Talk:Water ionizer/Archive 1

message: This link explain in detail whether a water ionizer works or if it's snake oil on tap:
It includes an exhaustive list of clinical studies.
  
Perhaps the best link of all is at www.ionlife.info. It's practical, comprehensive and well researched
This link  doesn't seem to be all that informative, eh? Krupo 00:04, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps the site with the most practical and comprehensive information about water ionizers and alklaizers is www.ionlife.info
Perhaps not.  There is useful information on the site, but not really on the main page.  I will replace it with a link to a more specific page. CyborgTosser 01:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have to look into this.  If there are indeed legitimate products that bear some similarity to water ionizers, it certainly deserves mention in this article (and probably its own article). CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 00:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  October, 2004 

message: This page is ridiculous. I like how all the recent edits are from anonymous IP addresses... I'm tempted to just revert to a few months ago, but perhaps there is something useful there amongst all the drivel. I'll leave the tag up for a little while and then just revert unless someone can make it just a little npov. -postglock 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bit of tug-of-war, I've reverted to the version from 5 May, and added the category again. If I've deleted any actual objective information, I apologise; It's a little hard to seperate the real edits. -postglock 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement tag added 

message: It is nice to see a positive description about water ionization (after the edits). It is a serious technology and a few salespeople include things they don't understand. 
The world was flat in the past... -Unsigned post by 84.92.207.141
: Your self-lauded edits have again been reverted. Please stop adding POV material (Water ionizer), stop deleting material that does not fit with your commercial interests (Chronic cellular dehydration), and stop adding linkspam (Water). I will continue to revert any invalid edits made. -postglock 08:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ionized water does not definitively work, and until you can provide some scientific basis for your claims, this speculation does not belong in wikipedia. The fact that my edits are "negative" are irrelevant. It is obvious that you have some kind of commercial interest as you have added numerous commercial links on different pages to http://www.thewaterionizer.co.uk. These have all been removed (and not just by me). Here is a summary of the speculative claims made that I consider imprecise: removal of the clustering effect of hydrogen bonding in "ionized water" with no explanation, except an external link to an NMR spectroscopy site which contains no more information; a claim that ionized water will hold its properties for half a day with no clarification; an unsubstantiated claim that when dehydrated "drinking ionized water is thought to work better than drinking normal water"; various anecdotal claims by doctors to support the cause. Also, alkaline water is not negatively charged, and this conflicts with your earlier implication of what "ionized water" might be. I am also unsure of the antioxidant properties of alkaline water anyway. If it had a standard reduction potential of -0.2V it would not be a very strong oxidant at all, and hence not a very effective antioxidant. -postglock 00:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: From the state of the current article, it appears that it is undisputed that water ionizers work to some extent, even if not in the ways described by scammers.  If this were the case, then leaving in a few sentences casting doubts on their effectiveness would probably be sufficient for neutrality.  However, this is far from the case.  The fact that water ionizers work at all is disputed; I, for one, dispute it, as do I believe should anyone who has taken a few chemistry classes.  The case for water ionizers should probably be presented in the article as well since some people believe in them, but balancing the opinions is going to be tricky.  I am afraid that most people like me that know these machines don't work are only marginally interested in the phenomenon of pseudoscience and marketing that goes into most of the websites promoting water ionizers.  Perhaps the notice will draw more traffic so we can get this article more on the path to neutrality.
As for factuality, the article will never be encyclopedic (and will continue to sound like an advertisement, regardless of the actual commercial interests or lack thereof of the editors involved) unless the claims made here can be backed up with evidence.  Here I think there is going to be some difficult in making the article both neutral and factual, considering that one of the viewpoints has science on its side and the other does not.  But we could still attempt to get both neutrality and factuality, as many other articles with the same problems have done with more or less success.
I don't want to get involved direct in trying to fix this article because I am biased and I don't want the fact that I am an admin to unduely influence the process, but I think my case for a neutrality and factuality dispute is pretty clear cut. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your removal of the dispute notice.  Just because you don't think that the neutrality and factuality of the article is in dispute doesn't mean that it is not.  Generally, these notices should stay up until the parties in dispute reach a consensus, or failing that at least there should be more discussion than a single comment from one side.  Having this notice is a good thing for such a hotly contested topic.  Articles usually get more attention when they are flagged as in need of work. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and factuality dispute 

message: ...I'll assume that there is no dispute.
:No, that is not how it works.  There is no time limit on a dispute, and it is clear that a consensus has not been yet reached.  I agree that this should be resolved as quickly as possible.  I personally would spend more time making changes to the article and suggesting what changes I thought could be made if I had the time, but I don't have a lot of free time at the moment.  That doesn't mean that I (or the others who have made comments here) don't have a valid point about the factuality and neutrality of the article. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 84.92.207.141, improperly removing dispute tags is considered vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism).  If you do not follow Wikipedia's policies, you will be blocked.  As I said above, there is no time limit on a dispute.  Some disputes take months to resolve.  Hopefully this one will be resolved more quickly, but in any case the dispute tag should remain until a consensus is reached.  CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 20:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time is ticking... if nobody's going to enter into dialogue soon, then... 

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

message: I have said and the other man who sells ionizers that ionized water does not stay ionized!!! But it lasts long enough for people to drink it. I am glad that the ionizer salesmen has given me backup on this one, as you would need to be editing all sorts of pages all day long. 
Do some proper research and stop talking out of your textbooks, ionizer work - test one for yourself. Why would a major electronics company be making washing machines using ionization technology or hospitals use ionizers to clean their water and use it to treat digestive disorders? 
Please will you lot tell us why you insist on calling us porkie pie tellers? I have reverted back as you are being biased and not looking at the global picture.
Why don't you want to enter discussion?
:I stated, "If the concentration of these ions is increased (hydroxide and hydronium), then they will react with each other to restore the original concentration. The reaction is very rapid (strong acids and strong bases completly react with each other in seconds, so hydronium hydroxide (or ionized water) should have a half life measured in fractions of a second (or, at best, a few seconds)). If the water is removed from normal conditions (ie. heated) the concentrations may be increased slightly, but not very much, and are reversed when the water is returned to standard conditions. Therefore, unless some mechanism is found that stabillizes ionized water, this article should not make claims that they work." I clearly stated that hydroxide ions and hydronium ions react with each other very rapidly. Unless you can show evidence of a metastable state in a reputable, peer reviewed journal, claims of a metastable state with a long half life should not be made, except as being referenced to manufactures and front groups. Polonium 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the kinetic problem still remains, acids and bases react with each other in less that half a day. In fact, the H3O+ ions and OH- ions will react with each other in seconds. The half life could be one second, and if that is the case, the amount of ionized water left after 20 seconds is 953.67*10-9 mole fraction, and after 1 minute it has reached equilibrum. Not enough time to drink it. Polonium 22:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YOU ARE NOT LISTENING!!! 

message: I believe that there is a reason why scientists in the West are slow to pickup the ball of water ionization. Imagine if water ionization was commonplace, how many people would be out of a job? What I am doing to trying to take things forward and show ionized water does work and there is plenty of proof it works. Are you calling the late Dr Kelley, Dr Baroody and many others liers? If you are a chemist, why don't you test the water?
:I'm sorry that I've not been more active on this article, after my original comments, but I have been frustrated by the lack of any substantiated claims, and overwhelmed by the glut of (mostly) irrelevant sophistry. Ionised water simply does not exist in the sense that is mentioned. Who are "the late Dr Kelley, Dr Baroody and many others?" Can you provide some links to articles by them? The one link provided above appears to claim that electrolysis of water would create acidic and alkaline solutions. This simply does not work. Any electrolysis requires the connection of a salt bridge or membrane, in order to allow ions (and thus charge) to complete the circuit. In the electrolysis of water, the H+ ions and the OH- ions will combine to provide ongoing current. The link to the "no washing detergent" washing machine in the edited article has absolutely no information about what ionisation actually does, and the link to the pdf file babbles on incoherently about how a low oxidation potential equates with low reactivity. This is not true, as the lower the oxidation potential, the higher the reactivity, as its ease in being reduced increased. The aricle also claims this oxidation potential is brought around "by increased active hydrogen concentrations." This makes little sense, as the H2 → 2H+ + 2e- reaction is right in the middle of oxidation and reduction potentials (E° = 0V, as any high school student will tell you). Also, high concentrations of the H+ ion would result in acidic solutions, not alkaline! -postglock 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY ARE SCIENTISTS AFRAID OF WATER IONIZATION IN THE WEST? 

message: There are plenty of substantiated claims.
If you do not know who Dr Kelley and Dr Baroody are I don't understand why you're commenting on a technology that you obviously know little about, and it seems you are not doing any research on.
A water ionizer has two chambers inside which are bridged with a membrane, and the machine uses the minerals such as sodium works as an electrolyte to sustain the ionized water's temporary structure.
You go on about water ionizers are not able to produce alkaline and acidic solutions, you are wrong. There are many companies who are now switching to water ionization to clean with. Do some research.   
I'm wondering how skilled you are and whether you're a practising chemist or scientist? It seems you just studied a little chemistry at school. Your narrowmindedness as well, knocks me back.
You make this comment about the article: "by increased active hydrogen concentrations." This makes little sense" How do you know it's H+?
Why are you so against water ionizers and why are you denying their exsistence? You are really making yourself look silly. -- unsigned post from 86.10.38.226
Like I said, the kinetic problem still remains, acids and bases react with each other in less that half a day. In fact, the H3O+ ions and OH- ions will react with each other in seconds. The half life could be one second, and if that is the case, the amount of ionized water left after 20 seconds is 953.67*10-9 mole fraction, and after 1 minute it has reached equilibrum. Not enough time to drink it. As for the claims that electrolytes stabillize the water, sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid (both electrolytes) react with each other rapidly (short half life, large rate constant), so that cannot stabilise the solution. The rate of decomposition of the ionized water is determined, very simply, by the equation
r=k[H3O+]^A[OH-]^B
(The math equation editor cannot use subscripts and superscripts the way I wanted it to use them)
This shows that the rate constant cannot be decreased by increasing the concentration, and no mechanism is given as for how sodium ions stabillize the solution (and the fact that NaOH and H2SO4 react with each other fast shows that they do not do that). Polonium 21:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps you could provide links or external references to the works of the good doctors? I understand your description of the mechanics of the water ioniser, and it appears to work exactly the same as an electrolytic cell which both of our descriptions appear to agree on. Could you please explain how the additional salt ions such as sodium "sustain the ionized water's temporary structure?" Also, please describe how the fluid maintains two chambers with opposing charge, and how electrolysis continues despite this. You appear to be skirting around the topic. -postglock 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: And also, could you please sign all entries with -- ~~~~  which will help us (me) keep track of the conversations... Thanks. -postglock 09:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postglock needs to look into the mechanics of a water ionizer 

message: I think the article now is much better than earlier versions at including both sides of the debate, but I am still not convinced it is thoroughly NPOV.  Here is what I think the average reader coming across this article for the first time would get from it:
* There is overwhelming scientfic evidence that water ionizers work
* "Some chemists" (from the context of the article, they would seem to be in the minority) dispute the first claim.  Although it doesn't come out and say it in the article, these chemists are made out to be a disgruntled fringe group.
* Each of the applications of water ionizers listed in the article are successful in practice.
I claim that the article is still non-NPOV because one side's POV is underrepresented/misrepresented.
My other complaint, related in a way to the first, is that the style is unencyclopedic.
I have some suggestions for improving the article, which I may get to myself if and when I find time.  My biggest concern is organization, because good organization can help give each POV a chance to be heard.  IMO, something like the following would be acceptable:
:Intro
:Brief overview of what ionizers are, what they are used for, where they are (predominantly) used, how they work (brief summary).  It would be prudent to mention in the first paragraph that they are controversial, but no specifics yet.
:How they work
:This should start with verifiable and uncontroversial statements about the technology of water ionizers, such as a water ionizer consists of components X, Y, and Z.  A schematic would be a good addition.  I imagine that as there are multiple manufactures of these devices, there is enough information out there that isn't trade secret to write this part of the article.  From here, we could get into the more controversial parts of how water ionizers work, with little or no interruption from the critics.  However, even though the information in this section would not need to be uncontroversial, it should still be verifiable, which is to say it is backed up by good, non-commercial external references.
:Claimed properties of ionized water
:This could actually be collapsed into the previous section, depending on length.  The key thing to mention is that these are claimed properties of ionized water, but again, this is not the place in the article for in-depth refutations of the claims.  Something like "The following are claimed properties of ionized water:" would be sufficient.
:Criticism of water ionizers
:This section would have the common criticisms of water ionizers and the claims made about them by their proponents.  A couple layouts are possible.  Responses to the criticisms could be saved to the end of this section or be in a following section, or they could be inline with the criticisms.  I personally prefer the second layout because I have seen it work well in other articles.  The important thing for preserving NPOV is that each criticism should be stated in its entirety without interruption before any response is made.  The same goes for the responses.  If necessary, a counter-argument from the anti-water ionizer side could follow each pro-water ionizer response.  Both sides need references.  This is not to say that anything uncorroborated should be cut from the article, but rather that as long as one side is unhappy with the verifiability of the other side's claims in the article, there is valid reason for a NPOV/factuality dispute tag on the article or that section.
:Applications of water ionizers
:Depending on the scope of this section, it may or may not be appropriate for there to be criticisms here.  I have the feeling that the previous section will be sufficient to get both POVs, but I could be wrong.
:Other info unrelated to the disputed aspects of water ionizers
:This could include notable manufacturers, statistics on how many of these devices are sold...
:External links
:There are plenty of links out there, but the most important thing is no commercial links.
Feel free to comment on my suggested organization.  I feel it is fair to both sides, and would make the article easier to read and more encyclopedic in style. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 01:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and style 

message: Where does it say that water ionizers change water on a perm. basis? Nowhere! I don't need to prove to you anything, as everything is on the page which was written and approved ages ago. 
The Mr Bunk is biased and his link onto the page is 100% out of line. Where is his evidence? Has he tested water ionizers himself?
Would love to come to an agreement on how to word the article, so can you fuse the two together?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.213.116 (talk • contribs) .
:Nothing on Wikipedia is "approved ages ago." This is not how it works, Wikipedia is a constant work in progress, really. Proof is most definitely required. The testing of water ionisers is not necessary, as the complaints have been ones directed at the claims of manufacturers. From a legal perspective, these are problems of fact, not of evidence. About wording the article, which two are you talking about? -postglock 17:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are manufacturers claiming that I have trouble with? Are you serious??? The rest of this page is filled with issues and questions that I have! Almost none of them have been answered! All my previous "proof" is contained in earler discussions, unless you have more questions. This proof is indeed based on scientific empirical evidence – science is the basis of electrolytic cells, acid/alkalinity, electricity, self-ionisation of water, equilibrium, etc, etc... As I said, I don't need to test the water ioniser myself, because I am not disputing the premise, I am disputing the logic! In any case, I am still yet to be told what water ionisers do exactly. Do they pass a current throught water? The whole thing is so vague! -postglock 04:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your questions are without substance... 

message: Stephen Lower, the owner of the chem1.com website, has presented a factually incorrect and emotional description of "water ionizer."  I have contacted this individual and asked him to put his theories to the test by actually testing my company's water ionizer, or water electrolyzer, however you want to call it.  He has refused.  His theories are incorrect because his opinion on how an ionizer works is wrong.  He has failed to factor in the membrane that every ionizer uses to separate alkaline from acidic water.  If it weren't for the membrane, the electrodes wouldn't be strong enough to pull acidic minerals from alkaline minerals.  The membrane makes it possible by keeping alkaline and acidic water separate.  
Since Stephen Lower is a person who refused to run tests on an actual ionizer/electrolyzer, it doesn't make sense to me that it is his opinion that gets published. His opinion is also a minority.  I can provide Wikipedia with hundreds of case studies published in peer reviewed publications both here in the US, Japan, and Korea that demonstrate the benefits of water ionizers.  The fact is ionized or electrolyzed water is currently used in hospitals throughout Japan and Korea because of its increased oxygen and the presence of hydroxl ions. You can even view video footage from such hospitals on my company's website, http://www.waterforlifeusa.com .  
I know these points have been made before, I fail to understand why this misinformation continues to be allowed. And now this page is ranking as the top page when you search for water ionizers on Google.  I believe that this page has been mismanaged and the misinformation that continues to exist is damaging to all the businesses, doctors, nutritionists, and health practioners in this country that try to educate the general public about the importance of preventative health care with products such as a water ionizer.  I also question why the opinions of hundreds of Korean and Japanese doctors aren't taken seriously, but when an American chemist forms and opinion, he is given top billing.  
The bottom line is after three years of discussion, the appropriate changes aren't being made to this page, the changes that are backed by the most scientific opinion and evidence.  This is a moral issues as well as a scientific one.  Why aren't the editors of Wikipedia listening?  
I extend my offer to Wikipedia; I will send you our company's product.  I will even buy you the tests you need to verify the increase in oxygen and the increase in alkalinity. 
What else can I do?  Please tell me.  The "water ionizer" page is simply wrong, its damaging legitimate business, it's misinforming the general public. This has got to stop.  
Waterforlifeusa 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute Water Ionizer Article Information 

message: I reread many of the posts from the "water ionizer" page manager and he keeps saying "prove it to me."  The best way I can prove it to you is send you a water ionizer and tell you how to test the water yourself.  If you are unwilling, I have worked hard to put together a resource page on our company's website: http://www.waterforlifeusa.com/index.php?page=Resources
There you will find classic articles such as those by Dr. Hayashi (there's video of him, too), Dr. Stanley Bass, Dr. Otto Warburg, Dr. Barody, and even the entire book by Mr. Kim Young Kwi, owner of the KYK Research Co. of Korea, whose research on water ionizers is endorsed by the mayor of Seoul, a former scientist. He designed our company's product.  
In our company's testimonial section, you'll find testimonials from Dr. Steven Miller and Dr. Ken Kaufman, American doctors who have bought, tested, and now sell the KYK water ionizer for us.
Honestly, I don't want to hear any more excuses about proof.  You can read numerous peer reviewed research articles in our resource center, you can read testimonials, you can even watch footage from a Japanese hospital as a man's diabetic sores are healed by ionized acidic water.  And then you can even test our product yourself, see the results, and stop this rediculous battle of theory. 
The only responsible action to take is to remove the entire "water ionizer" description and describe an ionizer for what it actually is "a medical substance producer" (KFDA and Japanese Ministry of Health).  
   
Anything less is grossly irresponsible.  
I expect the changes to be made within one week's time.
Waterforlifeusa 04:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, this is not how Wikipedia works. There is no "page manager." You can check out the FAQ for more information. Sending editors water ionizers is unfeasable for numerous reasons. Firstly, convincing even one editor would be not helpful to your cause, as there are several editors opposed. Secondly, as stated over and over again, the issues with the usefulness of water ionizers is not a practical one, but a theoretical one. This has been repeated all over this page, however I did check out your link, just in case there was something I missed. On the "what is ionised water" link, I ran into an error immediately, where you claim OH- is "alkaline water" (not quite correct anyway), and HO is "acid water." I don't have the time or energy to read much further, nor do I wish to proof-read the resource page for you, but elementary errors such as these immediately cast doubt upon the validity of the argument. -postglock 23:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof 

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

message: All the references are from companies selling water ionizers.  Where are the independent third pary research? Gillyweed 00:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP is an international encyclopaedia.  There are many legitimate science journals published in Australasia and Europe as well.  Proponents need to find evidence of efficacy.  Skeptics do not need to prove their position.  I think your comments about the FDA are made without a sound basis.  Claiming Americans are ignorant because they do not support a particular product is spurious.  I look forward to reading third party independent research. Thank you. Gillyweed 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  seems to be about an electrolysed water product, for what it's worth. More a news item than a research report, but still... --Oolong 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe one day they can invent a Japanese to English translating machine so that Japanese peer-reviewed studies can be properly referenced for English readers.  Just a thought.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.160.4.34 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I am sorry but your version is non-encyclopaedic and doesn't meet WP:NPOV.  It sounds like an essay or WP:OR  This article isn't too hard to write:
1. What is a water ionizer?
2. What is the theory behind it?
3. How does it work?
4. What are the claimed benefits?
5. What are the criticisms of water ionization?
With each section backed up with third party independent and verifiable references. Gillyweed 09:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope not my policy.  It's Wikipedia policy.  Please read WP:Cite.  Please sign your posts.  Gillyweed 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry MRZ1818 

message: User: Gillyweed writes: "Being on PubMed provides no credence to the research"
Scientific Quality Standards for PubMed Journals accepted into the National Center for Biotechnology Information database.
Gillyweed's edits and comments are understood as information suppression and will be deleted as spam. 
The external Snake Oil link must be removed as it contains no references to actual studies about ionized/electrolyzed water. However, some untrue claims have also been made by water ionizer marketers as well. As a result, the subject of ionized water and water ionizers must feature research findings as published in peer reviewed academic journals.   Water Ionizer Research (talk)
i completely agree with the above. the article is far too negative and is one persons point of view over masses of research. the ionbunk man doesnt understand quantum psychics, only chemistry. just a simple point in his website that water ionizers cannot change the pH of water is insane, it DOES! what else has he got wrong? the way ive changed the article is more balanced and doesnt interfere or try to manipulate people either way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.168.219 (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information Suppression