Peter Z.: Despite your seemingly plausible arguments, I am skeptical. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires placebo-controlled double-blind studies to prove the effectiveness of a new medical method. But you don't have anything like that.
The problem with the medical evaluation of activated water is that there is currently no standardized starting point for scientific double-blind studies according to EBM standards. This also applies to studies on hydrogen water of a non-basic nature, although this line of research, which has emerged since 2008, can be methodologically somewhat cleaner because, for the sake of simplicity, hydrogen water is usually used in the form of deionized water with hydrogen content. However, this does not apply to all studies. There is still a lively standardization discussion here.
One difficulty is that, apart from an increase in the partial pressure of oxygen and an increase in blood flow, most of the effects only occur in the long term. And you can't force study participants to stay in the same place for a year. No ethics committee would approve this if the initial situation was so unclear.
Because if someone produces alkaline water in Aachen with the same device and the same settings, they will get a completely different result water than in Madrid, for example, due to the different tap water everywhere and different types of mineral buffers, even if the pH value, the hydrogen content or the redox potential are the same should.
You can safely produce standardized water in a laboratory, but the difficulty lies in the instability of the product. You can't fill it into bottles for patients who are supposed to drink it fresh several times a day.
Standardizing the output water is also not easy. The water researcher V. Shironosov has patented a study system with which the same activated water can be produced anywhere in the world:
First, the water is deionized using reverse osmosis, then defined minerals are added and then electrochemically activated in a water ionizer. That would be one approach, and the system is already being sold as a study version. There are also plans to provide students with standardized activated water in a relatively closed campus at Udmurt University and to document the effects. This would be the first controlled large-scale experiment.
But even if this uniform activated water manufacturing device technically works, who defines the mineral composition of the water for a meaningful scientific study? Is the Severyanka No. 4 Shironosov's mineral mixture is the best concept for this?
Or do we use Gerolsteiner or Volvic, Apollinaris or Nordenau water as a model for the mineral composition, whose effect in the activated state is then to be tested in a complex double-blind study? Where is the institution that can independently design such a study and raise the funds for it?
As of September 2015, I have to admit: Although there has been activated water in Munich since 1931, I only have data that are largely undefined in relation to each other. There is still no relational database on activated water effects worldwide.
So I definitely share your objection: although the discovery has been around for over 80 years, we are still in the scientific hunter-gatherer period when it comes to activated water. But that doesn't mean that we are still conducting research using Stone Age methods. We just don't have enough research money so far.
Excerpt from the book by Karl Heinz Asenbaum: “Electro-activated water – An invention with extraordinary potential. Water ionizers from A – Z”
Copyright 2016 www.euromultimedia.de
