Please add ((WikiProject banner shell)) to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChemistry Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add ((WikiProject banner shell)) to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Acid reflux

@MrOllie Why does the provided study not meet WP:MEDRS? It is from a reliable source, and the edit that I made was clear that this was the only health benefit that has some empirical evidence. Throwing WP:MEDRS at someone without being specific about the violation is not fair. The article as written is clearly not NPOV and needs fixing. Are these studies sufficient? Ronnocerman (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:MEDRS? The bar is clearly stated - claims about health should be from systematic reviews or similar, not single lab experiments. It's right at the top, you don't even have to read the whole policy to find the problem (though you absolutely will need to read the whole thing if you want to edit on biomedical topics on Wikipedia). Even aside from that, the citation you added isn't even about water from an electric ionizer (the topic of this article) it is about water that includes naturally occuring bicarbonite, obviously very different from the topic of this article. The other citations you propose have similar problems. This article meets WP:NPOV - which I will stress does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. If something doesn't work, Wikipedia says so. - MrOllie (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Water Ionizers

@MrOllie


The existence of sham water ionizers does not change the fact that water ionizers raise the pH of drinking water. You can feel free to add clarification that many fake machines exist, but water ionizers do raise the pH of the water, and the cited source confirms this. Ronnocerman (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the 'ionizers' on the market don't actually separate the gases produced by electrolysis - they dissolve right back into the water leaving the PH unchanged. MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the existence of fake manchines or incorrectly-made machines that make false claims does not change the fact that a true water ionizer raises the pH of the water significantly and measurably, as confirmed in the source. Ronnocerman (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I returned some sourcing and content that was removed a while back that explains the issue. MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You returned an armchair chemist's explanation that is unsourced to prove why my edit should not be kept when my edit is backed by a cited medical systemic review referencing multiple specific consumer-grade water ionizers and their ability to produce high-pH water.
The only source cited in your edit disproves the edit if you actually read it. Ronnocerman (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from the noticeboard. It seems you're having two different arguments here. @MrOllie is claiming water ionizers don't produce alkaline water at all, which I understand. The way they are usually presented by proponents does seem to imply that they produce water with dissolved OH- ions and no cation, which is an impossibility. It seems intentional to me, because otherwise it begs the question of why not just use baking soda water or something. @Ronnocerman is claiming they produce alkaline water, which seems to be true, but they produce it either using an ion exchange membrane in a weakly basic solution to obtain Ca(OH)2 and HCl (pro-ionizer site: https://www.3aaa.gr.jp/english/structure.html) or possibly by electrolyzing NaCl to obtain NaOH (polemic essay by a chemistry professor: http://www.chem1.com/CQ/ionbunk.html). The machines that allow you to control the pH apparently do that by mixing Cl2 back into the solution to make HOCl, which can be added to the NaOH solution according to the desired pH. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this mostly mirrors most of my understanding of how they work. (I don't think Cl2 is necessary, though. Just CA(OH)2 and HCl.)
> produce it either using an ion exchange membrane in a weakly basic solution to obtain Ca(OH)2 and HCl
I don't think it's necessary for the solution to be weakly basic. For instance, you could take pure, neutral water and dissolve calcium chloride into it, creating an acid. This can then be electrolyzed via a water ionizer to form alkaline water (via Ca(OH)2), and acidic water (via HCl), as you say.
I believe that dissolved salts in tap water can be sufficient, without introduction of additional NaCl. That said, this is a part I want to do more research on.
I actually tried to split the non-medical discussion into its own topic, which I called "Water ionizers raise the pH of the water they're ionizing.", below. Ronnocerman (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> The way they are usually presented by proponents does seem to imply that they produce water with dissolved OH- ions and no cation, which is an impossibility.
They usually present it as only needing tap water, which has dissolved salts, which is usually sufficient for their operation. Ronnocerman (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie
You may want to take a gander at WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING Ronnocerman (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar, thanks. Sometimes people are just going to disagree with you, it doesn't mean they are 'stonewalling' or that anything nefarious is going on. MrOllie (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes numerous sweeping claims that water ionizers are exclusively pseudoscience in both their mechanical/chemical function and their medicinal effects. This take is incorrect due to being seriously improperly unnuanced.
Some water ionizers exist that don't work at all (no method of action). Some water ionizers exist that technically work, but in a non-meaningful way (ones that don't use a proper membrane or separate outputs via some other method). Some water ionizers exist that meaningfully "work", but not in their stated way (they supplement via mineral infusion while claiming to work via electrolysis).
Many water ionizers exist that work and function via their exact stated methods. You're refusing to allow edits that attempt to clarify this, but are instead adding edits that are patently incorrect misunderstandings of science or with entirely unsourced claims. For example:
> so if the area between the alkaline and acidic water is at least semi-permeable, the water will undergo another reaction that just leaves neutral water
This is not true. "Semi-permeable" does not mean "slowly permeable" as the text you brought back unscientifically implies. I wish you had the same requirement of scientific rigor for your own edits as you do mine. "Semi-permeable" means that it is a membrane that only allows molecules of specific kinds to pass (usually based on size or charge). In the case of an anion-exchange membrane, it conducts anions, but rejects cations and gasses. For example, a semi-permeable membrane is used in Anion exchange membrane electrolysis. Even still, the presence of even a permeable membrane can still be sufficient to properly separate the resulting pH-imbalanced waters for the time necessary to create them before they are pumped out. The linked citation confirms this (referencing a "porous barrier" in the creation of its pH-imbalanced waters), and even tracks the amount of time it takes for the water to diffuse through it until it is neutralized.
On top of this, alkaline water has many "miracle cure" pseudoscience quackery claims made about it, but the fact of the matter is that (as the studies I have shared show) alkaline water does have some very specific health benefits relating to reflux disease.
You make a distinction that the studies I gave do not prove that alkaline water derived via electrolysis (electrolysis-reduced-alkaline-water, or ERAW) provide health benefits, and only suggest that "bicarbonate"-derived water has health benefits. Those studies find that "alkaline water" is effective, and only explain in their methods that the alkaline water they chose to use was bicarbonate-derived. They make their statements based on the alkalinity of the water exclusively, and not based on the method they used to derive it. In no part of their study do they claim that it must be bicarbonate-derived. You're moving the goalposts in a way that these peer-reviewed scientists did not when they made their claims.
> Exposure of pepsin to alkaline water with a pH level greater than 8 has been shown to inactivate pepsin, suggesting that alkaline water might be useful as an adjunct treatment for patients with LPR.
Additionally, there are sources in this article itself that are about the specific health benefits of ERAW, and not about sodium-bicarbonate-derived alkaline water. See here. Suspiciously, the fact that this is a systemic review in favor of ERAW is ignored and it is only referenced as part of the definition of a water ionizer. You won't even let me make an edit to that very statement that is sourced with a systemic review that explains that water ionizers produce alkaline water. Your vague belief that "most of these machines don't actually change the ph", which you leave uncited, does not trump a medical review that explains multiple consumer-grade "water ionizer" machines that produce alkaline water.
Alkaline water is not going to cure cancer, but it is rigorously proven to have some specific health benefits. Yes, even ERAW. Not just sodium-bicarbonate-derived alkaline water.
You're refusing to allow this article to progress in a scientific direction. Large portions of this article are incorrect, unsourced, and make sweeping false generalizations. You're reverting any edits I make that provide for the proper nuance, instead reverting to incorrect and unsourced statements.
You're Status Quo Stonewalling on an article that seriously lacks NPOV. Ronnocerman (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WALLOFTEXT... I will just pick a few sentences that strike me as false.
You're Status Quo Stonewalling Nonsense. The study you quoted was just not good enough: it was a WP:PRIMARY study. The revert was in line with the rules.
"Semi-permeable" does not mean "slowly permeable" Of course it doesn't. Which text is supposed to imply it does? You are not very transparent.
You have no good sources for your extraordinary claim that there are working water ionizers.
The paragraph starting with The effectiveness of the process is debatable is just basic chemistry you learn at school, applied to the claim. It's almost WP:SKYISBLUE territory. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> The study you quoted was just not good enough: it was a WP:PRIMARY study.
Per your link
> Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
Additionally, the other two studies I posted were not, but were still deemed insufficient.
> Of course it doesn't. Which text is supposed to imply it does?
This text:
> if the area between the alkaline and acidic water is at least semi-permeable, the water will undergo another reaction that just leaves neutral water.
A semi-permeable membrane does not imply that the water will mix at any point, even if left for a long period. Semi-permeable membranes are, in fact, a critical component for the function of some kinds of alkaline water electrolyzers.
> You have no good sources for your extraordinary claim that there are working water ionizers.
Per citation 2 on the article itself. Look at Table 2. There are plentry of working ones. They even give the pH, before and after, of different tested streams which show that they produce alkaline water.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/5/4/2094
Look Anion exchange membrane electrolysis if you want more details on how various electrolysis-derived alkaline water producers work.
> is just basic chemistry you learn at school, applied to the claim. It's almost WP:SKYISBLUE territory
The citation for that sentence now cites an article that cites this wiki page. It's a self-citation. It's also scientifically wrong. Ronnocerman (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a video that is highly critical of water ionizers (as I am!), and the only positive points that they mention among the snake oil are the fact that there are good, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that point to benefit for reflux disease and *maybe* being decent for reducing oxidative stress.
See 1:22:29 for the discussion of the reflux study (and there are more than just the one she looked at).
See 1:27:18 where she discusses the fact that reflux disease is likely benefited.
Again, this is from someone who spent the time to make a two hours video tearing apart the idea of water ionizers so people don't get scammed. Her final conclusions throughout the video is that they're marketed in a scammy way, but they certainly produce alkaline water and she concedes that specifically for reflux diseases, they're likely to be helpful. She doesn't even see the other studies that further confirmed that alkaline water helps reflux disease.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSkVkXZz2oA
I use alkaline water for treating my reflux disease, and I can't stand every time I have to hear all the snake oil that is peddled about other aspects of alkaline water. For anything besides reflux disease and (mild) antioxidant properties, alkaline water is snake oil.
Water ionizers do make alkaline water. Water ionizers help with some very specific health conditions. The majority of the positive claims made about them are misleading at best, and entirely false at worst. But they do help with reflux disease.
All I am trying to do is add that nuance to this article. Ronnocerman (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS needs to be followed for health claims. --Hipal (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, the in-vitro study is insufficient unless even-more-heavily qualified than I qualified it. But it's also the least convincing study of the studies I pointed at, which were also discarded as being irrelevant. Ronnocerman (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because none of them meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS, which you have been pointed to several times. Also, it bears mentioning that MDPI is well known as a predatory publisher. MrOllie (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A request for assistance was posted at FTN: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Water_ionizer --Hipal (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herald Source

On the NZ Herald source: A writer with a doctorate in a related field endorsed the Wikipedia article and incorporated (very) similar statements in their article, which is published in a reliable source. It has been tagged as unreliable in the article, with no discussion here on the talk page. It appears to clearly be reliable to me. Thoughts? MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> and incorporated (very) similar statements in their article
It's not just a "very similar statement". It's a direct quote, punctuation and all, of the Wikipedia page at the date of publication of her article. She never makes a claim that she is verifying the information in her statement based on her educational and professional background. Ronnocerman (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She never makes a claim that she is verifying the information in her statement based on her educational and professional background. Wikipedia does not require reliable sources to assert their own credentials in this manner. It would obviously be untenable, since virtually no writers do this. MrOllie (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very concerned that the publication date of the ref is four years after the date the similar content was added to this article by @Project Osprey: [1] without any apparent references. I think it safe to assume that the author, Alison Campbell, took the information from this article, so its reliability is questionable and WP:CIRCULAR. --Hipal (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a Wikipedia mirror, as is envisioned by WP:CIRCULAR. This is a reliable source/credentialed expert that specifically identified the Wikipedia article as good and correct information chose to repeat it specifically. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the general consensus at RSN is that such references are usually found to be unreliable. Should we ask there? --Hipal (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> specifically identified the Wikipedia article as good and correct information
They identified it as "good". They did not identify it as "correct". "Good" can mean that her perception of the article was "thorough"-- and not that she is vouching that it is correct information based on her credentials. Ronnocerman (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started an RSN discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#New_Zealand_Herald,_Whanganui_Chronicle,_opinion_piece? --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Water ionizers raise the pH of the water they're ionizing.

I'm starting a separate topic here for my own sanity of the two topics being bandied back and forth.


This topic is specifically on the subject of whether or not water ionizers can be said to produce alkaline water. This topic is not to debate the health effects of any water that is generated.


Alkaline water is water with a pH of greater than 7.


Per this study, specifically under the heading "4. Different Types of Alkaline Ionized Water Apparatus and Characteristics of the Electrolyzed Water Produced", the exact mechanism is explained by which water ionizers (such as the 8 examples provided in that same heading in Figure 1) produce alkaline water. This is further exemplified by Figure 2 and Figure 3 under that same heading.


Further, in Table 2, it is shown exactly how much the water pH increased from baseline due to these water ionizers. (Starting at 7.28 pH after filtering, and ending with a high of 8.73 pH). This represents an increase of pH, and thus the production of water that is significantly more alkaline than the input water.


Water ionizers produce alkaline water. Anything in this article that contradicts that, without evidence that is more compeling than this study, should be removed. If it can be evidenced, via a reliable source, that a meaningful number of devices exist that claim to increase water pH that in fact do not, then it may also be worth mentioning that "sham" water ionizers exist. Ronnocerman (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, MDPI is a well known predatory publisher. Citing them is not convincing. MrOllie (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is already cited in this article, in the exact sentence that I am wanting to re-write. It's citation 2.
And the other WSJ citation (Citation 3) for that sentence does not contest that it produces alkaline water. It even has a quote that supports it:
> Roberto Car, a professor of chemistry and physics at Princeton University, says the alkalization process described by Chanson sounds scientifically plausible, though he hasn't examined the machine. But Chanson's claim that alkaline water contains microclusters of molecules more readily absorbable by the body is "nonsense," according to Dr. Car and others.
And the last citation for that sentence (Citation 1) ALSO supports that alkaline water is produced:
> Electrolysis-ionized waterhas a controllable pH and a higher oxidation-reduction potential than chemicals. Ronnocerman (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further in Citation 1, if you purchase the study (which I did), they provide a full breakdown of just how acidic and alkaline each of the anode and cathode sides of the electrolysis are, along with how long it takes them to return to neutral if it is allowed to freely re-mix. Ronnocerman (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, all three citations for this sentence either provide strong support (study of water ionizers specifically in citation 2, study of producing alkaline water via electrolysis, which is the same mechanism as machines that are branded water ionizers, in citation 1) or weak support (citation 3) for the claim that water ionizers produce alkaline water. The only other evidence that has been provided against these claims is a circular citation of a pediatric doctor with a degree in a tangentially-related field (biology) quoting this article without directly confirming its veracity.
Even sources that are harshly critical of the machines (citation 2) do not deny that they produce alkaline water.
Unless strong evidence can be provided that these machines don't work, we need to revise the article to reflect this fact.
Given the fact that multiple studies have now been provided that have measured the efficacy of producing alkaline water via electrolysis, strong evidence would need to take the form of more-convincing studies that measure water ionizers and prove that they do not work-- not just a random person with a degree saying that the "chemistry of water ionizers doesn't work". Ronnocerman (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 November 2023

Water ionizer → Alkaline water – Checking Google Ngram, Google Trends, and Google Scholar (alkaline water, water ionizer) makes it very clear that "alkaline water" and its purported health benefits are what this page should focus on and be titled after. More recognizable, much more common. DFlhb (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories