AquaScams FAQ's

Is there any practical alternative to a conventional water softener for whole-house treatment?

I'm not a chemical engineer and do not live in a hardwater area, so I don't consider myself an expert on solutions to hard water problems. It is my understanding that the traditional ion-exchange softener is still the only practical solution for whole-house systems. The problems relating to saline pollution of the environment are mostly associated with the release of excess salt during the re-charge process, which can often be done off-site by a service company. The best suggestion I can make is to seek the advice of a plumbing contractor who is familiar with the water in your particular area, and who has a local reputation to maintain. Definitely stay away from any of the mail-order miracles, most of which I consider highly dubious.

For more information, please see my page on the chemistry of hard water.

How about the "salt-free" devices that employ magnets, alternating electromagnetic fields, or "precious metal catalysts"?

Forget about the last two, which I describe on pages devoted to AC fields and "catalytic" methods. There is no credible evidence that they work, no reason to believe that they can work, and in I have received only a very few comments from people who have reported satisfaction with these devices. In contrast, a number of people have reported good results with permanent magnet devices (see my "MagScams" page ). Still, all the chemical engineers who tell me they have run side-by-side tests report negative results, and I am not aware of a single credible report in the reputable technical literature.

What kind of water treatment or filter do you recommend?

I don't consider myself competent to address specific cases, which would in any event depend entirely on the nature of your water supply and on what particular substances must be removed and to what levels. If you are supplied with city water that meets EPA standards but are concerned about removing residual chlorine or chlorine treatment byproducts, a good activated-carbon filter such as the Brita should be sufficient.

Should I buy one of those chlorine-removing shower filters?

Despite the dire warnings about the supposed dangers of chlorine put out by the makers of these filters, there is no epidemiological evidence I am aware of that the levels of residual chlorine in city water is damaging to the health of those who shower in it. (For that matter, there is little if any evidence of any health risk of drinking water in which residual chlorine is within EPA standards.) A possible exception might be those rare individuals who suffer from extreme chemical sensitivities, but it should be noted that few suppliers of these devices offer quantitative performance data.

What is the healthiest water to drink?

I am not aware of evidence indicating that any one type of water is more beneficial to health than any other, as long as the water is pathogen-free and meets accepted standards such as those published by the U.S. EPA .

In contrast, there is well-documented evidence that a healthy diet, exercise, non-smoking, freedom from stress, and engaging in fulfilling creative, spiritual, or social activities are demonstrably beneficial to health. So my advice, for what it might be worth, is to forget about your water (unless it is obviously suspect) and concentrate on these other lifestyle factors.

Is there anything to the warnings I have seen about drinking distilled water?

A World Health Organization report summarizes numerous studies on the effects of drinking water that has little or no mineral content, and recommends against it. The most compelling arguments, based on epidemiological (population-wide) studies, suggest that very low concentrations of sodium, calcium, and (especially) magnesium correlate with a higher incidence of a number of ailments such as cardiovascular disease. On the other hand, the fact that the major source of mineral nutrients is food rather than water suggests that any bad effects of drinking mineral-free water will be minimized for those who follow a well-balanced diet and avoid drinking large quantities of water between meals.

The reasons for the reported negative effects of demineralized water are not entirely clear. The idea, promoted in some quarters, that distilled or demineralized water can "leach out" minerals from the body is probably incorrect; it ignores the fact that cells are generally impermeable to mineral ions, which are transported across cell walls not by diffusion ("leaching"), but rather by active processes controlled by "ion pumps" that are specific to each kind of ion. A good overview can be found here. More likely causes have to do with overall ion balance as it relates to kidney function.

On the other hand, if consumption of mineral-free water in a were bad, we residents of Vancouver would not enjoy the better-than-average health we have: our local water comes from mountain snowmelt and runoff, and is probably as close to distilled water as any city water can be. Of course, it might also help that our miserable weather acts to discourage consumption of undue quantities of water!

Except in extreme cases, distillation seems like overkill as a means of purification, and it consumes a lot of energy. If your water is pathogen-free and meets accepted standards such as those published by the U.S. EPA), then there is no reason to believe that any further treatment is necessary. For those who are sensitive to residual chlorine or still have concerns, a good activated-carbon filter is usually satisfactory. More extreme measures such as reverse-osmosis or distillation are only justified in demonstrably extreme situations.

 

I find that (you-name-it) has relieved my ailments and raised my energy levels; how can you say it is junk science?

It is almost impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from anecdotal reports; there are simply too difficult to verify in sufficient detail, and even if this were possible, there are too many uncontrolled variables related to both the individual's medical history, diet, and circumstances. Further, the exact composition of these nostrums is rarely known. Equally important, we have no idea of how many people have not benefited from the same product. Finally, studies have shown that the symptoms of chronic illness can be relieved by placebos in almost 50 percent of the cases examined. This is why double-blind studies are considered essential for establishing the efficacy of a medical treatment.

About the placebo effect

I am in no position to deny what you or your acquaintances may have experienced, but anecdotal reports, however sincerely they may be made, are no substitute for properly-done scientific studies, which are the only thing I can responsibly base my opinions on.

If this stuff is quackery as you claim, why do so many people use it?

I suspect that much of the appeal of pseudoscience and quackery is that they give people the illusion of control over a world that to them seems complex and overwhelming. It does not help that school science education generally does a poor job of equipping people with the tools for critical thinking; to those who don't understand the difference between science and pseudoscience, the latter can seem much more empowering and thus appealing.

In relation to health, this "empowerment" factor is not entirely bad; the December 2005 issue of Scientific American had an interesting article on correlation of health with socioeconomic status that shows quite clearly that perception of powerlessness is in itself a significant health risk. I think we have a great deal to learn about the interaction of the mind and body— something that makes it even more problematic to draw easy conclusions from anecdotal experiences with many remedies.

I am concerned about balancing my body pH; since most foods are acidic, why do you dismiss the need for alkaline supplements?

Your question (not an uncommon one!) is based on two false assumptions:

1) that there is such a thing as "the body's pH". A wide range of pH values from highly acid to slightly alkaline can be found in different parts of the body, and to some extent, even in different regions of a single cell. It is true, however, that most intracellular fluids such as blood and lymph, are slightly alkaline.

2) that it takes a base (such as "alkaline water") to neutralize an acid (as from fruit juice or other foods.) This is true with ordinary chemical reactions carried out in the lab, but living cells are able to selectively transport certain ions across the cell membrane.

Any imbalance in electric charge that results from this process is compensated by decomposition of water into its ions. For example, the cells in the gastric lining responsible for maintaining the high acidity of the stomach do not secrete hydrochloric acid (HCl), but only chloride ions Cl^–. The negative charge is compensated by the dissociation of water into H⁺ ions (which remain in the stomach) and OH^– ions (which pass back into the blood.)

The pH of the blood itself is maintained largely by bicarbonate buffering, removal of carbonic acid in the form of CO₂ in exhaled breath, and by adjustment of urinary pH by the kidneys.

Don't pay any attention to the scary and misleading nonsense put out by the "water ionizer" bunkmeisters. Also, be aware that excessive intake of alkaline substances can impede protein digestion and lead to serious digestive problems— for which the alkali-quacks may prescribe even more of their snake oil!

See the IonBunk page for a discussion of "ionized" and "alkaline" water scams.

"...used widely in Japan and Korea"

Water-based quackery seems to abound in these two countries, especially in relation to the "ionized" and "alkaline" water myths mentioned above. Perhaps a cultural anthropologist could say why; it certainly has nothing to do with science.

OK, so there are lots of dubious nostrums around; how can I judge them for myself?

It's not always easy, but look for the following points in their claims that are almost dead giveaways that the site is trolling for suckers:

• Vague, undefined and unverifiable references to energy levels, vibrations, vortexes, cellular hydration, resonance, pH balance, far-infrared, nascent oxygen or hydrogen, hydride ions, negative hydrogen ions, microclusters, nanoclusters, zeta potential or bio-photons.
• Waters that are described as living, activated, energized, magnetized, ionized, revitalized, oxygenated, structured, clustered, un-clustered, hexagonal, electron-rich, or possessing "spin".
• Any implication that the product retards aging, reduces the possibility of cancer, or repairs DNA.
• Any site that invokes the flim-flammery of Masuro Emoto or that compares their product with water from "healing springs".
• References to "meters" that are alleged to measure ORP, Bovis units, or "cellular hydration".
• Sites that display the smiling visage of a "doctor" who offers his wares to consumers (...and who probably has good reason to be smiling!)

You might also try using a search engine like Scirus that concentrates on legitimate science, instead of Google or Yahoo which are full of commercial trash.

What about waters that claim to possess antioxidant properties?

The body is provided with an impressive array of built-in chemical defenses against the dangerous free radicals that are a by-product of normal oxidative metabolism. As far as I am aware, there little if any credible clinical evidence that exogenous antioxidants, whether they be Vitamins C or E, or the many, much more expensive ones vigorously flogged by the alternative wellness industry, have any demonstrable benefit on human health or longevity.

See The antioxidant myth: a medical fairy tale that was published in the 5 August 2006 New Scientist.

Many promoters cite "ORP" ("oxidation-reduction potential) measurements to support their misleading claims about the antioxidant properties of products. Such measurements are largely meaningless unless the particular redox reactions are specified, which they almost never are. ORP measurements are widely used to estimate the oxygen content of waters in lakes and streams; aside from this legitimate use, you should consider any ORP claim attached to drinking water as misleading hype.

Is is true that the longevity of the Hunza tribes of Pakistan is related to the special qualities of the water they drink?

Almost certainly not. It is not even a verified fact that these people are exceptionally long-lived, although their local tourism boosters would probably like you to think so. Mountain streams of glacial origin contain colloidal clay particles that are widely hyped to be beneficial, but there is no evidence to support such claims.

An interesting article: A slice of Hunza High