Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Healthier H2O

  1. #1 Healthier H2O 
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Until I read this PopSci article below I wasn't aware that D2O in concentrations of 150 or higher PPM is bad for your health. Is this a form of water pollution the public should know about? I'm a little disappointed about drinking an unhealthy amount of heavy water all my life an not even knowing about it.

    In an effort to produce mass quantities of healthier H2O, Chinese scientists have come up with a new method to change water’s chemical composition. It involves making light water.

    Natural water has tiny amounts of D2O molecules, deuterium and oxygen, mixed in with the dihydrogen monoxide. Deuterium, also called heavy hydrogen, is an isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron. In North America, typical drinking water has a deuterium concentration of about 150 ppm, roughly equivalent to a few drops per every quart.

    Water with higher concentrations of D2O is known as heavy water, and it is harmful to plants and animals. By contrast, water with hardly any D2O — or light water — can boost the immune system and benefit plant and animal health, according to several studies. In one study from 2003, plant photosynthesis increased with the use of light water. A study involving mice blasted with ionizing radiation showed a dramatic difference in survival between mice that drank light water and mice that drank regular water. It is even used as a cancer treatment for humans: In 2008, researchers reported that light water noticeably lengthened the lifespan of terminal cancer patients.

    Given these positive effects, it seems smart to provide greater quantities of light water for public consumption. But it’s hard to produce — current methods include electrolysis, distillation, a high-temperature exchange method that uses hydrogen sulfide, and desalination from seawater, according to authors Feng Huang and Changgong Meng of the Department of Chemistry at Dalian University of Technology in China. These methods are either expensive, inefficient or bad for the environment.
    The authors propose a new method involving a platinum catalyst, which quickly removes deuterium from water using cold and hot temperatures, according to the American Chemical Society. The result is water with a deuterium concentration of roughly 125 ppm.

    The method could be the basis for industrial-scale light water production — and a new way to produce huge quantities of healthier water for the masses.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    From what I am seeing in after a little searching around D2O (also known as heavy water), is natually found in the body and only becomes toxic if 25% to 50% of the body's water is replaced with heavy water.

    As the body is constantly recycling water Im not sure the possibility of this happening and anything but remote.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    From what I am seeing in after a little searching around D2O (also known as heavy water), is natually found in the body and only becomes toxic if 25% to 50% of the body's water is replaced with heavy water.

    As the body is constantly recycling water Im not sure the possibility of this happening and anything but remote.
    Maybe I'm overreacting a bit, but according to that article, drinking light water (>150 PPM) is healthier for you. That would suggest that the average tap water we drink is not my first choice drinking water anymore.

    When you talk about toxic levels, are you referring to lethal levels or just make you very sick levels. What about health effects over time that are very hard to measure levels. Suppose drinking light water could add another 10-15 years to your life span, but only if you drink it all your life?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    From what I am seeing in after a little searching around D2O (also known as heavy water), is natually found in the body and only becomes toxic if 25% to 50% of the body's water is replaced with heavy water.

    As the body is constantly recycling water Im not sure the possibility of this happening and anything but remote.
    Maybe I'm overreacting a bit, but according to that article, drinking light water (>150 PPM) is healthier for you. That would suggest that the average tap water we drink is not my first choice drinking water anymore.

    When you talk about toxic levels, are you referring to lethal levels or just make you very sick levels. What about health effects over time that are very hard to measure levels. Suppose drinking light water could add another 10-15 years to your life span, but only if you drink it all your life?
    As I noted though, the body is constantly cycling the water present in it, and heavy water is naturally occurring in small amounts already, so the human creature is already adapted to cope with the natural levels. Any levels above the background levels have to be artificially concentrated or created, which is not a cheap process and I highly doubt that any H.W. being produced that way would be used fro human consumption.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    As I noted though, the body is constantly cycling the water present in it, and heavy water is naturally occurring in small amounts already, so the human creature is already adapted to cope with the natural levels. Any levels above the background levels have to be artificially concentrated or created, which is not a cheap process and I highly doubt that any H.W. being produced that way would be used fro human consumption.
    I understand what you are saying. But the article made it clear that drinking light water measurably improves health, and the Chinese want to make it available for as many of their population as possible.

    To me this isn't much different than finding out that your diet is deficient in some of the important vitamins your body needs for better health.

    But what do I know, maybe this is the start of an ad campaign to sell bottled light water. If so, it's working because I already want to buy it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    As I noted though, the body is constantly cycling the water present in it, and heavy water is naturally occurring in small amounts already, so the human creature is already adapted to cope with the natural levels. Any levels above the background levels have to be artificially concentrated or created, which is not a cheap process and I highly doubt that any H.W. being produced that way would be used fro human consumption.
    I understand what you are saying. But the article made it clear that drinking light water measurably improves health, and the Chinese want to make it available for as many of their population as possible.

    To me this isn't much different than finding out that your diet is deficient in some of the important vitamins your body needs for better health.

    But what do I know, maybe this is the start of an ad campaign to sell bottled light water. If so, it's working because I already want to buy it.
    As noted in the Wiki article on heavy water, "Light water" is normal H2O, not a anything special. Thus the claims of the Chinese (most likely a bottling company??) are bunk from what I can tell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    As noted in the Wiki article on heavy water, "Light water" is normal H2O, not a anything special. Thus the claims of the Chinese (most likely a bottling company??) are bunk from what I can tell.
    According to the article normal water averages 150 PPM, their process gets that down to an average of 125 PPM. That doesn't seem to be enough of a difference to be very useful. I would like to see some follow up studies on different concentrations of
    deuterium in water right on down to zero PPM. But I going to have to assume that is wishful thinking, from a funding standpoint.

    You didn't happen to find any information about why heavy water is bad for living things did you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    I agree, from what I read, the body is fine with natural the highest levels levels of D2O that can be found. If I recall, I also found the approxomate 25% number, though I don't recall it going as high as 50%. I believe the max range I read was 25% to 30%.

    When people talk of healthier water, i think of the three energy levels that H2O can have. The MO theory allows three different bonding patterns between the atoms. It wouldn't surprise me if this played a role as well in our health.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Sounds like a fraud to me. Normal water contains small amounts of deuterium, and as Paleoichneum said, we are already adapted to handling that. If you want to pay someone $$$ for sending you water claimed to have less deuterium, then I am afraid you have been right royally suckered. I seriously doubt that any deuterium has been removed, and I doubt even more that it matters a damn.

    I dunno about anyone else, but my hard earned money gets spent on things I need, rather than something as nutty as this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 hi 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2
    nice .. good day


    get backlinks - globe load - buy backlinks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Sounds like a fraud to me. Normal water contains small amounts of deuterium, and as Paleoichneum said, we are already adapted to handling that. If you want to pay someone $$$ for sending you water claimed to have less deuterium, then I am afraid you have been right royally suckered. I seriously doubt that any deuterium has been removed, and I doubt even more that it matters a damn.

    I dunno about anyone else, but my hard earned money gets spent on things I need, rather than something as nutty as this.
    You are probably right, but I'll bet you've spent money on things or food you thought was a healthier choice and as you get older making healthier choices will become more important to you. Also you are right in that there are many people that wish to take advantage of all that money waiting to be spent. It is hard to always know when you are being ripped off, and even if you are, unless you have a better option, you will probably take the chance anyway. After all it is your money and you can't take it with you when you die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Sounds like a fraud to me. Normal water contains small amounts of deuterium, and as Paleoichneum said, we are already adapted to handling that. If you want to pay someone $$$ for sending you water claimed to have less deuterium, then I am afraid you have been right royally suckered. I seriously doubt that any deuterium has been removed, and I doubt even more that it matters a damn.

    I dunno about anyone else, but my hard earned money gets spent on things I need, rather than something as nutty as this.
    You are probably right, but I'll bet you've spent money on things or food you thought was a healthier choice and as you get older making healthier choices will become more important to you. Also you are right in that there are many people that wish to take advantage of all that money waiting to be spent. It is hard to always know when you are being ripped off, and even if you are, unless you have a better option, you will probably take the chance anyway. After all it is your money and you can't take it with you when you die.
    LOL...

    Paying for "lite water"...

    Diets these days...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    LOL...

    Paying for "lite water"...

    Diets these days...
    “Lite water” - I'd bet my last dollar that's already been copyrighted.

    But there have been legitimate studies that say there is something healthier about drinking less D2O than normal tap water has, and when you consider what people currently pay for bottled water,it doesn't take a genius to see major dollar signs in selling healthy lite water.

    If you currently pay for bottled water and the new lite water didn't cost much more, wouldn't you give it a try?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Please show me the studies that lower D2O leads to greater health.

    And no. I do not pay money for bottled water. If I need to drink water, what comes from the tap is sufficiently safe. If I need water while travelling, I fill bottles from the tap. If you do not like the taste of tap water, simply boil it, let it cool, jug it, and put it in the fridge. End result tastes fine. A lot cheaper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    There are also studies showing soft water increases cardiovascular mortality risk, thought to come from a lack of magnesium and calcium. The evidence is based on old epidemiological studies - not the best.

    There are far, far bigger risk factors for overall mortality to worry about both at the individual and population level.

    Show us the D20 studies Lance.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    I was referring to the studies mentioned in the article I posted to start this topic. I don't see any reason to doubt what was said. If skeptic likes his tap water, that's good, but many of us don't have good tasting tap water and all of us have read about some horror stories about bad tap water that wasn't detected before it caused unfixable harm. Whether what was said about the health effects of low D2O water are true or false, I don't really know, but the article made it sound like the Chinese government believes it does and I thought that was worth exploring on this forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Seems like snake oil as well.

    I do reject the argument that we shouldn't be concerned because "we are adapted" to natural levels. That's not a good argument.

    Whatever adaptations we carry are mostly to make it to about age 40 and not much more because there wasn't a strong survival benefit for the species to live longer than that. A good example might be high-fat diets. Several studies show were resist the effects much better than some other species, such as dogs. Most of us will make it to 40 regardless of what we eat. Yet still it's not good to eat a high fat diet if you intend to live to be 70.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lance

    I do not have your popsci article.
    Could you post the reference again?

    Fox
    There appears to be some doubt these days about high fat diets. While some government departments continue to recommend a low fat diet, there is a growing movement, with good data backing, to blame dietary harm more on high carbohydrate than high fat. For example ; the average American has been dropping his fat intake since the 1970's, yet heart disease continues to rise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Fox
    There appears to be some doubt these days about high fat diets.
    Not really. There's a lot of money being put into sewing doubt in the mind of the public backed by a multi-billion dollar fast food industry and the diet businesses trying to make money off bad science like the Atkins crowd, but in the health science journals there's no doubt at all: High fat diets are bad for most people's hearts. Excessively carbohydrates are also bad and add to the problem.

    My main point is there's a lot of things we're adapted to as a species up to about age 40 but there's been little evolutionary pressure to adapt to anything much beyond that age.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Lance

    I do not have your popsci article.
    Could you post the reference again?
    http://www.popsci.com.au/2011/01/wit...tizens-thirst/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    My main point is there's a lot of things we're adapted to as a species up to about age 40 but there's been little evolutionary pressure to adapt to anything much beyond that age.
    I guess I can say thanks to living past my time then. I had my appendix out 11 years ago. It hasn't really been that long ago when that was a death sentence. Without cataract surgery how many people would live to be old and blind. Not a pleasant thought.

    Just living longer without an equal increase in health is not a good thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Lance

    Had a look at your popsci reference.

    Frankly, I am damn sure it is a scam. The article referred to several 'studies' without enough data to allow any checks of their validity. It also referred to using a catalyst to create light water. Catalysts are used to speed or slow chemical reactions. Adding or reducing deuterium content is not a chemical reaction and catalysts cannot affect that..

    Simply, this article is 100% bullsh!t.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Been looking up the reference from the popsci article, plus my own digging around.

    There's an idea that light water plays a role in cell signalling, and might be useful as an anti-cancer agent. However feasible the idea might be it hasn't been tested at all. The one reference the article gave had 4 patients. 4! I can't believe they got published with just 4 patients. You can't say anything based on a sample of 4. The rest i found was based on tumorous animal models, which were interesting but you can't extrapolate much to a human population from it. Then there's another argument that if deuterium does play some role in the cell cycle we better not mess around with it until we know what's going on, it might be needed. But looks like progress will be slow - the few i found were from obscure journals

    I'd revise skeptic's evaluation down to about 80% bull.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Lance

    Had a look at your popsci reference.

    Frankly, I am damn sure it is a scam. The article referred to several 'studies' without enough data to allow any checks of their validity. It also referred to using a catalyst to create light water. Catalysts are used to speed or slow chemical reactions. Adding or reducing deuterium content is not a chemical reaction and catalysts cannot affect that..

    Simply, this article is 100% bullsh!t.
    I agree it is probably bullshit. But keep this in mind. HOH has an atomic mass of 18. DOH, a mass of 19, and DOD, a mass of 20. This means a 5.6% and 10.1% greater in gravitational attraction. There is something to heavy water being harmful, and I doubt such small quantities as 150 ppm matter, but keep an open mind as it might. I would contend that more study in needed on this topic.

    As for the catalyst, it may simply be a way of trapping the water with deuterium and making an easily filtered out molecule.

    Now this may be a bit in error, or maybe they also filter out oxygen 17 and 18 as well. They have an abundance of 380 ppm and 2050 ppm. Still, keeping an open mind, how are they used by the body? Hydrogen is widely used in tissue makeup. Other than fluid water, is oxygen so prevalent? We find hydrogen in almost everything. Fatty tissue, sugars, vitamin D, etc. Now my biology is weak in that I don't know how much oxygen is in our body outside of water, but this is another factor to consider, should one maintain an open mind.

    -----

    edit...

    Just looked...

    Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine all contain oxygen and nitrogen as a fair part of their molecular composition.

    Maybe it's the oxygen isotopes that really matter, and the mark is missed a little?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    There are some notable difference in various isotope combinations for water:

    Water Properties (including heavy water data)

    I was looking for data on the bond angle, which does change also. I wonder how much an effect it can have on something as numerically significant as the hydrogen bonds in the chains of DNA.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    There are some notable difference in various isotope combinations for water:

    Water Properties (including heavy water data)

    I was looking for data on the bond angle, which does change also. I wonder how much an effect it can have on something as numerically significant as the hydrogen bonds in the chains of DNA.
    Damn!!! There's a lot more to water than I ever thought about. For instance what do they call T-18O-T (Super Heavy Water). I don't imagine tritium oxide molecules happen naturally very often, which is good, because drinking them can't be good.

    Considering how heavy tritium oxide is, I wonder if its ice form floats in regular water? Anyway I'm with you in thinking much more testing needs to be done. They did say that their method of filtering the D2O out of H2O only reduced the amount down to about 125ppm, which is not a very big difference. However, Lite Water sounds like a marketing gold mine and I might like to get in on the ground floor investing in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Wenban
    Damn!!! There's a lot more to water than I ever thought about.
    There's a lot more to most things than people realize. I really find it ironic that people are so certain about things, when we have barley scratched the surface of the sciences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    India
    Posts
    3
    Hello everyone thanks for information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •