Talk:Purified water

message: Just a small note.  I'm not familiar with elertical conductivity literature, but the units of siemens-cm seems incorrect.  Shouldn't it be siemens-m? Astrobit (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt you're right, but there is an established 'tradition' that is hard to break.  My advice is that if you are sure it's correct, be bold and make the change.  —DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

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

message: It should be noted that the negative health effects of fluoride in water are well documented. Could someone who maintains this article mention them along with proper sources?24.83.148.131 (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have repeatedly added a mention of a few of the negative health affects but, someone keeps removing my warning.  I believe that removing a warning of the toxicity of fluoride is opposed to the principle of a neutral point of view.  Even if you believe fluoride is safe and effective, you should in my opinion provide evidence for your claim and have both sides of the argument presented, rather then simply deleting the other side.--Geoinline (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While the dispute over the health benefits vs. the harmful effects on health deserve mention in this article, I find the current paragraph dealing with this issue very POV.  I therefore added the neutrality disputed flag rather than try to deal with the paragraph myself, which seems to have been the subject of an edit war.Theseeker4 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is extensive information on these issues on the Water fluoridation page. I don't think that anything other than a link to this page is necessary, framed in an appropriate paragraph mentioning specifically the relationship between fluoridation and purified water.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes sense to me too. I did that, and removed the tag. Eubulides (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative Health Effects Of Fluoride

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

message: Is that feasible to distill sea water using multi effective evpouratours.
we can sell the byproduct which is the salt.
the vapour which is distilled could be compressed by solar compressers.
with regards,
shahabaaz ali raza
--Shahbaazali (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  water purifying 

message: This dispute is over how much the Purified water should discuss the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Geoinline feels that the Purified water article should present a lengthy set of citations concerning the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation, whether the mechanism of water fluoridation is topical or systemic, whether breastfeeding protects against dental fluorosis, whether fluoride pills should be taken, etc. I think Geoinline's version has serious WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems, and that Purified water should only briefly present the fluoridation controversy and should cite only sources that are directly relevant to purified water.
The topic has been further discussed in #HUGE citation above. Here is the version that Geoinline prefers:
: Purified water may have little to no fluoride, as pitcher or faucet-mounted filters do not alter fluoride; the more-expensive reverse osmosis filters remove 65%–95% of fluoride, and distillation filters remove all fluoride.
:
:It has been suggested that, because distilled water lacks fluoride ions that are added by a minority of governments (e.g., municipalities in the United States) at water treatment plants using sodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid for their effect on the inhibition of cavity formation, the drinking of distilled water may increase the risk of tooth decay. However, many medical authorities argue that the effects of fluoridation on teeth are topical (brushed on) rather than systemic (swallowed). Fluoride & Tooth Decay: Topical Vs. Systemic EffectsPizzo G, Piscopo MR, Pizzo I, Giuliana G. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 13.European Commission. (2005). The Safety of Fluorine Compounds in Oral Hygiene Products for Children Under the Age of 6 Years. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, September 20.Hellwig E, Lennon AM. (2004). Systemic versus topical fluoride. Caries Research 38: 258-62.Fejerskov O. (2004). Changing paradigms in concepts on dental caries: consequences for oral health care. Caries Research 38: 182-91.Warren JJ, Levy SM. (2003). Current and future role of fluoride in nutrition. Dental Clinics of North America 47: 225-43.Brothwell D, Limeback H. (2003). Breastfeeding is protective against dental fluorosis in a nonfluoridated rural area of Ontario, Canada. Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90.Zimmer S, et al. (2003). Recommendations for the Use of Fluoride in Caries Prevention. Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry 1: 45-51.Aoba T, Fejerskov O. (2002). Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine 13: 155-70.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50(RR14): 1-42.Featherstone, JDB. (2000). The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association 131: 887-899.Formon, SJ; Ekstrand, J; Ziegler, E. (2000). Fluoride Intake and Prevalence of Dental Fluorosis: Trends in Fluoride Intake with Special Attention to Infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.Adair SM. (1999). Overview of the history and current status of fluoride supplementation schedules. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 1999 59:252-8.Burt BA. (1999). The case for eliminating the use of dietary fluoride supplements for young children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 260-274.Featherstone JDB. (1999) Prevention and Reversal of Dental Caries: Role of Low Level Fluoride. Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology 27: 31-40.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48: 933-940.Limeback, H. (1999). A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 27: 62-71.Locker D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.Diesendorf, M. et al. (1997). New Evidence on Fluoridation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 21 : 187-190.Ekstrand J, et al. (1994). Fluoride pharmacokinetics in infancy. Pediatric Research 35:157–163.Zero DT, et al. (1992). Fluoride concentrations in plaque, whole saliva, and ductal saliva after application of home-use topical fluorides. Journal of Dental Research 71:1768-1775.Leverett DH. (1991). Appropriate uses of systemic fluoride: considerations for the '90s. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 51: 42-7.Wefel JS. (1990). Effects of fluoride on caries development and progression using intra-oral models. Journal of Dental Research 69(Spec No):626-33;Carlos JP. (1983) Comments on Fluoride. Journal of Pedodontics Winter. 135-136.Fejerskov O, Thylstrup A, Larsen MJ. (1981). Rational Use of Fluorides in Caries Prevention: A Concept based on Possible Cariostatic Mechanisms. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 39: 241-249. Also the benefit of fluoride supplementation, for any purpose, should be cautioned due to potential negative effects to IQ and motor functions.Reuters summary.Second Look. A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride
and here is the version that I prefer:
: Some water is purified to avoid water fluoridation, which is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Although health and dental organizations worldwide have endorsed fluoridation's safety and effectiveness, opposition to water fluoridation is considerable, based on ethical, legal, safety, and efficacy grounds, and companies selling water filters are involved in the opposition. Whether purified water contains fluoride depends on which technology is used to purify the water. Pitcher or faucet-mounted filters do not alter fluoride; the more-expensive reverse osmosis filters remove 65%–95% of fluoride, and distillation filters remove all fluoride. Unnecessary use of filtered water may harm dental health.
Eubulides (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * OK, that's a reasonable point. I edited the above proposal to also say "based on ethical, legal, safety, and efficacy grounds", which briefly covers all the points you mentioned. Although the resulting text now gives more space to opponents than to proponents of fluoridation, overall the proposed text is still fair enough. Eubulides (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * No further comment, so I installed the updated proposal. Eubulides (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *That looks OK, but I was thinking you could add Cheng in. That should be enough for Geionline, and considering that there are two highly supportive refs already, it doesn't seem like undue weight. If Geionline isn't willing to accept that, then ANI is probably the next step. II | (t - c) 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * Unfortunately Cheng doesn't mention purified water (or distilled water, bottled water, etc.), so it's a bit off topic for this article. This is in contrast to Armfield 2007 and to Hobson et al. 2007, the sources currently used; both of them mention fluoridation in the context of purified water. Can you suggest a more-on-topic reliable source that presents the skeptical side, in the context of purified water? I searched for one, but all I found was material that was unreliable, or self-promotional, or both. Eubulides (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water fluoridation dispute 

message: I feel that the Health Effects section should be removed entirely. The simple fact is, this is supposed to be a Neutral information page about Purified Water. What it is, how it's made, what it's used for, short and sweet. There is absolutely no tangible data supporting any facts that drinking clean, pure H2O is bad for you. Any of these minerals, etc that you're not getting because you don't drink non-pure water, are attained through eating food. Fruit, vegetables, and meat. Period. There is equally no supporting data that the body can even absorb or assimilate inorganic minerals, which are the minerals found in water. Step back for a minute and think. If you're arguing back and forth this entire time, then there's obviously no neutral stance on the issue. Which means there is no room for it in this article. Neutrality cannot exist within controversy. JMiller1978 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly the health effects section could be trimmed down, but the topic of the health effects of purified water is a notable one, generating reports by the likes of the World Health Organization, and it should definitely be covered here. Since we have reliable sources discussing the issue, the article should summarize what they say. The argument that the topic cannot be covered in Wikipedia because it is controversial is a misinterpreation of WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV doesn't say that Wikipedia cannot cover controversial topics; it says only that all sides of a dispute should be covered, in fair proportion according to how they appear in reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

text: No, that's absolutely not what I'm saying. It is very clear that my stance is to give neither side more space. State the facts of the issue. One side says this: The other side says this: One sentence for each, and move on. Likewise, Health effect should be retitled Controversy, as even the title of the section reeks of misleading bias. JMiller1978 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The text from wisegeek.com, which you quoted approvingly, gives more space to one side of the controversy; that was why I thought you wanted to give that side more space. However, it is not necessarily right to give each side equal time. As an extreme case, WP:NPOV does not require that Wikipedia articles give equal space to flat-earthers such as Boko Haram as it does to round-earthers such as the American Geophysical Union. Obviously the health effects of purified water are not as extreme a case as the flat-earth/round-earth issue, but the principle is the same: Wikipedia articles are not about giving equal space to all sides of an argument. What matters is the weight that reliable sources give. Eubulides (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health effects section 

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

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

message: Table currently has
:Type I* 	Type II** 	Type III*** 	Type IV
but no indication of what the asterisks are for.
—DIV (138.194.12.32 (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the notes under the table. Skullcinema (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asterisks 

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

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

message: It seems to me that there is some redundance between this article and Ultrapure water. I mark both as candidates for merging.--Polis Tyrol (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Purified water is a broader term than UPW. This determined the difference in the content and the level of details of the articles. It is expected that both definitions will have different audiences: UPW term attracts professional from advanced industries, such as electronic, pharmaceutical, and power while Purified water may attract other audience.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlibman (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend having more than one person in this discussion before removing the merger tag. --Kinu t/c 05:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

text:  I am not an expert, but it seems to me that UPW deserves its own article. Basically, UPW needs a three-stage process, and the first "pretreatment" stage for UPW is more or less identical to "purified water." The UPW article is long enough that it would unnecessarily clutter the "purified water" article if merged. I propose that each article should link to the other appropriately, and I will be bold and just do this and remove the merge tag. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree. -Arch dude (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Purified water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090306164147/http://www.tmasc.com:80/cleaning_chemicals.htm to http://www.tmasc.com/cleaning_chemicals.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081019233111/http://www.hghouston.com:80/Technical%20FAQs/TFAQ021.html to http://www.hghouston.com/Technical%20FAQs/TFAQ021.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Purified water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110715223253/http://www.safetymgmt.com/AIGRiskTools/Knowledge_Center/General_Industry/ELECTRICAL_SAFETY.pdf to http://www.safetymgmt.com/AIGRiskTools/Knowledge_Center/General_Industry/ELECTRICAL_SAFETY.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Purified water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120106170706/http://www.drinkmorewater.com/technology/technology/ to http://www.drinkmorewater.com/technology/technology/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Purified water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923215229/http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/pdfs/2012-Campus-Arlington/Presentations/Wednesday-A/9A2MISCHISSINUniv-Rochester-2012-IDEA-Presentation.pdf to http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/pdfs/2012-Campus-Arlington/Presentations/Wednesday-A/9A2MISCHISSINUniv-Rochester-2012-IDEA-Presentation.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140904210320/http://watersystems.walton.com/ to http://watersystems.walton.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The values for Type III water according to  ASTM D1193-91 in this table deviate from what ASTM D1193 - 91 actually states. Independent from what is in the standard, the combination of a resistivity of 0.05 [MΩ·cm] and a conductivity of 0.25 [μS·cm−1] per definition cannot be true.
reference: ASTM D1193 - 91  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.199.5 (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table "Maximum contaminant levels in purified water" is incorrect for Type III water acc. to ASTM D1193-91 

message: Article omits the 'best' method: Partially directionally freezing feedstock water followed by pouring off the unfrozen portion, followed by melting the more pure ice. It is in the literature. I've been making and using it at home for eight years now. Best tasting water ever. Discovered it by accident...
Here's one:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50599a022?journalCode=iechad
2600:1700:4CA1:3C80:ED78:EA7D:6EE1:95DA (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directional Freezing 

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

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

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

message: Water purification 2409:4042:E88:FEF9:0:0:148B:C011 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water purification introduction 

message: Environment 2409:4042:E88:FEF9:0:0:148B:C011 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water purification introduction