Talk:Water ionizer/Archive 2

NPOV Tag
I am in dispute with the edits of User:Water_Ionizer_Research who continually adds external links to this article that are supportive of water ionisers and appear to promote their use. The user has removed links that are critical of water ionisers. Every time I remove the link the user reverts the change. The user also alleges that I am promoting my own website. Further, the user changes my comments on the user's talk page to allege that I am a link spammer. You can see such changes here: and here. I would appreciate some neutral third party looking into the external links. Mind you, I also think the entire article needs rewriting. Gillyweed 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Gutted
Just gutted the article - there were very few sources, those that were on the page were extremely confusing and virtually useless to anyone attempting to verify the information. Information needs to come from reliable sources, which means no conflict of interest websites (i.e. any website for a company that sells water ionizers). Claims need to be sourced - any claim that is unsourced can be removed at will and only statements that people agree represent the subject should stay. Contributions should be in summary style in an appropriate tone. Per WP:MEDRS, any medical claims should be sourced to a reliable source - in this case, pretty much only medical journals and statements from national or international governing or scientific bodies. The 'some guy' websites aren't appropriate, and neither is plopping pubmed links into the external links section. Integrate articles as inline citations using citation templates.

Further, people should be civil and discuss contested edits rather than reverting back and forth.

Final point - this article is about water ionizers, so claims, discussion and other sundry about the water itself are only tenuously appropriate and are better placed in another page. It's very weird to me that the page has been here since at least 2004 and it's back to a stub. WLU (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well now, it's fine that it's only about the machines, and not about the water, but since the machines are being sold with various idiotic health claims the association is rather close. These machines would not exist if such claims were not around. Now the claims are largely idiotic and ill-founded, but Prof. Sirahata in Japan (provided that link, and it's still there today, but everything else I've contributed is gone) is in my view the only one who has done serious research in this area, and was published in Biological and Biochemical Research Communications (BBRC) which is a leading academic journal in the field (97). So why the conclusions of his report were eliminated from the page mystifies me. Now Prof. Sirahata also happens to be on the science board of Nihon Trim, which is one of the leading manufacturers of these machines, but he is a well respected scientist, and he's come up with the only credible theory sofar of why reduced water may have health benefits, since he was able to demonstrate an anti-oxidant effect. But, here is where the anarchy of Wikipedia simply prevents ending up with a decent article, and that appears to be the case almost in any contested issues. My conclusion is, it's rather pointless, and Wikipedia is a permanently tainted source. Rogier van Vlissingen 10:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vliscony (talk • contribs)

Archived
Talk page was ridiculously long. Archived. WLU (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Links
Heartspring.net was not removed 'accidentally' as implied in its replacement. Its removal was labeled spam, quite rightly in my opinion. A series of abstracts is a poor choice for an external link - if there is a sincere desire to help the page, integrate each abstract as a reference to justify text. Strictly speaking the page should probably be moved to ionized water since there's a lot that can be said about ionized water and little that can be said about the machine that does it. WLU (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge?
Perhaps the contents of this article and Electrolyzed water should be merged? &mdash; Scientizzle 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know enough about the topic to say. This is about a machine, not even the actual water.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 00:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I know enough, either...It seems like the only quality sources that discuss these ionizers are in the context of electrolyzed water used in, you know, real treatments like equipment sterlization. As I see it, the electrolyzed water is the important issue and the ionizer is the tool used to create it. Since there's almost nothing here about ionizers themselved beyond the three sentences about the method, I can't see a good reason for keeping the topics separate... &mdash; Scientizzle 01:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm...pending an article about the actual machine, I could see merging for now and re-splitting if someone can draft a reasonable article about the machines themselves. Personally I'm not certain ionized and electrolyzed water are the exact same thing (I'm not expressing doubt, merely that I have no idea and currently insufficient background to say).  If you (or another reliable editor who is not a SPA) are certain, I won't object.  This page certainly does seem to attract spam from the machine makers.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 12:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My impression is that the terms "electrolyzed water" and "ionized water" refer to essentially the same products (usually a dilute sodium hypochlorite solution), and are produced by similar processes. "Electrolyzed water" (also known as "electrolyzed oxidizing water" (EOW) or  in some recent newspaper accounts as "miracle water" (!), is generally intended as an antiseptic source. Devices intended to produce EW on a large scale are known as "bleach generators" (I just added a note about this to the Electrolyzed water article.)  In contrast, "water ionizers"  are usually very small units  intended for home use and are directed mainly to the alternative medicine market.Steve (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring - discuss
Due to edit warring between IP editors and named accounts, and rather than taking sides (which semi-protection would constitute), I am fully protecting the article to allow discussion to take place here without the temptation to "correct" the article to one's preferred version. Please discuss any proposed or disputed edits here, ideally with reference to Wikipedia policies and to reliable sources. I'll be keeping an eye on things and if consensus develops I'll be happy to make edits to the article or lift protection as appropriate. Thank you all for your understanding. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's at least get the chemistry right!
Defining a "water ionizer" as a device that "ionizes water" seems unhelpfully circular and fails to convey what they actually do. I propose that the opening paragraph be changed as follows:

A water ionizer is an appliance that employs Electrolysis to decompose an aqueous solution of a dissolved salt. Because most drinking water is not sufficiently conductive to support electrolysis, ordinary table salt (Sodium chloride) is commonly added. Electrolysis generates hydrogen, chlorine, and hydroxide ions; the latter two combine to form an alkaline solution of Sodium hypochlorite, an oxidizing agent that is used as a disinfectant (and in more concentrated form) as laundry bleach. Some water ionizer devices allow the user to adjust the pH of the treated water by altering the proportions of water removed from the regions near each electrode; below pH 7.5, Hypochlorous acid becomes the primary product.

I would suggest that the remaining comments in this paragraph be combined with "Uses", and the section headed "ionization" be eliminated since none of its links are directly relevant.

Note also that the reference (in the present first paragraph) to "ionized" water being an antioxidant is inconsistent with the chemical fact that the +1 oxidation state of chlorine (i.e., hypochlorite ion and hypochlorous acid) is unstable with respect to chlorine (in alkaline solution) and to chloride ion (in acidic solution) and  in acquiring the electrons required to undergo these changes will act as an oxidizing agent. Steve (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch the capital letters - the only letters that are capitalized are the beginning of sentences and proper names. Otherwise, sources would be nice but I don't see anything objectionable.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill Nye
what about the thing that Bill Nye the science guy is peddling? http://www.activeion.com/default.aspx

Is this the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.186.142 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it is the same thing. It is difficult to compare things that are poorly described using pseudo-scientific terminology. But I read the explanations and listened to Bill Nye. His explanations are full of errors, small and large. My bet is that he was paid a lot of money and asked to read a script written by marketers. Water can certainly be ionized, but there is no way it can contain BOTH negative and positive ions for 30 seconds (the ions are hydrogen and oxygen molecules, which mostly bubble away immediately). And even if it could, it would be unlikely to reduce surface tension as claimed. And even reducing surface tension can't clean oily, greasy dirt. It takes a surfactant like soap or detergent to do that. Sanitizing (killing bacteria), on the other hand, can be done with electrolyzed salt water, which, if done in a particular way, can form hypochlorous acid, which is a weak bleach that can kill bacteria (but not viruses). This method is used in some restaurants to sanitize food preparation surfaces. One more point: plain water can be electrolyzed in such a way as to isolate the resulting oxygen. This oxygen can then bubble through water to produce a weak solution of hydrogen peroxide. This also works as a sanitizer, although not as a cleaner. I can't think of any way that electrolyzing either plain or salted water can create a surfactant that can "dissolve" dirt and grease. Note: this analysis contains my original ideas, so it cannot be added to the article without research to find citations. David Spector 20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a recent news article on ActiveIon: "Just add water ... and venture capital", Minneapolis Star Tribune, April 25, 2010.

Disappointed
I'm disappointed in your decision to remove the collection of peer-reviewed abstracts yet leave the "snake oil on tap" external link. The snake oil article makes no citations to back up its claims. In fact, many of its principal claims not only contractict the current wikipedia article itself, but also the studies in peer-reviewed literature (both those cited by the wikipedia article and others). I once tried to remove the snake oil article on these grounds, but an editor with "rank" undid it, presumably because he thought that since so many companies make hypish claims about water ionizers, the devices themselves are most likely a scam. -Cmallett (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As you like. I removed the list of abstracts because a list of abstracts is in general a poor choice for an external link.  Instead, find the abstracts on pubmed and use them in the page, which makes the link obsolete.  In addition, the link contains advertising.  I based my removal of heartspring.net on WP:ELNO points 1, 4, 5 and 15.  That you labelled the link's removal as accidental did not inculcate any sense of charity, particularly given User:Vsmith took out two links but left a third that was between them, and called it spam.  Rank has nothing to do with it, Vsmith is an admin which suggests considerable expertise in interpreting policy, in addition to the ability to enforce policy through blocks.  However, from his/her rationale (spam) I see why s/he removed the link and concur.  I'm providing the details.  Being an admin is not a big deal but it does imply trust in the ability to interpret policy.  But if I disagreed, I would take the case up with him/her and state, per the EL guidelines, why I thought the link should stand.  Links stand on their relation to WP:EL, not because of who puts them in or removes them.  The snakeoil article is by a retired chemist at Simon Fraser, a prestigious university in Canada.  I consider it as having met links to be considered number 4.  Claims for the miraculous properties of ionized water are fringe science and the link is therefore appropriate.


 * For any wishing to undertake the task of integrating the abstracts, here is the link. Snakeoil page appears to deal with some of these I believe here.  WLU (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've read the snakeoil on tap page a bit more - it's good science, it does refer on occasion to sources like science daily, it points out what pseudoscience is, and most of the information is in keeping with what's in a basic science/chemistry textbook. The exact basic kind of info you'd expect a retired chemistry professor to have at the top of his head.  Further, the heartspring.net is extensively filled with advertising, see, , , , , in fact almost every page except the clinical studies page that is being linked to appears to have advertising.  It's so extensive that I suspect the page has had its advertising culled in this one instance only while the rest of the website is filled with google ads.  Also note that the linked-to page does have a small number of ads, at the top of the page.  I would wonder if the page has had its ads removed for the specific purpose of circumventing one of the common reasons external links are rejected, WP:ELNO point 5.  In any case, the link should most strongly be rejected on the basis that it provides nothing beyond what the page should contain as a featured article.  Since I'm not a biochemist, but I think I know someone who is, I'm going to ask User:TimVickers for his opinion.  WLU (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I did do my PhD on antioxidants, but I must confess I've never heard of "reduced water". This concept seems very dubious to me, since several of the species in the set of redox steps between O2 and H2O are highly dangerous and the path from oxygen to water is well-known. I'll do some reading and get back to you. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking this over, I think that "snake oil on tap" website is a very good summary of the mainstream position on this. There is almost no literature on water ionizers, and the concept of "reduced water" is not a meaningful concept in chemistry. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my feeling too and the reason why I continue to believe the link is worth including - like most fringe positions, the scientific attention is almost nil. As a result, the bar is lowered for reliable sources and external links that are critical.  WLU (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A good question to ask at this point - what are the possible oxidation states of oxygen? Hydrogen? What is the oxidation state of water? How many possible oxidation states can there be? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What about all the abstracts? Are reduced and electrolyzed water basically synonymous? They seem to be. ImpIn | (t - c) 03:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect (although none of the handful of papers that use it actually define this term), that "reduced water" might be "water containing dissolved hydrogen", but as I remember hydrogen is not very soluble, so that might not be it. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole page was gutted by yours truly a while back for unsourced claims and a whole lot of unneeded infighting. If the page is fringy because it's not sourced to real science, perhaps a different stance should be taken.
 * The abstracts are tentatively useful, but as a fringy topic I would keep it short with a phrasing of "ionized water has been claimed useful in the treatment of X, Y and Z though the scientific value of these claims is questionable" or something similar. Like most fringe topics it's going to be lacking in, well, research, and even basic definitions.  WLU (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to have an isolated container filled with "ionized water" for more than a fraction of a second. Ionization of pure water produces only the gases oxygen and hydrogen, and maybe a trace of ozone, but not an excess of ions in solution. The oxygen can produce a little hydrogen peroxide (see my comments above), which has no effect for cleaning (see above). Both gases are electrically neutral (because they are the molecules H2 and O2, not the ionic atoms H and O (such ions would recombine within a fraction of a second). The remaining water is neutral (no free ions that are only positive or negative) as well as having an unchanged neutral 7.0 in pH. If the proponents of "reduced water" would describe what it is clearly, then we could discuss this scientifically. Otherwise, all we have here is wikilawyering about the quality of sources, research studies, and (ugh) the qualifications of experts. David Spector 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What a Mess
I came to Wikipedia to learn more about ionized water. But sadly, what I found was a lot of bickering about the topic. I guess, in Wikipedia, the real truth lies not in the article, but in all of the editing that goes on in the background. Consider the recent addition and immediate subsequent removing of a self described "White Hat" link to a Q & A on the topic. I guess that this link was considered commercial spam. Frankly, I'm glad for the history trail in Wikipedia, otherwise the truth on any controversial topic may never be know (here). It appears to me that the editors on Wikipedia can't help but make edit judgements without personal opinions getting in the way. Somewhere on this topic there was this declaration that any support of the topic is "idiotic". That term, alone, on Wiki is off protocal, and bad ethics. I think that if, on any topic, both sides to an argument can't be supported in external links, then no external links should be provided. Further, if there has to be so much editing (and gutting) of a topic because of controversy, Wikipedia probably has no place in trying to document it. Lraustin (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Like trials (which don't always result in justice), WP has flaws. But, also like trials, WP is the best we have. It successfully harnesses the talents of a great number of participants of various backgrounds in knowledge and experience. It does this by a clever structure of policies and guidelines, with a unique infrastructure. Yes, its failures can drive good people away, and result in erroneous articles. But the accuracy of the vast majority of WP articles is amazing, considering that anyone can edit. Most articles are dynamic, having good and bad edits. But with time, the good tends to drive out the bad. Truth tends to displace ignorance in the long run. Rather than eliminating controversy (which would prevent leaps of radical progress), WP describes an incredible number of topics in depth, controversies and all. David Spector 21:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Appliance classification, and contradiction removal
Replaced the term "major appliance" with "small appliance" which is far more appropriate given Wikipedia's definitions of each.

Removed the contradiction within the article, wherein the phrase "These claims have been characterized as pseudoscientific, as they are not supported by scientific research..." was removed, because scientific research is already referenced within this article.

Removed the phrase "However, drinking ionized water would not be expected to alter the body's pH, and there is no evidence of any beneficial effect from drinking reduced water." While evidence does exist, the phrase "no peer reviewed evidence" may be appropriate. NoFortunateSon (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

replaced "home appliance" with "small appliance", which is more correct, according to Wikipedia's definitions of home appliance major appliance and small appliance

The home appliance article states "Traditionally, home appliances are classified into: " So home appliances fall into one of two categories. The major appliance article states: "Major appliances are differentiated from small appliances because they are large, difficult to move, and generally fixed in place to some extent. They are often considered fixtures and part of real estate and as such they are often supplied to tenants as part of otherwise unfurnished rental properties. Another frequent characteristic of major appliances is that they may have substantial electricity requirements that necessitate special electrical wiring to supply higher current than standard electrical outlets can deliver. This limits where they can be placed in a home."
 * Major appliances (or "White goods")
 * Small appliances (or "Brown goods")

None of these are true of the vast majority of water ionizers.

The small appliance section states: "Small appliance refers to a class of home appliances that are portable or semi-portable or which are used on tabletops, countertops, or other platforms. Such items are contrasted with major appliances,"

A water ionizer is clearly a small appliance.

Removed contradiction: "These claims have been characterized as pseudoscientific, as they are not supported by scientific research and contradict basic aspects of chemistry and physiology.

Whether or not Lower and his website are reliable sources, to state "are not supported by scientific research" in a wikipedia article which itself sites scientific research of health benefits is incorrect.

Replaced "These claims have been characterized as pseudoscientific, as they are not supported by scientific research and contradict basic aspects of chemistry and physiology." With "Laboratory research has shown that ionized water is effective in protecting DNA and RNA from oxidation damage." Because it is based on the research of doctors, researchers and professors, rather than speculation and theory of one professor.NoFortunateSon (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a misleading and inappropriate use of primary sources; see our reliable sourcing guidelines for details. You are citing one paper, an in vitro study, published in an obscure, low-impact journal, to claim that ionized water is "effective". Even if this result were borne out and replicated, which I do not presently see evidence of, it would not support the use of water ionizers such as those described in the article. Even if electrolyzed-reduced water prevents oxidation, ingesting such water would presumably not appreciably affect the intracellular milieu in humans. Unless you have some evidence dealing specifically with water ionizers - that is, devices that produce ionized water for ingestion - and their supposed health benefits, this is original synthesis and misuse of primary sources. MastCell Talk 03:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to simply appliance since there is no source either way. These claims have been discussed before. A lot of quack water ionizer producers try to shove the notion that ionized water is a magic cure-all for everything, supported by low-value and impact studies. Parity of sources says we can use a less than top-string source to debunk pseudoscientific claims because real scientists don't spend much time debunking the nonsense spewed by manufacturers, quacks and the holistic health crowd that is forced upon the general public. Like the claims for ionized water. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed appliance back to small appliance. Source does already exist.

It is the first cited source. It states "Water ionizers attach directly to your kitchen faucet.". home appliance clearly states that home appliances are either small or major. major appliance states "Major appliances are differentiated from small appliances because they are large, difficult to move, and generally fixed in place to some extent. They are often considered fixtures and part of real estate and as such they are often supplied to tenants as part of otherwise unfurnished rental properties. Another frequent characteristic of major appliances is that they may have substantial electricity requirements that necessitate special electrical wiring to supply higher current than standard electrical outlets can deliver. This limits where they can be placed in a home." WLU's paragraph expressing doubts as to whether ionized water has health benefits has nothing to do with the classification as a small appliance.

I've specified in vitro, in accordance with MastCell's objection.

However MastCell's removal of the paragraph in it's entirety is not justified. He says "Even if electrolyzed-reduced water prevents oxidation, ingesting such water would presumably not appreciably affect the intracellular milieu in humans."

His reasons for presuming this are not clear, and seem unlikely, given Wikipedia's article on anti-oxidants, which states. "In general, water-soluble antioxidants react with oxidants in the cell cytosol and the blood plasma, while lipid-soluble antioxidants protect cell membranes from lipid peroxidation.[1] These compounds may be synthesized in the body or obtained from the diet." Given that this research was done on human lymphocytes this is especially relevant.

Removal of the aforementioned phrase aside, no explanation was given for reverting to the phrase "These claims have been characterized as pseudoscientific, as they are not supported by scientific research and contradict basic aspects of chemistry and physiology." Again, whether or not Lower or his site are reliable sources, to state "are not supported by scientific research" when this Wikipedia article already cites scientific research, is inaccurate.

removed " However, drinking ionized water would not be expected to alter the body's pH " it was out of place, as no reference had been made to altering the body's pH within this article. removed "and there is no evidence of any beneficial effect from drinking reduced water." As evidence does exist. Example: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110001806339/. NoFortunateSon (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:TLDR. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WLU has just for the third time in less than 24 hours reverted to a previous instance of this document. He has given no reason, and admitted, in this case, to having done so with out reading the reasons for the change. I am remedying this. NoFortunateSon (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only kind of water ionizers that exist are those that attach to taps in kitchens? There are none that service industrial-sized water sources?  They are only used in the home?  That NII article is about rats.  One classic ploy of pseudoscience is to take studies in petri dishes and animal models and immediately apply them to humans.  Which didn't work out so well for thalidomide.  Also note that wikipedia isn't a reliable source, which is ironic, and the use of simple "appliance" resolves any dispute.  It's only really worth including "small" or "home" if you were, say, marketing it to homeowners.  Also, the results appear to be exclusively published by a small group of scientists, in a single venue, 10 or more years ago.  The extreme claims made by individuals and companies selling alkaline ionized water are certainly not supported, and with the terrible primary sources coming out of Japan (single research group, single institution, low number of publications published many years ago, in low impact journals) are certainly not worth including in the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cherry-picking rodent and in vitro studies to claim health benefits is a fine approach for infomercials. It's not a good approach for an encyclopedia. This article does not concern the effect of alkalinized water on Sprague-Dawley rats (but thanks for the reference. Did you perhaps notice papers by the same authors indicating that ingestion of alkalinized water resulted in marked myocardial necrosis and fibrosis? In other words, the rats' heart muscle was killed and replaced with scar tissue as a result of ingesting alkalinized water? You might want to look at and . If we're going to rely on rat studies in this article, we might want to give a complete rather than cherry-picked perspective - a big believer in the rat model might conclude that these are pretty dangerous appliances, right?) In any case, since this article concerns water ionizers, we should probably describe the devices, and the unproven health claims with which they are often marketed, rather than trying to selectively mine the primary literature to support those health claims. After all, this is an encyclopedia. Such is my view, anyhow. MastCell Talk 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of water ionizers are, in fact, small appliances for use in the home.

User WLU changed it to "home appliance", then later states that the only reason to call it a home device would be to market it. WLU said "I've changed it to simply appliance since there is no source either way." When a source was cited, he deleted his reference to a need for sources, making the change regardless, and asking "The only kind of water ionizers that exist are those that attach to taps in kitchens?".

In reference to the opening sentence: "Ionized water is claimed by manufacturers to be extremely beneficial to human health and marketed with claims that it is an antioxidant which can slow aging and prevent disease. These claims have been characterized as pseudoscientific, as they are not supported by scientific research and contradict basic aspects of chemistry and physiology."

Ionized water has been shown to be an antioxidant, as cited within this article. So to say that these claims are not supported by scientific research is inaccurate. Futhermore while Lower's non-research based, non peer reveiwed website has called ionized water pseudo scientific, the claim that ionized water is an antioxidant does not meet wikipedia's definition of pseudo science. Additionally the claim that antioxidants can fight disease is supported by http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11191279.

User MastCell reverted to this, yet again. Citing research that indicates ionized water is an antioxidant does not fit the definition of Cherry picking unless MastCell can produce "a significant portion of related cases or data that contradict that position".NoFortunateSon (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Antioxidant vitamin pills do not reduce deaths, and in fact may increase your chance of dying" - The Cochrane Review
 * "Bad Science" summary (with further links)
 * summary
 * full document

Focussing on the word "antioxidant" may not be the best strategy. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) To be clear, it would be one thing to assert that electrolyzed/reduced water has antioxidant properties. I think that is borderline, given that it appears to be based on a single paper from an obscure journal, and more importantly it does not bear on water ionizers as they are currently manufactured, marketed, and sold. However: the claim that these supposed antioxidant properties can "slow aging and prevent disease" is not encyclopedic; it is not supported by any of the sources; and it is infomercial-ese. Even well-studied antioxidants, like beta-carotene and vitamins C and E, have not been scientifically shown to slow aging or prevent disease (there is at least moderately convincing evidence that, in some cases, they increase the risk of certain diseases). So such claims are all the more inappropriate and unfounded for electrolyzed water. Furthermore, even assuming that you believe this article to be a proper venue to recapitulate in vitro data about electrolyzed water, your use of evidence is selective and cherry-picked to promote water ionizers. Did you look at the papers I cited above? If I were to accept your contention that we should be mining tangentially related primary sources for this article, then basic honesty would seem to compel us to note that alkalinized water appears quite harmful and potentially dangerous in the experimental systems where it has been studied, right? MastCell Talk 21:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to ionized water being an antioxidant the term cherry picking is inaccurate, and would denote ignoring a body of evidence that indicates ionized water is not an antioxidant. This is the first claim, which is being called pseudo scientific. So following this with the phrase "These claims have been characterized as pseudoscientific, as they are not supported by scientific research and contradict basic aspects of chemistry and physiology." is not appropriate.

The second postulate is that antioxidants "can slow aging and prevent disease."

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say : "A water ionizer is an appliance that ionizes water. Ionized water marketers claim that ionized water is a potent antioxidant, which can slow aging and prevent disease. However, the health benefits of antioxidants are a subject of some scholarly debate."

Also, it is an inaccurate citation to say that "Ionized water is claimed by manufacturers to be extremely beneficial to human health and marketed with claims that it is an antioxidant which can slow aging and prevent disease."

In the article no one refers to it as being extremely beneficial to human health, and the article states that marketers "promote ionized water as a powerful antioxidant that can slow aging and prevent disease". Let's stick to what is actually stated in the LA Times source, if we are going to use it.

also, the article cited clearly indicates that a water ionizer is a small appliance but I will not edit this at this time, I'd rather pursue a consensus. I think we can all agree, that the original edit, changing it from a major appliance was appropriate.

In answer to your question MastCell I do not see any reason that the articles you've cited should not be given equal credence.

Additionally the phrase "there is no evidence of any beneficial effect from drinking reduced water." should be removed, because the source that it sites never states that there is no evidence to support any beneficial effect. In fact, Lower acknowledges several sources of evidence, though he does himself question their credibility. This phrase makes a claim that is not expressed in the source it cites, and is in fact proved false by it. I have not currently edited this, I am seeking consensus. NoFortunateSon (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the advantage of "large/small/home" versus simply "appliance"? Appliance is the most inclusive, does not require a source, and does not limit the text to household, industrial, medical or otherwise.
 * Lower is clear that the claims are pseudoscientific; the claims in the scientific journals clearly do not apply to humans. I don't see a "debate" in the scholarly literature, I see a couple claims made with a dubious relationship actual humans, I see a website by a retired chemistry professor that clearly documents and beats down the claims made by manufacturers, I see some statements that aren't really suitable per WP:MEDRS, but what I don't see is "scholarly debate".  I also don't see any reliable sources that indicate ionized water is useful in the body as an antioxidant, so the lead, which is meant to summarize the rest of the article, certainly shouldn't say this.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. If user WLU wishes to speculate that studies on rats (which were not cited in the text that he has just edited and attempted to justify here) have no relevance to humans that is one thing, but what part of "Pretreatment, cotreatment, and posttreatment with electrolyzed-reduced water enhanced human lymphocyte resistance to the DNA strand breaks induced by H2O2 in vitro" sounds inapplicable to humans? 2. The scholarly debate was clearly in reference to the health benefits of antioxidants. User WLU has created a straw man argument, saying "I don't see a 'debate' in the scholarly literature, I see a couple of claims made with a dubious relationship to actual humans." 3. User WLU has, without explanation, reverted to inaccurately citing the LA Times article, once again attributing claims purported to be made my marketers, to manufacturers, and reverting to a statement "is claimed by manufacturers to be extremely beneficial to human health" that is in no way indicated by the article cited.

WLU in response to your statement in the talk page that you "see a website by a retired chemistry professor that clearly documents and beats down the claims made by manufacturers" Lower's site only once refutes any claim made by a manufacturer, and it is about ionized water as a cleaning product not as an antioxidant NoFortunateSon (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Also according toWP:MEDRS and  are far more reliable resource than Lower's website.

From WP:MEDRS: "Ideal sources for these articles include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals."

"Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed."

Lower's site is of course not part of a journal, that aside, it still does not meet the requirements of being a primary source: "A primary source in medicine is one where the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats or filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did."

Or even a secondary source: "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. Review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed." Lower's site does not summarize one or more primary or secondary sources, nor is it a position statement of a major health organization. It does not appear to be peer reviewed.

conversely both  are peer reviewed primary sources, published by major publishers of medical journals.

Additionally, Parity of sources does not support the use of Lower's site as WLU has claimed. "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal or other reliable sources." Even if we grant the premise that ionized water being an antioxidant is a fringe theory, these are not self published and are not by amateurs. NoFortunateSon (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that this article is the appropriate place to produce an editorial synthesis of primary sources on electrolyzed/reduced water and its effect on cell lines and rats. It is certainly not the place to cover the "health debate" on antioxidants. I do think that it is a reasonable place to talk about how water ionizers are marketed and used. The sources on that topic include Lower's site. What specific content changes are we discussing here? I see a lot of general argumentation, and we might do better to focus on concrete content changes. MastCell Talk 05:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

At no point has this article contained "an editorial synthesis" of these two ideas. This includes the version which MastCell and WLU have each repeatedly removed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_ionizer&oldid=296587895).

Lower's site is at no point in this article cited as a source on "how water ionizers are marketed and used" More importantly Lower's site does not qualify as a reliable source, according to WP:MEDRS(see above).

Concrete changes:
 * 1) Removal of all citations of Lower's site, as it does not meet WP:MEDRS. This includes the statement in the lead, and the statement under uses. -WAITING FOR CONSENSUS
 * 2) WP:EL states "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first." So the presence of Lower's site in the external links is not currently acceptable by Wikipedia's guidelines. -WAITING FOR CONSENSUS
 * 3) MastCell has asserted that this is "certainly not the place to cover the "health debate" on antioxidants." In the interest of reaching consensus I have removed all non scholarly references to the benefits (or lack thereof) of antioxidants.
 * 4) There is no reason that the phrase "Laboratory research has shown that ionized water is effective in protecting DNA and RNA of human lymphocytes from oxidation damage in an in vitro study." should not be included in the lead. It contains no synthesis, cites peer reviewed research, and as per MastCell's objection, it does not state whether or not antioxidants are beneficial to human health. -WAITING FOR CONSENSUS
 * 5) In lieu of the phrase "Ionized water is claimed by manufacturers to be extremely beneficial to human health and marketed with claims that it is an antioxidant which can slow aging and prevent disease." which I've removed for the sake of consensus, and which also cites a non scholarly source, I have added the phrase "Ionized water is a powerful antioxidant. A statement which is supported by this study in a peer reviewed journal. "Reduced water exhibits high pH, low dissolved oxygen (DO), extremely high dissolved molecular hydrogen (DH), and extremely negative redox potential (RP) values."
 * 6) Additionally the phrase "there is no evidence of any beneficial effect from drinking reduced water." should be removed, because the source that it sites never states that there is no evidence to support any beneficial effect. In fact, Lower acknowledges several sources of evidence, though he does personally question their credibility. So even before we remove all citations to Lower's site, we should remove this paragraph, because it is disproved by the source (an unreliable one we have not yet removed) it cites.-WAITING FOR CONSENSUS NoFortunateSon (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As consensus is not yet achieved on these items, I reverted your changes to the article. I must question your statement that Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications is peer-reviewed.  The journal comes out 52 times per year and boasts that "from submission to electronic publication is less than three weeks."  For any article to be peer-reviewed in any decent manner in less than three months would be remarkable.  Three weeks?  Hmm  What evidence do you have of peer review for this journal? Gillyweed (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lower's site is not used to refute medical claims, only pseudoscientific claims made by manufacturers. Two studies published nine years apart is not a debate.  None of the studies cited have anything to do with humans; one is of rats, one is of cells in a petri dish.  And now four editors have disagreed with you.  Continuing to push for the changes is tendentious editing.  I couldn't find any review articles summarizing the literature on ionized water, those are the secondary sources we should use to build a page, along with textbooks and other summary-style sources.  As for Lower's page, this section seems to adequately debunk the claims.  I've reworded accordingly.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications: "BBRC is a rapid communications journal. As such, the decision to publish an article rests entirely with the handling Editor... Requests for revisions are rare." Re: additional sources, there is this from the Philippine Daily Inquirer: "Not only are these marketed waters and the ionizing machines expensive, but they are, according to scientists, 'medically baseless and worthless.'" Not the greatest source, but probably within WP:PARITY for the topic. MastCell Talk 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi WLU in response to your statement Lower's site is being used in this article (by you, GillyWeed, MastCell, and VSmith, and Short Brigade Harvester Boris) to refute medical claims. Clear examples of this are in these members most recent edits. 1. "However, drinking ionized water would not be expected to alter the body's pH, and there is no evidence of any claims made by manufacturers that drinking ionized water will have a noticeable effect on the body." 2. "Such claims are pseudoscientific, in that they contradict basic laws of chemistry and physiology." 3. "However, drinking ionized water would not be expected to alter the body's pH, and there is no evidence of any claims made by manufacturers that drinking ionized water will have a noticeable effect on the body."

Each of these statements is clearly a refutation of medical claims, each of which cites Lower's personal website, which is unreliable as it does not meet WP:MEDRS It should also be easy to agree that refuting the idea that ionized water is an antioxidant (which is currently being done in this article, by citing Lower's personal site), is a refutation of medical claims. A claim which is directly supported, peer reviewed study. One of which is cited in this previous instance of the article Here prior to GillyWeed's removal.

WLU stated Here in the discussion of this article that "any medical claims should be sourced to a reliable source - in this case, pretty much only medical journals and statements from national or international governing or scientific bodies. The  'some guy' websites aren't appropriate..." Afterwards WLU has repeatedly, and without consensus reverted to (and added more)health claims, citing a personal website. A website that contains no research and that does not satisfy WP:MEDRS standards as a secondary source. "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources" "A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed.'''"

Worse still WLU has repeatedly used this unreliable source to cite claims not supported by the source. Two such instances can be seen Here and here and has done so, since this was mentioned in the discussion page.

I'm running out of time for now, but MastCell: The newspaper article you've cited, aside from using WP:Weasel Words, and not being qualified as a tertiary source, makes no citation. Though it does at the end claim to present "the bottom line" from what it describes as "a scientific paper". 'what follows is an exact copy of text from Lower's personal website''.

More importantly, as explained above, WP:Parity is not applicable because The peer reviewed sources cited in this article are not self published, or the work of amateurs NoFortunateSon (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will address only the final part of your post. You seem to be mistaking Wikipedia's stylistic guidelines with our guidelines for sourcing. WP:WEASEL describes the language that we, as editors, should use and avoid here on Wikipedia. It does not prescribe the kinds of language that sources must use to be considered reliable. Do you see the difference? I can't follow your claims about newspapers as "not being qualified as tertiary sources". Our articles ought to be based on reliable secondary sources, of which the newspaper article is an example. If the newspaper is repeating Lower's arguments, as you argue, then that lends them additional weight. As far as other sources on the actual topic of water ionizer appliances (the nominal subject of this article, after all), Skeptoid has a short piece which amplifies many of the arguments from Lower's page. Most significant, from the perspective of the original research being pushed here about "antioxidants", is probably the fact that water produced by these devices actually contains a significant fraction of hypochlorite ion (aka bleach), a powerful pro-oxidant. MastCell Talk 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop addressing posts to me, it gives the extremely false impression that I am the only editor who does not agree with your contributions. If anyone else disagreed with my changes, I'm sure they would have reverted or commented.  Also, please stop throwing around "without consensus" as if it applied to my edits - consensus seems firmly against your edits.
 * WP:PARITY applies to claims not made by peer-reviewed journals, of which there are few and none are applicable to cells in dishes and rats. Lower's site is being use to cite and refute claims made by manufacturers, which are not made in peer-reviewed journals, claims that ionized water is somehow magical and will cure all that ails you.  Pointing out that these claims bear no resemblance to the actual functioning of the body is quite reasonable, the redflag is when manufacturers claim that there's any special benefit to ionized water beyond simple hydration.  The extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sources is that there is any benefit to ionized water; claiming that there is not, there is no benefit, there is no substantive changes to the body, is not extraordinary.  Consider Lower's site as a preemptive strike against the spam, advertising, outlandish garbage and CAM nonsense that herbalists, acupuncturists, sales sites and homeopaths would otherwise cram onto the page, to its detriment.  Claiming there is no effect is the default reasonable science position and we can use less reliable sources to cite them.  Claiming there is an effect is an extreme claim requiring good sources and sound justification.  Lower's site is clearly being used to refute nonsense claims by manufacturers, not basic chemistry or medical information.  I agree that the Philippines news source cites Lower, and adds little to the page beyond that source. This does indicate however, that the claims are again fringe nonsense since there are no reliable sources discussing changes to blood and body chemistry or antioxidant action within the body.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi MastCell. I hope that you'll take the time to address more than one part of my post. For example I hope that you will address the final part of my post, which can be found directly below the "final part of" my post that you have chosen to responded to.

I did not claim that newspapers are not tertiary sources. I have stated that the specific article that you have just linked to, does not meet the WP:MEDRS definition of a tertiary source, because it does not "summarizes a range of secondary sources". Nor does it qualify as a reliable secondary source, because it also does not summarize one or more primary or secondary sources. the fact that the last 32%directly quotes, (without citing) Lower's personal website does not constitute a summary. More importantly Lower's personal website does not qualify as reliable secondary source because it does not "summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources". You really might want to check out the WP:MEDRS. Additionally it's not clear why you feel that Lower's personal website having a large duplication of his text (without citation or summary) in thePhilippine Daily Inquirer augments it's weight. Furthermore, if you want to push the idea that articles which do not meet the definition of reliable lend additional weight, and should be used as sources, I think you'll be pretty unhappy about the large body of sources (a number of whom are doctors, researchers, and professors) that support the concept of ionized water. Again, I'm not advocating that we do this, and I don't think that you should either.

I do, in fact, understand that WP:WEASEL is a Wikipedia stylistic guideline. It states that we as editors should "Avoid using phrases such as "some people say" or any variations of the sort without providing sources." I'm aware that it does not apply to sources. However, seeing as you just used the phrase "they are, according to scientists, 'medically baseless and worthless." in a Wikipedia discussion, I thought that you might want to reconsider it, regardless of whether or not you did so using quotation marks.

With regard to the Skeptoid article, which you have introduced as another source, I won't focus on it's veracity issues, the fact that the writer of the article does not appear to have any credentials, or the fact that he leans pretty heavily on Steve Lower's personal website. What I will focus on is that it is not a WP:MEDRS reliable secondary source because it does not summarize any primary or secondary source. However I would like to make it clear that I am interested in any WP:MEDRS reliable secondary sources that you may want to introduce, possibly even including any that end in "toid". When you refer to the "the original research being pushed here about "antioxidants"" are you referring to this? A statement which is supported by peer reviewed study, including ? Lastly, do you have a reliable source to support the "fact" that "water produced by " water ionizers "contains a significant fraction of hypochlorite ion (aka bleach), a powerful pro-oxidant"?

To clarify sources, if your source is this statement on this discussion page by SteveLower( who can be seen here being repeatedly warned by OhNo itsJamie  for "adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia", which may be in reference to him adding the external link www.chem1.com to Wikipedia articles 10 times in the last 20 days (the WP:MEDRS defined unreliable website that is being sourced here, and is also still currently in the external links section of this article.) then it would not qualify as a WP:MEDRS reliable secondary source, because it does not summarize one or more secondary or primary reliable sources. Thanks for taking part in this discussion. I hope that you will continue to do so, and I hope that you will come back and address the issues you did not address yet, in terms of how they pertain to the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia.NoFortunateSon (talk) 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I think you are violating WP:MEDRS. You are citing primary sources to "debunk" the general understanding that water-ionizing appliances lack proven health benefits. Worse, you are selectively citing primary sources, using only those that support your promotional position - this is one of the problematic editing behaviors that WP:MEDRS was intended to forestall. I must be misunderstanding your post - are you seriously suggesting that the reliability of a source should be judged by the behavior of User:SteveLower, rather than by our sourcing guidelines? I see Lower's website as a reasonable source here - he has, after all, demonstrable and independently verifiable expertise in the field of chemistry, and he deals directly with the topic of this article. I see the Phillipine Daily Inquirer article as a reasonable, though not ideal source - it is a secondary source dealing with the topic of this article. The Skeptoid source is, I think, borderline. Both Lower and Skeptoid discuss the production of hypochlorite, a powerful pro-oxidant, by commercial water-ionizer appliances. MastCell Talk 04:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No one here seems to be saying the obvious, that there is simply no such thing as "ionized water". Any free ions in water would recombine in a fraction of a second. Isn't anyone else bothered by this phrase, "ionized water"? Furthermore, these "water ionizers" appear to be filled with plain water, no salt added. Hence, no sodium hydroxide, no sodium hypochlorite, no hypochlorous acid. No bases, no acids, no residual ions, no antioxidant vitamins. I just can't imagine any benefit to be obtained from water that has been electrolyzed for some time, since generating oxygen and hydrogen leaves behind only water. So, no cleaning power, no healing power, not even bleaching power. I'm reminded of the 'scientific study' of Russian "blessed" water

Two Kirlian Aura images of seemingly identical drops of water, kindly provided by Prof Korotkov, are shown. The left image depicts Aura vibration around a drop of normal water and the right image shows the Aura around a drop charged by the famous Russian healer Allan Chumak during ten minutes of conscious concentration. The difference in the bio-energy glow is dramatic: the bio-charged water has[sic] more than 30 times stronger. and of homeopathic remedies, both of which, chemically, are also just plain water. Water is water, and that's all. David Spector 22:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A reasonably Clear site with Scientific references
This site appears to clarify much of the verbiage we have seen here. www.alkaline-water-institute.com It has links to available Pubmed and other studies as well as 'testimonials' apparently sourced all over the net. The scientific studies are about the best I have seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.172.175 (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No thanks. Any site that lists "Scientific Study's" [sic] is already questionable...I don't see any indication that the site meets WP:RS. Since we can cite published research directly, and internet testemonials are best avoided like the plague, it's not necessary. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alkalinity - Alkaline water - from a strict chemical perspective
Alkalinity of water is the measure of waters ability to neutralize acids. In most natural waters it can be measured by the amount of bicarbonates present (OH-,HCO3- and CO3-2). Alkalinity is measured by titrating water in question with usually sulfuric acid (N/50 H2SO4, watching how much acid it takes to lower the water's pH into the more acidic range.

pH is the measure of the amount of hydrogen protons in water. pH between 0-6.9 is considered acidic. pH between 7.1-14 is considered caustic. Water that is alkaline will react with protons (acid) when added and will neutralize them. In the process both the alkalinity and acid are consumed and converted into water and CO2.

Our stomachs, by design, are acidic because its necessary to break down the food we eat. Drinking alkaline water would serve to neutralize some of that acidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.151.113.239 (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Reputable Sources
Folks, I see article is biased towards exposing it as a scam. I found dozen of pair reviewed studies in universities of Japan, Korea and US and plenty of empirical data proving effectiveness of those machines. So first I propose to differentiate the chemist's perspective, who is not a medical professional, to studies of doctors. Chemist perspective is valid to give overview to chemical reaction within ionizer. The medical benefits need to be addressed by those who are in medical field. So here are my proposals : 1. Get rid of references to the medical effectiveness of the appliance that are done by just a chemist. 2. Include references of medical doctors, like Dr. Robert Young, Dr. Hidemitsu Hayashi, and others to show the effectiveness found using this water. Steelmate (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you would list some actual references, so that we could evaluate them to see whether they are as impressive as you suggest. I'm not sure which "Robert Young" you're referring to; if it's this guy, then he's not a "medical doctor", and I'm all the more curious for you to substantiate your claim that "medical professionals" support the use of these devices. MastCell Talk 04:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes this is the one. On his web site he states that he has earned "doctorate of philosophy degree in nutrition" given him by professor James E. Harvey from San Diego State University. Do you have data proving the opposite? Also here is the list of research papers I found :

Steelmate (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lonergan, E. Aging and the kidney: adjusting treatment to physiologic change, Geriatrics 43: 27-30, 32-33, 1998.
 * Frassetto, L. and Sebastian, A. Age and systemic acid-base equilibrium: analysis of published data, Journal of Gerontology, Advanced Biological Science and Medical Science, 51: B91-99, 1996
 * Alpern, R. and Sakhaee, K. The clinical spectrum of chronic metabolic acidosis: homeostatic mechanisms produce significant morbidity, American Journal of Kidney Disease 29: 291-302, 1997.
 * Bushinsky, D. Acid-base imbalance and the skeleton, European Journal of Nutrition 40: 238-244, 2001.
 * Frassetto, L.; Morris, R.; Sellmeyer, D.; Todd, K. and Sebastian, A. Diet, evolution and aging: the pathophysiologic effects of the post-agricultural inversion of the potassium-tosodium and base-to-chloride ratios in the human diet, European Journal of Nutrition 40:5 200-213, 2001.
 * Frassetto, L.; Morris, R. and Sebastian, A. Effect of age on blood acid-base composition in adult humans: role of age-related renal functional decline, American Journal of Physiology, 271: 1114-22, 1996.
 * Alpern, R. Trade-offs in the adaptation to acidosis, Kidney International 47: 1205-1215, 1995.
 * Krapt, R. and Jehle, A. Renal function and renal disease in the elderly, Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift, 130:11 398-408 2000.
 * Adrogue, H. and Madias, N. Management of life-threatening acid-base disorders, New England Journal of Medicine 338: 26-34, 1998.
 * Maurer, M.; Riesen, W.; Muser, J.; Hulter, H. and Krapf, R. Neutralization of Western diet inhibits bone resportion independently of K intake and reduces cortisol secretion in humans, American Journal of Physiology and Renal Physiology 284: F32-40, 2003.
 * May, R.; Kelly, R. and Mitch, W. Metabolic acidosis stimulates protein degradation in rat muscle by glucocorticoid-dependent mechanism, Journal of Clinical Investigations 77:614-621, 1986
 * Meghji, S.; Morrison, M.; Henderson, B. and Arnett, T. pH dependence of bone resoption: mouse calvarial osteoclasts are activated by acidosis, American Journal of Physiological and Endocrinological Metabolism 280: E112-E119, 2001.
 * Nabata, T.; Morimoto, S. and Ogihara, T. Abnormalities in acid-base balance in the elderly, Nippon Rinsho 50: 2249-53, 1992.
 * Robergs, R. Exercise-induced metabolic acidosis: where do the protons come from?, Sport Science 5(2) sportsci.org/jour/0102/rar.thm, 2001.
 * Sebastian, A.; Harris, S.; Ottaway, J.; Todd, K. and Morris, R. Improved mineral balance and skeletal metabolism in postmenopausal women treated with potassium bicarbonate, New England Journal of Medicine 330:25 1776-81 1994.
 * Sebastian, A.; Frassetto, L.; Sellmeyer, D.; Merriam, R. and Morris, R. Estimation of the net acid load of the diet of ancestral preagricultural Homo sapiens and their hominid ancestors, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 76:6 1308-1316, 2002.
 * Wiederkebr, M. and Krapf, R. Metabolic and endocrine effects of metabolic acidosis in humans, Swiss Medical Weekly 2001:131, 127-132, 2001.


 * First of all, a Ph.D. in nutrition does not make one a "medical doctor" in the US, nor anywhere else that I'm aware of. Young's website is currently quite explicit about the fact that he's not a medical doctor, probably because he's previously been accused of practicing medicine without a license . The National Council Against Health Fraud seems to believe that Young's Ph.D. is not from SDSU, but from the "American Holistic College of Nutrition", an unaccredited correspondence school . I couldn't find any information about a professor James E. Harvey on the SDSU website, or anywhere else for that matter - could you point me to some information about him? And thank you for the list of general references on acid-base physiology, which has always been one of my favorite topics. Do any of those references mention the use of "water ionizers" or their effect on human health? MastCell Talk 06:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sources
Starting with sources from a recent edit that I reverted : --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Did I miss any? Are their others anyone wants to review? --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Zeratsky, Katherine "Nutrition and healthy eating" March 20, 2010
 * Definitely a reliable source. This is a brief summary about alkaline water. It has references that we might consider, but I don't think we should use this directly as a WP:MEDRS source. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How about using Burckhardt as a source to replace Zeratsky? the study discussed in Burckardt supports the conclusion that alkaline water may be effective against bone loss. Moorstag (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Moorstag
 * Lower, Stephen '"Ionized" and alkaline water' January 25, 2011
 * Looks like a reliable source. Probably not something we should use for medical claims though. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Kopko, Peter L "Alkaline water uses" May 12th, 2010
 * Self-published, promotional source. While it documents claims of the author, I don't see why this author's personal opinions deserve mention in this article. Is he someone noteworthy? --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A more neutral approach to the Water Ionizer article
An article entitled "Is alkaline water better for you than plain water?" posted by the Mayo Clinic's Nutritionist Katherine Zeratsky states: "Some research does suggest that alkaline water may slow bone loss, but further study is needed to determine if the positive effects can be maintained over the long term or influence bone mineral density overall." See source below:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alkaline-water/AN01800

Current edition of the Water Ionizer entry claims that there is "No empirical evidence" of any health effects. That statement is contradicted by Zeratsky, above.

Sources cited by Zeratsky:


 * 1) Wynn E, et al. Alkaline mineral water lowers bone resorption even in calcium sufficiency: Alkaline mineral water and bone metabolism. Bone. 2009;44:120.
 * 2) Burckhardt P, et al. The effect of the alkali load of mineral water on bone metabolism: Interventional studies. Journal of Nutrition. 2008;138:435S.
 * 3) Cunningham E. What impact does pH have on food and nutrition? Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 2009;109:1816.   Moorstag (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Moorstag


 * The two points of view may not be contradictory. As I suggested above, we should review the three sources Zeratsky uses against WP:MEDRS, and look for other such sources to determine what medical claims we should include. --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added links for each source, including a free copy of Burckhardt (2008) and the abstract of Wynn (2009). --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I reviewed Burckhart, and it stated that bicarbonate- and calcium-rich water"significantly decreased the bone resorption markers C-telopeptides (CTX) by 16% and PTH by 17%. That decreased bone resorption cited is what Zeratsky was referring to.

The Wynn abstract pointed out that you do not get the same effect with acid water: "In calcium sufficiency, the acid calcium-rich water had no effect on bone resorption, while the alkaline water rich in bicarbonate led to a significant decrease of PTH and of S-CTX." This would seem to indicate that you must drink alkaline mineral water to achieve the effect observed in Wynn.

Moorstag (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Moorstag