.  The city of West Palm Beach, FL had a recent fecal 'matter' scare with its tap water, which went at least twenty four hours before it was reported.  So the people of West Palm Beach, drinking straight from the tap, were taking in fecal 'matter' as part of the water they were drinking.  It turned it the contamination was coming from the facility itself.  Also, Carcinogen is a word people need to learn and think about.  Just because you purchased 'spring water' or 'drinking water' doesn't make you immune from these problems.  How well do you know the area from which that water comes? Arsenic contamination anyone?

The ships that deploy where all the water is distilled would be a likely source information if there are health risks. I have never hearded any word from there of problems. Having been in the Navy submarine service and still in touch with others who have served, none of the group know of any problems. We are not the medical staff so there may have been problems and nothing reported or not recognised. —Preceding poopoo2609 comment added by 74.37.156.233 (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Double distilled water, one with no minerals can create severe digestive problems depending on the quantity ingested. Double distilled water should not be drunk. The problem with distilled water is that, by osmosis, it will diffuse into cells making them burst, since water always diffuse from a solution of lesser concentration to a solution of higher concentration.


 * This statement is false.

However, distilled water sold to drink is only distilled once, leaving some minerals. The problem with ingesting high amount of simple distilled water is that the renal cells need salts to get rid of it, and could deplete that amount leading to too much water in the bloodstream.


 * This is also false. Your assumption about renal cells is wrong and 'too much water in the bloodstream' is laughable.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs) 20:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

quite surprisingly there is no reference to a preliminary WHO report ("Health risks from drinking demineralized water") which can be found here: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutdemineralized/en/ 192.28.2.55 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Distilled water is completely safe to drink if it's been produced and bottled properly with ozone. Single, double, triple, whatever.  Same consideration you need to have about any bottled water.  You don't want to drink de-ionized water for two reasons: 1) it's highly reactive and can leach minerals out of your system, and 2) it's usually not sanitary, as laboratory water doesn't need to be potable and free of bacteria.  The whole "essential minerals" thing is largely bogus.  Unless you're an indigenous person drinking from a native stream or spring, tap water usually isn't particularly high in the minerals you should be ingesting.  You get a lot more from food and vitamin pills.  For most of us, the essential mineral content of tap water is trace and inconsequential.  True, there are water sources native peoples drink from that are rich in calcium and magnesium.  But that's not anything like your tap water, I assure you.  And yes, the natives will be healthier than us drinking tap water.  I'm a bit concerned about the fluoride part at the end, though.  There's not much strong data that ingesting fluoride improves your teeth.  Topical fluoride works great, but most of the data about fluoridation is just exploiting improvements in nutrition and topical fluoride exposure to say ingesting it is a good idea.  Bromine and fluoride ought not to be ingested by mammals.  -Reticuli 66.178.144.154 (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Drinking various types of "pure" water can be extremely bad for development. The is no iodine in the nature above 5000'. Mongolians who drink exclusively on high altitude snow melt suffer from chronic goiters and mild mental retardation. Iodized salt mandated by the Chinese government fixed the problem within a decade. The presence of fluorine has a *MASSIVE* effect on teeth health. Too much HF will cause purple teeth, as teeth will absorb large amounts of fluorine from drinking water. Towns in Australia, particulalry Townsville, were the first to fluoridate their water, starting in 1960. By 1980 there was a 70% drop in the number of juvenile tooth decay cases. I was a part of the Townsville study in those days. 220.244.74.138 (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Units
Just a small note. I'm not familiar with elertical conductivity literature, but the units of siemens-cm seems incorrect. Shouldn't it be siemens-m? Astrobit (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No doubt you're right, but there is an established 'tradition' that is hard to break. My advice is that if you are sure it's correct, be bold and make the change.  —DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC))

Milli-Q
Need there be some mention of the Milli-Q purification system? It seems to be a common standard for purified water in a lot of labs and scientific papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roddyboy (talk • contribs) 05:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's mainly an ignorance issue. Milli-Q is just a system made by the most popular brand. My (extensive) experience is that bench scientists know surprisingly little about their water purification systems or the standards they are trying to meet. --134.231.11.112 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Negative Health Effects Of Fluoride
It should be noted that the negative health effects of fluoride in water are well documented. Could someone who maintains this article mention them along with proper sources?24.83.148.131 (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)BeeCier


 * I have repeatedly added a mention of a few of the negative health affects but, someone keeps removing my warning. I believe that removing a warning of the toxicity of fluoride is opposed to the principle of a neutral point of view.  Even if you believe fluoride is safe and effective, you should in my opinion provide evidence for your claim and have both sides of the argument presented, rather then simply deleting the other side.--Geoinline (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While the dispute over the health benefits vs. the harmful effects on health deserve mention in this article, I find the current paragraph dealing with this issue very POV. I therefore added the neutrality disputed flag rather than try to deal with the paragraph myself, which seems to have been the subject of an edit war.Theseeker4 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is extensive information on these issues on the Water fluoridation page. I don't think that anything other than a link to this page is necessary, framed in an appropriate paragraph mentioning specifically the relationship between fluoridation and purified water.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me too. I did that, and removed the tag. Eubulides (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of inappropriate picture and caption
I see no reason for this picture to be included on this page. If it belongs anywhere, the picture should be put on a page dealing specifically with filtration. The caption ("A homemade waterfilter using charcoal (carbon), together with sand and grass is often employed for making safe drinking water") does not describe who uses such filtrations systems, to what end, where, or under what circumstances. I have taken the liberty of removing the picture.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

HUGE citation

 * (I have refactored this discussion by introducing indenting and signatures so that the threads and participants can be followed. The original discussion is available.) Eubulides (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a sentence in the "Drinking Purified Water" section which has been given a huge number of citations (numbers 6 through 31). All the superscript is distorting the look of the paragraph. Is all that really necessary? Sounds a bit like overkill...
 * Fixed; also see above. Eubulides (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Geoinline has reverted your edit twice (Rifleman 82 had reverted his revert). I'll revert it again. If he reverts my revert without gaining consensus here, this should probably go to WP:DR or something. --Wulf (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned in my reversion Argumentum ad populum, is a logical fallacy which is being appealed to justify the validity of Wikipedia content. But this is not a valid means of understanding the world, since it is an appeal to a logical fallacy, which means it is without any basis at all. Since it is not a valid means of understanding the world I have reverted back to content backed by scientific research. If you wish to dispute the content of the page do so based on scientific research.

To address concerns about the number of citations I quote the below content from Wikipedia's Citing sources page.

"In some cases, more than one citation may be necessary to support a fact. This can be because the claim is particularly controversial ... or because the claim itself is one of wide external coverage of a fact."

The claim is considered controversial ad populum, since most people, in my experience, believe the claim to be false. However, the scientific consensus is not controversial at all. The science supports the claim unanimously. Thus I believe the number of citations, given the controversial status of the claim is justified.

Also the claim is one of "wide external coverage of a fact", that is to say the claim is based on evidence from a wide range of studies which themselves cover a wide range of issues, all of which support the claim. Thus I believe the number of citations, given the scope of the claim, is justified.Geoinline


 * The Purified water article is not the place for a n extended discussion of the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Those citations belong in Opposition to water fluoridation, not here. I just now rewrote the text to do that. Please do not attempt to edit-war in a lengthy argument against fluoridation. Eubulides (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is by no means an extended discussion, it is only 3 sentences in total, barely enough to provide both sides of a issue which is highly relevant to purified water, since purified water deals with water purity, by the definition of the word. Discussing common impurities seems highly relevant do you not agree? Discussing the benefits of fluoridation here seems appropriate to you, but you seem opposed to any mention of the potential negative effects. This is POV. Wikipedia is required to take a neutral position. --Geoinline (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Discussing common impurities seems highly relevant do you not agree?" Only insofar as reliable sources on purified water discuss the impurities. But the sources being cited here by and large do not mention purified water, which means the article has some original research, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Eubulides (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * False conclusion, just because a source does not mention purified water does not mean said source is original research. Geoinline (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:OR policy is that "To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." A source that never mentions purified water is not directly related to purified water; surely this is elementary. Such a source may well be indirectly related, but that's not the same thing. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is required to take a neutral position." Neutral doesn't mean that the article should give equal time to all sides; it means that the article should give roughly the same weight that reliable sources do. The existing text is biased far too much on the (minority) opinion that water fluoridation is hazardous. Eubulides (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * False, the scientific community is unanimously opposed to water fluoridation read some of the several hundred if not thousands of sources I cited. Geoinline (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This completely mischaracterizes the position of the scientific community. There are indeed concerns in reliable sources about water fluoridation's safety, but the mainstream opinion among reliable sources is that water fluoridation is effective and safe. For example, please see the 2007 Australian government review (NHMRC 2007). Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "it is only 3 sentences in total" Fair enough, I struck the "extended" from my previous comment. Let me rephrase. Purified water is no place for discussion of pros and cons of water fluoridation that involves dozens of citations about water fluoridation, none of which mention purified water. It's Wikipedia policy that material in an article must be supported by reliable sources that are directly related to the article's topic (see WP:OR). That's clearly not the case with the text in question (which I quote below): Eubulides (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Either you are saying my sources to not support the claims I cited them for or you are saying that the claims are not relevant to the article. If you are saying the latter you are a hypocrite since you go on to replace this paragraph with one which discusses water fluoridation, thus you implicitly agree that water fluoridation is relevant to the article.  And I do believe that my sources support my claims, however if you doubt this I suggest you continue reading since I site more sources to support my claim. Geoinline (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph I suggest (see below) cites only sources that discuss purified water. Since they discuss purified water, they are relevant to Purified water, and their discussion of purified water's relation to fluoridation can be summarized in Purified water. However, sources that are about water fluoridation and that do not mention purified water at all are not directly relevant to this article. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "It has been suggested that, because distilled water lacks fluoride ions that are added by a minority of governments (e.g., municipalities in the United States) at water treatment plants using sodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid for their effect on the inhibition of cavity formation, the drinking of distilled water may increase the risk of tooth decay. However, many medical authorities argue that the effects of fluoridation on teeth are topical (brushed on) rather than systemic (swallowed).                         Also the benefit of fluoride supplementation, for any purpose, should be cautioned due to potential negative effects to IQ and motor functions.  "


 * It's not merely the number of citations that's faulty here. There are other problems.
 * "many medical authorities argue that the effects of fluoridation on teeth are topical (brushed on) rather than systemic (swallowed)" This mischaracterizes the meaning of "topical". "Topical" does not mean "brushed on"; it means applied to the surface of the teeth. Fluoridated water is a topical treatment, just as fluoride toothpaste is. This text gives the misleading impression to the reader that there's a genuine dispute among reliable sources over whether fluoridated water is an effective treatment for cavities. There is no such dispute. Eubulides (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not believe the main argument here has anything to do with stating that water fluoridation does not come into contact with the teeth, this is a given. The point is that it is consumed!  Fluoride tooth paste has a warning on the back saying "Harmful! If swallow contact the poison control agency immediately!  It has this warning because of the fluoride, a poison.  You should not swallow fluoride!  That is the point being made in the above passage. Geoinline (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fluoride toothpaste does not contain such notices. The notices that they contain say that you should not swallow too much, not that you should never swallow any. Small amounts of fluoride do not have toxic effects, and Purified water should not attempt to argue otherwise. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Also the benefit of fluoride supplementation, for any purpose, should be cautioned due to potential negative effects to IQ and motor functions." There is no support among reliable sources that water fluoridated to recommended levels has negative effects on IQ or on motor functions. The sources cited to support this claim are not reliable on this subject. Mullenix et al. 1995 is an old primary source that was reviewed by the 2006 NRC report on high-fluoride water; the reviewers said that its results were irreproducible in the practical sense, a very serious criticism. The Fagin article talks about Chinese studies, which were investigating fluoride well above recommended levels. The Colquhoun article does not mention IQ. And the Second Look citation is not a citation at all; it's merely a pointer to a list of what must be hundreds of articles. Eubulides (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

False, There is a majority support among reliable sources that water fluoridation has a negative effect on IQ. But you are right I should include better sources.. here you go

(1) Chen Y, Han F, Zhou Z, Zhang H, Jiao X, Zhang S, Huang M, Chang T, Dong Y. (1991) Research on the intellectual development of children in high fluoride areas. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 1991;6 Suppl:99-100. 1991. English version published in Fluoride 41(2):120–124. April-June 2008. Translated by Julian Brooke and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(2) Guo X, Wang R, Cheng C, Wei W, Tang L, Wang Q, Tang D, Liu G, He G, Li S. (1991) A preliminary investigation of the IQs of 7-13 year old children from an area with coal burning-related fluoride poisoning. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 1991;10(2):98-100. 1991. English version published in Fluoride 41(2):125–128. April-June 2008. Translated by Julian Brooke and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Endemiology. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(3) Hong F, Cao Y, Yang D, Wang H. (2001) Research on the effects of fluoride on child intellectual development under different environments. Chinese Primary Health Care 2001;15(3):56-7. 2001. Translated by Julian Brooke and published with the concurrence of Chinese Primary Health Care. English version published in Fluoride 41(2):156–160. April-June 2008. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(4) Li Y, Li X, Wei S. (1994) The effects of high fluoride intake on child mental work capacity and preliminary investigation into mechanisms involved. The Journal of West China University of Medical Sciences 1994: 25(2): 188-191. 1994. • Translation into English by Julian Brooke. (English translation not yet published) • NRC did not have this study for review.

(5) Li Y, Jing X, Chen D, Lin L, Wang Z. (2003) The effects of endemic fluoride poisoning on the intellectual development of children in Baotou. Chinese Journal of Public Health Management 2003:19(4):337-8. 2003. Translated by Julian Brooke and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Public Health Management. English version published in Fluoride 41(2):161–164. April-June 2008. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(6) Qin L, Huo S, Chen R, Chang Y, Zhao M. (1990) Using the Raven’s standard progressive matrices to determine the effects of the level of fluoride in drinking water on the intellectual ability of school-age children. Chinese Journal of the Control of Endemic Diseases 5:203-204. Translated by Julian Brooke and published with the concurrence of the Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases. English version published by Fluoride 41(2):115–119. April-June 2008. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(7) Ren D, Li K, Liu D. (1989) A study of the intellectual ability of 8-14 year-old children in high fluoride, low iodine areas. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases Vol. 4, No. 4, p 251. 1989. • Translation into English by Julian Brooke. (English translation not yet published) • NRC did not have this study for review.

(8) Wang G, Yang D, Jia, Wang H. (1996) A study of the IQ levels of four- to seven-year-old children in high fluoride areas. Endemic Diseases Bulletin, Vol. 11, No. 1, 60-6. February 1996. • Translation into English by Julian Brooke. (English translation not yet published) • NRC did not have this study for review.

(9) Wang S, Zhang H, Fan W, Fang S, Kang P, Chen X, Yu M. (2005) The effects of endemic fluoride poisoning caused by coal burning on the physical development and intelligence of children. Journal of Applied Clinical Pediatrics 20(9): 897-898. September 2005. • Translation into English by Julian Brooke. (English translation not yet published) • NRC did not have this study for review.

(10) Li XS, Zhi JL, Gao RO. (1995) Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 28(4): 189-192. 1995. • NRC cited this study in its references.

(11) Lin FF, Aihaiti, Zhao HX, Lin J, Jiang JY, Maimaiti, and Aiken (1991) The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Xinjiang Institute for Endemic Disease Control and Research; Office of Leading Group for Endemic Disease Control of Hetian Prefectural Commitlee of the Communist Party of China; and County Health and Epidemic Prevention Station, Yutian, Xinjiang. • NRC cited this study in its references.

(12) Lu Y, Sun ZR, Wu LN, Wang X, Lu W, Liu SS. (2000) Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence in children. Fluoride 33(2): 74-78. 2000. • NRC cited this study in its references.

(13) Rocha-Amador D, Navarro ME,  Carrizales L, Morales R, Calderón J.  (2007) Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 23 Sup 4:S579-S587. 2007. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(14) Trivedi MH, Verma RJ, Chinoy NJ, Patel RS, Sathawara NG. (2007) Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India. Fluoride 40(3):178–183. July-September. 2007. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(15) Wang SX, Wang ZH, Cheng XT, Li J, Sang Z-P, Zhang X-D, Han L-L, Qiao X-Y, Wu Z-M, Wang Z-Q. (2007) Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children’s IQ and growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives115(4):643-647. April 2007. • NRC did not have this study for review.

(16) Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, Wang C, Chen B, Chen X, Zhou M. (2003) Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence. Fluoride 36(2): 84-94. 2003. • NRC cited this study in its references.

(17) Zhao LB, Liang GH, Zhang DN, Wu XR. (1996) Effect of high-fluoride water supply on children's intelligence. Fluoride 29(4): 190-192. 1996. • NRC cited this study in its references.

(18) Seraj B*, Shahrabi M, Falahzade M, Falahzade F, Akhondi N. (2007) Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children's intelligence. • English translation forwarded by lead author: (B. Seraj, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry,Tehran University of Medical Sciences) Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2):80-86. 2007. • NRC did not have this study for review.

Geoinline (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, none of these sources talk about purified water (so they are not directly relevant to Purified water. Nor do any of them talk about water fluoridation; they talk about water naturally fluoridated to levels above those recommended, or about fluoride from other sources such as coal. So I fail to see their relevance here. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "minority of governments" another POV phrase. What difference does it make for purified water how many governments are involved? Eubulides (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a fact. Facts are not POV. Geoinline (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A particular citation of a fact can indeed be POV. This fact is not directly related to purified water (and is unsourced to boot); it does not belong in Purified water. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "sodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid" These chemical names are not relevant here. What difference does it make how the water was fluoridated at the plant? The only thing that's important from the point of view of Purified water is what's in the water when it reaches the tap. Eubulides (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It matters because these classified hazardous toxic wastes are not pharmaceutical grade fluoride, and contain a whole host of additional toxins. Geoinline (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a clear case of WP:OR. Reliable sources about purified water are not making these claims; Purified water should not make these claims either, as they are not directly relevant to the topic. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To summarize, the current text has two serious problems: its use of citations that are not about purified water is a serious WP:OR problem. And its evident bias against water fluoridation is against mainstream opinion and is a serious WP:NPOV problem. To attempt to work around both problems I installed a change that cuts the number of citations from dozens to two, and attempts to give both sides of the fluoridation controversy in rough proportion to what reliable sources say.
 * Eubulides (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Again if a citation does not contain a certain key word it by no means makes it original research, this is a ludicrous claim! 2. Again you are attempting to use Argumentum ad populum to support your position when you say "is against mainstream opinion", but argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Thus your argument is baseless.

Eubulides your positions lack soundness or reason and scientific support. Please continue to edit this article replacing my claims with your poorly researched and illogical claims, I find them quite amusing!

--Geoinline (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that the above commentary underscores the problem, which is that Purified water is being made a WP:COATRACK for an antifluoridationist position. This is contrary to both WP:NPOV and to WP:OR, and it needs to be fixed. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

water purifying
Is that feasible to distill sea water using multi effective evpouratours. we can sell the byproduct which is the salt. the vapour which is distilled could be compressed by solar compressers.

with regards, shahabaaz ali raza --Shahbaazali (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation dispute
This dispute is over how much the Purified water should discuss the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Geoinline feels that the Purified water article should present a lengthy set of citations concerning the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation, whether the mechanism of water fluoridation is topical or systemic, whether breastfeeding protects against dental fluorosis, whether fluoride pills should be taken, etc. I think Geoinline's version has serious WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems, and that Purified water should only briefly present the fluoridation controversy and should cite only sources that are directly relevant to purified water.

The topic has been further discussed in above. Here is the version that Geoinline prefers:
 * Purified water may have little to no fluoride, as pitcher or faucet-mounted filters do not alter fluoride; the more-expensive reverse osmosis filters remove 65%–95% of fluoride, and distillation filters remove all fluoride.
 * It has been suggested that, because distilled water lacks fluoride ions that are added by a minority of governments (e.g., municipalities in the United States) at water treatment plants using sodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid for their effect on the inhibition of cavity formation, the drinking of distilled water may increase the risk of tooth decay. However, many medical authorities argue that the effects of fluoridation on teeth are topical (brushed on) rather than systemic (swallowed).                         Also the benefit of fluoride supplementation, for any purpose, should be cautioned due to potential negative effects to IQ and motor functions.
 * It has been suggested that, because distilled water lacks fluoride ions that are added by a minority of governments (e.g., municipalities in the United States) at water treatment plants using sodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid for their effect on the inhibition of cavity formation, the drinking of distilled water may increase the risk of tooth decay. However, many medical authorities argue that the effects of fluoridation on teeth are topical (brushed on) rather than systemic (swallowed).                         Also the benefit of fluoride supplementation, for any purpose, should be cautioned due to potential negative effects to IQ and motor functions.

and here is the version that I prefer:
 * Some water is purified to avoid water fluoridation, which is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Although health and dental organizations worldwide have endorsed fluoridation's safety and effectiveness, opposition to water fluoridation is considerable, based on ethical, legal, safety, and efficacy grounds, and companies selling water filters are involved in the opposition. Whether purified water contains fluoride depends on which technology is used to purify the water. Pitcher or faucet-mounted filters do not alter fluoride; the more-expensive reverse osmosis filters remove 65%–95% of fluoride, and distillation filters remove all fluoride. Unnecessary use of filtered water may harm dental health.

Eubulides (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (draft modified by Eubulides (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC))


 * There's room for compromise. Rather than just discussing the "opposition", the controversy should be mentioned. It is controversial, and for the very good reasons made by Cheng et al. 2007: it appears to be a medication to prevent a disease (acording to Wikipedia, dental caries is a disease), and legally most countries implementing fluoridation require that medications be proven with randomized controlled trials before individual, much less mass use (p. 701). Also, regardless of health organizations, there is a scientific controversy on whether water fluoridation has been proven safe and efficacious. Eubulides currect proposed text makes it seem like there is no controversy, particularly since the only citation on the issue is Armfield. II  | (t - c) 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that's a reasonable point. I edited the above proposal to also say "based on ethical, legal, safety, and efficacy grounds", which briefly covers all the points you mentioned. Although the resulting text now gives more space to opponents than to proponents of fluoridation, overall the proposed text is still fair enough. Eubulides (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No further comment, so I installed the updated proposal. Eubulides (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks OK, but I was thinking you could add Cheng in. That should be enough for Geionline, and considering that there are two highly supportive refs already, it doesn't seem like undue weight. If Geionline isn't willing to accept that, then ANI is probably the next step. II  | (t - c) 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Cheng doesn't mention purified water (or distilled water, bottled water, etc.), so it's a bit off topic for this article. This is in contrast to Armfield 2007 and to Hobson et al. 2007, the sources currently used; both of them mention fluoridation in the context of purified water. Can you suggest a more-on-topic reliable source that presents the skeptical side, in the context of purified water? I searched for one, but all I found was material that was unreliable, or self-promotional, or both. Eubulides (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Health effects section
I feel that the Health Effects section should be removed entirely. The simple fact is, this is supposed to be a Neutral information page about Purified Water. What it is, how it's made, what it's used for, short and sweet. There is absolutely no tangible data supporting any facts that drinking clean, pure H2O is bad for you. Any of these minerals, etc that you're not getting because you don't drink non-pure water, are attained through eating food. Fruit, vegetables, and meat. Period. There is equally no supporting data that the body can even absorb or assimilate inorganic minerals, which are the minerals found in water. Step back for a minute and think. If you're arguing back and forth this entire time, then there's obviously no neutral stance on the issue. Which means there is no room for it in this article. Neutrality cannot exist within controversy. JMiller1978 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly the health effects section could be trimmed down, but the topic of the health effects of purified water is a notable one, generating reports by the likes of the World Health Organization, and it should definitely be covered here. Since we have reliable sources discussing the issue, the article should summarize what they say. The argument that the topic cannot be covered in Wikipedia because it is controversial is a misinterpreation of WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV doesn't say that Wikipedia cannot cover controversial topics; it says only that all sides of a dispute should be covered, in fair proportion according to how they appear in reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest it be worded more like this excerpt from an article on wisegeek.com:

"There is some controversy over the use of distilled water as a healthier alternative to tap, spring or purified water. One camp suggests that distilled water is beneficial since it contains no impurities or minerals and helps flush away excess minerals and toxins from the body. Another camp believes that distilled water leaches essential minerals from the body and could leave teeth vulnerable to damage. Distilled water does not contain sodium fluoride, unlike many municipal water systems."

It's concise, gives both viewpoints, and does not have a bunch of biased drivel whether for or against. Neutrality and actual fact should be retained. This is an Encyclopedia of knowledge. JMiller1978 (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It'd be better to use a review article in a peer-reviewed medical or scientific journal as a source. Please see WP:MEDRS for guidelines on reliable sources for medical facts and figures. Eubulides (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm speaking to the grammatical style, not the information itself. But the point is, it doesn't even matter. The above reference gives both standpoints, if people want to read and study the debate more in depth, there are plenty of forums for them to do so. Citing them in the References and the External Link is more than enough. Once again, this is an Encyclopedia of knowledge, not a Blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMiller1978 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with the grammatical style of the current article, so I assume that by "grammatical style" you mean more the point-of-view of the above-quoted website, namely that there's a dispute between two sides, both of which deserve to be heard, and that one side (the side supportive of distilled water) deserves more space in the argument. I disagree: I think we should find reliable sources (as per WP:MEDRS) and summarize what they say, roughly in proportion to what they say. That is the WP:NPOV policy. Until we find those sources, we won't know which side of the argument deserves more space. Eubulides (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's absolutely not what I'm saying. It is very clear that my stance is to give neither side more space. State the facts of the issue. One side says this: The other side says this: One sentence for each, and move on. Likewise, Health effect should be retitled Controversy, as even the title of the section reeks of misleading bias. JMiller1978 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The text from wisegeek.com, which you quoted approvingly, gives more space to one side of the controversy; that was why I thought you wanted to give that side more space. However, it is not necessarily right to give each side equal time. As an extreme case, WP:NPOV does not require that Wikipedia articles give equal space to flat-earthers such as Boko Haram as it does to round-earthers such as the American Geophysical Union. Obviously the health effects of purified water are not as extreme a case as the flat-earth/round-earth issue, but the principle is the same: Wikipedia articles are not about giving equal space to all sides of an argument. What matters is the weight that reliable sources give. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The second-last paragraph of 'Health effects of drinking purified water' is confusing. The section is copied here: The consumption of "hard" water (water with minerals) is associated with beneficial cardiovascular effects. As noted in the American Journal of Epidemiology, consumption of hard drinking water is negatively correlated with atherosclerotic heart disease.[23] Is drinking demineralized water health-promoting or not? I don't have a clue after reading this paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.152.11 (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal from Distilled Water into Purified Water
Discuss this idea on the Distilled Water Talk Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.67.202 (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Info about the ISO 3696....
--222.64.26.211 (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?as_q=ISO+3696&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

Asterisks
Table currently has
 * Type I* 	Type II** 	Type III*** 	Type IV

but no indication of what the asterisks are for. —DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC))
 * See the notes under the table. Skullcinema (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

How Is De-Gassed Water Made?
The article states: "Completely de-gassed ultra-pure water has conductivity of 1.2 × 10−4 S·m−1,". How is this water made? An RO filter obviously can't degas the water so there must be another method. Can someone enlighten us?173.180.7.3 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)BeeCier
 * Either heat it up or put it under a vacuum (or do both) to degas the water, you can also sparge with an inert gas to displace other gases from the liquid phase. Skullcinema (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The Three types of deionization...
Please take a look at the section which talks about the three types of de-ionization. I'm pretty sure there's a word in there that shouldn't be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.129.30 (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Blackguard  18:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It seems to me that there is some redundance between this article and Ultrapure water. I mark both as candidates for merging.--Polis Tyrol (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Purified water is a broader term than UPW. This determined the difference in the content and the level of details of the articles. It is expected that both definitions will have different audiences: UPW term attracts professional from advanced industries, such as electronic, pharmaceutical, and power while Purified water may attract other audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlibman (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would recommend having more than one person in this discussion before removing the merger tag. -- Kinu  t/c 05:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert, but it seems to me that UPW deserves its own article. Basically, UPW needs a three-stage process, and the first "pretreatment" stage for UPW is more or less identical to "purified water." The UPW article is long enough that it would unnecessarily clutter the "purified water" article if merged. I propose that each article should link to the other appropriately, and I will be bold and just do this and remove the merge tag. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree. -Arch dude (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Purified water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090306164147/http://www.tmasc.com:80/cleaning_chemicals.htm to http://www.tmasc.com/cleaning_chemicals.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081019233111/http://www.hghouston.com:80/Technical%20FAQs/TFAQ021.html to http://www.hghouston.com/Technical%20FAQs/TFAQ021.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Purified water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110715223253/http://www.safetymgmt.com/AIGRiskTools/Knowledge_Center/General_Industry/ELECTRICAL_SAFETY.pdf to http://www.safetymgmt.com/AIGRiskTools/Knowledge_Center/General_Industry/ELECTRICAL_SAFETY.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Purified water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106170706/http://www.drinkmorewater.com/technology/technology/ to http://www.drinkmorewater.com/technology/technology/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Purified water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923215229/http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/pdfs/2012-Campus-Arlington/Presentations/Wednesday-A/9A2MISCHISSINUniv-Rochester-2012-IDEA-Presentation.pdf to http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/pdfs/2012-Campus-Arlington/Presentations/Wednesday-A/9A2MISCHISSINUniv-Rochester-2012-IDEA-Presentation.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904210320/http://watersystems.walton.com/ to http://watersystems.walton.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Table "Maximum contaminant levels in purified water" is incorrect for Type III water acc. to ASTM D1193-91
The values for Type III water according to ASTM D1193-91 in this table deviate from what ASTM D1193 - 91 actually states. Independent from what is in the standard, the combination of a resistivity of 0.05 [MΩ·cm] and a conductivity of 0.25 [μS·cm−1] per definition cannot be true.

reference: ASTM D1193 - 91 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.199.5 (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Directional Freezing
Article omits the 'best' method: Partially directionally freezing feedstock water followed by pouring off the unfrozen portion, followed by melting the more pure ice. It is in the literature. I've been making and using it at home for eight years now. Best tasting water ever. Discovered it by accident...

Here's one: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50599a022?journalCode=iechad

2600:1700:4CA1:3C80:ED78:EA7D:6EE1:95DA (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Tabulated values regarding ASTM 1193
The resistivity/conductivity values tabulated are inconsistent; one should be the reciprocal of the other. This is not the case for the Type III water under ASTM testing method which shows values of 0.05 and 0.25, respectively. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.191.68 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Electrical conductivity values
According to the article the electrical conductivity of completely de-gassed ultrapure water is higher then when it has dissolved CO2 in it. Isn't this wrong? Guelao (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Unidentified
This article is in the hidden category, articles with unidentified words. What word is it talking about? 173.28.188.39 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)