ramster

Hi gkbt Thank you for your reply. Let me try to clarify some points as well Back to basis on ORP https://www.yokogawa.com/library/resources/white-papers/basics-of-orp/ On the contrary ORP is not just greatly affected by pH it is also affected by oxidization and reducing properties. This is a reason why some companies provide a pH compensated ORP device that measure rH or a.ka. relative hydrogen score. This was using the same H2 meter that Ian was using. If you go through the thread you would know what water ionizers I'm using, I believe Ian was marketing at one time as well. Drops works as well but meter tend to most of the talking. I believe Ian was using Trustlex, ENH-1000 with Japanese words which is similar. I have read the link you posted. I apologize if I did not explain myself clearly. There are a few factors that affect ORP readings. The redox couple and its oxidization and reducing properties and pH. Thus, a normal ORP meter is not very useful unless we know what is the redox couple and adjust it for pH as well. For example, most demo like to compare ORP of tap water and ionized water, but the redox couple in water i likely to be different from the ionized water, the pH would differ as well. Hence, some meters have attempted to correct for it by using a relative hydrogen score to tweak the formula. More information on rH or rH2 can be found here. There are limitations to the meters for measuring hydrogen as it measures not just H2 (molecular hydrogen) but also other forms of hydrogen such as hydrogen ions. (Note that molecular hydrogen is the beneficial one) If we now know that molecular hydrogen is what we want to measure, why should we measure it with other variables and attempt to correct that data to calculate the level of H2? Isn't it better to use a method such as H2 blue drops that directly measure the level of dissolved hydrogen? Both methods does have its pros and cons. For a meter, it is easy to use, but proper maintenance and calibration must be done prior to use or the results would be affected. The readings are also a guide rather than actual values due to the lack of an accurate formula for conversion. It is also unlikely to be designed for use on ionized water as the manual here clearly stated that it is not suitable for alkaline ionized water. H2 drops on the other hand, is a titration method to measure the level of dissolved H2. No maintenance nor calibration is required, but it is not as easy to use as proper techniques would be required for accurate readings given that H2 escapes easily and simply stirring the solution will cause H2 to escape. It is also not reusable making it more expensive in the long run. Especially when we are measuring high ppm, such as using hydrogen tablets which can reach above 4ppm. I have indeed gone through the arguments laid out. However that being said, I do not believe because the current science / theory is not sound therefore it is not usable. The fact that water exist in many forms shows its abilities to consistently baffle us. Take for example that a slightly heavier hydrogen atom would change what we deem as normal water to heavy water (think nuclear test.... however some people are saying this could be the elixir of life due to its hydrogen) Under ionization, water is indeed imparted with electrons which normal water do not have. This is already being studied theoretically. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23609128. Therefore the jury is still out as science is always constantly evolving, what we may know works but exactly how it occurs may require some time for evidence to show how it works eventually. That I can agree is a possibility that science have not been able to catch up. I will be observing this for now and focus more on the known facts such as hydrogen level. There are many other forms of water we can discuss if we go into those which science can't proof yet, some of which there is no harm trying out or incorporating it. The reasons why I mentioned it as a myth is because some wrongly market attributes such as not feeling bloated after drinking to microclustering when it is due to our body allowing the water to flow through the stomach into our intestines as the water is alkaline. It is due to pH of the water rather than microclustering. Another is that if microclustering can't be measured how can one market that it is present when it can't be verified? I am not sure what kind of slow release magnesium material, maybe if you could enlighten me on this. Generally speaking, leeching of Magnesium is based on the actual amount of magnesium in the filter cartridge - the amount measure when a cup is drawn out (which is the data you would have). Divided it on the volume of water use and you should arrive to your answer abit crudely since we have not factored osmosis / water pressure etc. I think it is getting a little too technical on this. I doubt any ionizers or filters publish such details that you are looking into including the one you are using. The main concern should have been the level of dissolved hydrogen after a year or 3000 litres. My own testing was 0.5ppm. We should not be distracted by what we are ultimately trying to achieve which is better dissolved hydrogen levels. Which in my opinion the most consistent and reliable way is through H2 tablets. BTW the pictures shows Kangen plates being in a sorry state. However if you (being a Kangen user) have taken it directly from the site, you would know that the pictures tells Kangen users that IF they do not wash their plates after are producing Super oxide water this would result to plate disintegration. Its really not truely calcification perse. I do however agree that calcification do occur if maintenance is not done correctly. This calcification does not occur overnight or over a year (since you rightly pointed out the Singapore's water low TDS does not give evidence to calcification you so vehemently pointed out) but over a prolong period of time. I have taken it from Kangen as it is pictures they have posted, I do not want to get into trouble for posting unofficial photos of other brands etc. My message is simple, if you own an electric ionizer make sure you do proper maintenance, it is only a matter of time before it becomes calcified. I left the caption on the photos as it clearly stated that it is due to calcification and over calcification. It certainly does not happen overnight but it does happen eventually without maintenance. Most users would have realized that their containers turn white if they do not wash or only rinse it. This is due to calcification. From there it is an approximation what is going on within the machine if no maintenance is done. I say this because I have met several users whom are not aware of the need for maintenance or does not have the time to do it. As a result, their ionizers no longer produce the beneficial water it used to and the users are not aware of it. Singapore has low TDS but our water still contain calcium which causes calcification, it is probably slower but it is still happening. Unfortunately just a website that states similarity of Singapore vs Sydney water quality. Simply put the water collection process differs greatly between country to country. Furthermore its contaminants differ greatly as well (think lifestocks / Agri farming etc) Since we are staying in Singapore and we have data on Singapore's water, it would be right to ask for data after its been improved via Ultrastream. I do believe Ian should provide you with Australia water data and not just simply lump Singapore and Australia conveniently together. Personally I find the two water to be similar, I have found data here. Probably you can let me know in which way Australia water is different from Singapore and for better or worse. Personally my main concern is fluoride and it seems like Australia has higher fluoride levels than Singapore. If it can perform well in worse conditions certainly it can perform better in better conditions. Honestly we should not even begin to compare WHO water standards... the standard which was published in 2006 served to provide the MINIMUM quality needed to be passed drinkable. (think 3rd world countries) Testing done by professional labs would have taken all precautions to ensure those contaminants do not leak out into the water recycling process Those standards provide a guideline for countries to work with, but here in Singapore we do not just meet the requirements and often is much lower than the necessary requirements. You can see the pub water quality report here. Do let me know what are your areas of concern for Singapore water. My main concern is chlorine, chloramine and fluoride. Chlorine and Chloramine concentration in Singapore water does not kill bateria. If the concentration was that high, you would essentially be drinking swimming pool water and it taste horrible. It would be good to know if bacteria is truly removed via the KDF filter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_chlorination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloramination I am not an expert on the level that is required, but that is the reason why Chlorine and Chloramine is added to our water. Swimming pool adds a lot more Chlorine as the water is constantly exposed and in contact with people. Tap water on the other hand is enclosed within our tap and if bacteria does breed, it would be at a much slower rate. I do not know about the rates and all, but I believe the bacteria level for Singapore tap water is very low and not much of a concern. Perhaps you can point up to a study or test where bacteria is a matter of concern for Singapore water. Therefore though it may sound impractical, but data of new filter as well as end of life filter using Singapore water would be much appreciated to proof beyond just talk that it works. After all we talk scientific studies which are evidence base (or the lack of it) but when it comes to testing on site, it becomes impractical, vague and lets use previous data? Surely if you intend to market Ultrastream here in Singapore then investment is needed. No? Indeed in an ideal situation, I would like to have every single data available and every Singapore filter / ionizer tested in the same manner at the same time. However, that is not very practical. Neither would the companies be doing that. In this case, there needs to be reasonable doubt that Singapore water is worse than Australia water before a test is required. I would like to ask if the ionizer you used provided such extensive testing whether it is in Singapore or other countries and the link to its testing.

Hi gkbt Thanks for your reply. Regarding what you have said, here are a few things I would like to point out. 1) Iodine turning colourless, below is an explaination on how Iodine reacts with OH- in the alkaline water. Similar to the experiments of adding iodine to starch or bleach for colour changes. What I want to point out is that ORP is greatly affected by pH and not a good indicator. Actual H2 levels should be measured as the antioxidant in alkaline water is H2. ORP is simply a proxy for H2 and it is not a good proxy. 2) Microclustering, yes in the past, Alkaway used to advertise microclustering as well, but when Ian learned about microclustering as a myth, he has explained about it on his website here and no longer promote microclustering. In fact, he has been educating consumers on why microclustering is a myth for a while. I am happy to take a look at the studies you are going to show me. However, I hope you can look at the articles explaining why microclustering is a myth below. There are four parts to the article and I have posted the first. http://www.molecularhydrogenfoundation.org/microclustering-the-making-of-a-myth-part-1-facts-claims-and-history/ 3) Dissolved hydrogen levels, no worries about that the ppm and ppb, we are all learning more about it here. I haven't got to test out the system you mentioned yet, and may I know which ionizer you are using? You said the same method that Ian uses, can you be more specific about the method as there are a 2 main methods of testing H2 levels. First is using a H2 blue reagent which is blue but turns colourless when there is dissolved hydrogen. Each drop = 0.1ppm. This is currently the most accurate method available for residential users. The second method is to use a H2 meter such as the one from trustlex. However, it is important to note that those meters are not suitable for ionized or alkaline water. It is another form of ORP meter that also has a pH meter to attempt to correct for the effects of pH, but it does not work properly in ionized water. The company actually states that it is not suitable for ionized water in its manual as well. Proof below I have tried a similar ionizer that claims high dissolved hydrogen levels, but unfortunately due to the low amount of TDS in Singapore water, it does not perform as well as US where the TDS is much higher. TDS or minerals in the water is necessary for electrolysis to be performed effectively as water is not a good conductor of electricity. I do hope to know how it measured the 1600 ppb and how you measured 889 ppb. Since you mentioned 889 ppb, I suspect you are using a meter as well which might not be an accurate reading. Regarding the magnesium being used on a daily basis, the Ultrastream uses a slow release magnesium which is designed to last a year. After a year, the replacement cartridge will be replaced where a new media for producing H2 will be present. Thus, at each filter replacement, the machine would be like brand new. In short it might dip over the year but it is replaced annually, but the plates in electronic ionizers are not replaced and can only be cleaned. However, cleaning depends on the user and results may vary. About the use after a year, the difficulty is that every user is different and to conduct such test will be difficult. I haven't heard of any ionizers that shows its levels of dissolved hydrogen after a year. For my own filter, I still had 0.5ppm when I measured it casually using the H2 drops before I replaced my filter. Note that measuring with H2 drops is a delicate process since H2 escapes very easily and will affect the final result. Note that cleaning is very important to prevent calcium built up such as these. Note that even if the machine have self cleaning for the plates, calcium can still build up in the tubes and other areas of the machine. Regarding testing in Singapore vs Australia, I agree that source water may be different. However, both water quality standards in Singapore and Australia is high and we already have a relative high standard of water. The comparison I can find for the two is https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Singapore&city1=Singapore&country2=Australia&city2=Sydney, which shows that our water quality is quite similar. PUB does publish reports on Singapore water quality but I can't find similar reports in Australia. Would appreciate if you can show me that Australia water differs significantly from Singapore. I would also like to note that the aim of such reports is to show the safety and reliability of the filter at the end of its life, which is something most filters and ionizers did not conduct or publish. Alkaway is already setting up a high standard even if it is only tested in Australia and I do hope all water filters/ionizers can follow as well. Ideally, testing for every country and every substance would be the best, but not very practical especially when most countries are following similar water guidelines set by WHO. Also note that during the testing, highly contaminated water is used and it is still able to be filtered to meet compliant concentrations at the end of the filter life. Source water usually vary in terms of TDS (Total dissolved solid) or the amount of minerals, salts and metals in the water. Singapore have low TDS or soft water, which is why electrolysis machines works better in US (High TDS hard water) compared to Singapore. This is why I use UltraStream as a natural ionizer does not depend on the source water to produce dissolved hydrogen which electric ionizers depends heavily on it. Regarding bacteria, there is already chlorine and chloramine in our tap water for it. On top of that, UltraStream uses KDF filter which removes bacteria too. KDF filters can last up to 6 years which is more than sufficient for our 1 year usage. Cheers

For its price, I believe there are better ones. Hyflux wins in its marketing due to its size. As mentioned: When choosing a filter, look out if it removes, chloramine, chlorine and fluoride. Request for lab test reports to prove it does that, and a filter life test to ensure that it keeps doing that till the end. When comparing replacement filter prices, take note of the number of filters it needs and the replacement cost as a whole annually. Some systems have multiple filters that needs replacing at different times at relatively low prices, but summed up can be much more expensive. When choosing an ionizer, look out for molecular hydrogen, H2, dissolved hydrogen as the antioxidant. Not negative ORP. Again, make sure they have lab test reports on the level of dissolved hydrogen. Many systems have negative ORP but very low or zero dissolved hydrogen. Ignore microclustering claims as it is technically impossible for water to behave in that manner. For more information check out http://www.molecularhydrogenfoundation.org/core-information/ Also take note of maintenance, different systems require different amount of maintenance. For me I prefer those with zero maintenance.

Hi Wirriam There are a few reasons why I made the switch, 1) Dissolved hydrogen, the amount of dissolved hydrogen from my kangen machine is 0.3 PPM after cleaning and drops to 0 within a week. UltraStream gives me 0.8 to 1.2 PPM without the need to clean. 2) Maintenance (Time cost), as kangen loses its dissolved hydrogen level quickly, there is a need to spend time every weekend to do ecleaning, which is very time consuming and troublesome. At first it was fine, then it became a chore and I start to get lazy to keep cleaning it. As UltraStream does not use electrolysis, zero maintenance is required, just 1 filter change a year. Edit: Adding in the link to Enagic Machine Maintenance Steps this shows the amount of time it takes to maintain it. The constant cleaning/flushing adds on to the waste water as well. Which is why my experience is much more waste water than the 10 to 15L in theory. 3) Filter, Kangen is an ionizer not a water filter, it only has a basic filter that removes chlorine, while Ultrastream remove chlorine, chloramine, fluoride, heavy metals and more. I didn't see much information on what kangen removes but for UltraStream there is lab test reports and even one for the life time of its filter (3000 litires) This is assurance on how the filter will perform towards the end of its life. 4) Cost ($$$) Ultrastream cost only $999 for a new unit while kangen cost over $5000 even $8000. It is much more affordable and reasonably priced since it is not a MLM company. When using kangen, I need to replace filters about 3 to 4 times a year, purchase its cleaning powder for ecleaning, do a annual deep cleaning. All this cost adds up to over $500 a year, excluding utility cost. 5) Upgrade cost. As technology improves, to upgrade I need to buy a brand new kangen ionizer. For UltraStream, it is built into the filter, so when they improve their filtration and ionization media, I get it with each filter replacement. No need to buy a new machine. 6) Waste water, plenty of waste water for kangen, at least 30% of the water is wasted while Ultrastream has zero waste water. There is also no need to have unsightly and space consuming pails around my ionizer to catch all the waste water. 7) No electricity, one less worry. No electricity means no worries if my ionizer gets wet, operating with wet hands etc. Kangen is safe, but I am probably more paranoid about electronics near water. There are probably more reasons but higher levels of hydrogen, lower cost, zero maintenance and ability to upgrade are my biggest reasons. One afternoon every weekend to do ecleaning was just too much for us. The above are all my personal experiences with the ionizers that I have and am using. Different users may have different experiences.

Hi gkbt Thank you for highlighting that to me, was sharing about it as I was previously a Kangen user till I found out more about hydrogen which led me to Ultrastream. What I wanted to say about ORP is that high ORP is not equal to high dissolved hydrogen levels. We have to understand how an ORP meter works. I am not an expert on this matter so I will quote what I read from Randy Sharpe with a screenshot at the end of the post. 1) An orp meter compares the difference in oxidation state between two species of the same element in the water. These pairs are called "redox couples".In the case of H2 water, the element is hydrogen and the redox couple is H2/H+. 2) The meter calculates a voltage potential based on the relative concentration of these two species in the water according to the Nernst equation: E = E0 - [RT/zF*Log[H2/H+] (you can see the redox couple in the brackets). 3) Remember that the H+ ion also happens to be the ion responsible for the pH of water: pH= -log[H+]. 4) Therefore, since both the concentration of the H+ ion (pH) and the H2 molecule contribute to the negative orp reading, changing EITHER ONE will change the orp reading. Dissolved hydrogen or H2, is measured in both ppb and ppm. PPB is simply parts per billion and ppm is parts per million. Hence, 1PPM = 1000PPB. I think you might want to check on your 5 PPB measurement as that is very low and difficult to measure. For example, H2 blue reagent drops measure H2 in units of 0.1ppm or 100PPB. I personally used the H2 drops on my Kangen machine and found that it gave a reading of 0.3 PPM or 300 PPB after doing ecleaning, and 0 PPM or less than 100 PPB after just 1 week of use. My ultrasteam on the other hand gave me 0.8 to 1.2 PPM even though both machines have similar ORP of -500 to -700. Although Singapore water is soft, it still causes calcification. My water bottles still form a white layer after repeated use and the H2 level dropped after only 1 week. Other brands do have other methods to slow down the rate of calcification but it would still occur over time and cleaning using citric acid would be required. (Note using acidic water from the ionizer is not enough as it does not have sufficient acidity. It is low in pH but does not hold it pH well. It can be shown by the amount of 9.5 or 11.5 water needed to neutralize a 2.5 water vs 7up which is similar in pH. For users of electrolysis machine, it is important that they clean their machine regularly to prevent calcium build up on the plates and tubes. When calcium builds up on the plates, it can damage the plates making it very costly to replace. Some machines alternate between the cathode and anode to prevent calcium build up on the plates, but calcium will still build up on the tubes and other areas of the machine. As for waste water, in theory yes, it should not be too much. but from practice, we have about 1 pail of water each day to throw away. Am glad that you pointed out acidic water does not breed mosquitoes, I still pour away the water each day just to be sure if I didn't get to use them. For ionizer filters, not all of them remove/reduce chloramine and fluoride as they often come with basic carbon filters. I can't speak for all ionizers, just have to check their test reports on what it removes and look out for chloramine and fluoride. Thank you for contributing and helping others make an informed decision about water filters and ionizers. .

Hi Papala I recommend you take a look at Ultrastream. You can contact their Singapore office at 6635 8138. When choosing a water filter and ionizer, it is important to note that they are two different things. A water filter is meant to filter impurities from the water supply while the ionizer makes the water better, commonly called alkaline water. When looking at a water filter, 1) Look for lab test reports. All filters should come with lab test report to prove that they do remove the items they claim to remove. Specifically, I would look at, chlorine, chloramine and fluoride as they are added into our water supply by pub. Most filters do not filter chloramine and fluoride as they are very difficult to remove. 2) Look for lifetime lab test report. If they claim 3000 litres, we should know how the filter will function when it reaches 3000 litres. Some filters are unable to filter the water once it reaches its maximum capacity. Some even begin to discharge the "stuff" it filtered back into the water when it reaches its capacity, making the water dirtier than unfiltered tap water. (This is the reason why some users whom did not change filters for years start to feel sick after drinking from their water filter) 3) Check for calcium and magnesium levels. A good water filter should only filter things that are bad for our body while keeping essential minerals such as calcium and magnesium in the water. When looking at a water ionizer. 1) Look our for the word molecular hydrogen or H2 Molecular hydrogen or H2 is the main contributor of the health benefits claimed by water ionizers. It has over 700 studies on its benefits on various diseases and is promising medical gas of the future. Most ionizers uses a process called electrolysis to produce alkaline and acidic water. This process also creates molecular hydrogen in the process which was only discovered in 2007 to be the contributor of the health benefit. However, it is still unknown to most people and many machines are built to maximize pH and ORP rather than molecular hydrogen level. Most machine can only produce H2 levels of 0 to 0.03 ppm, However, electrolysis machines also squeezes calcium out of the water making it stick onto the machine and electrolysis plates, this reduces the amount of H2 causing it to drop to 0 after 1 to 2 weeks requiring cleaning by the user. (The calcium can also be seen by drink bottles turning white after repeated use as the calcium sticks onto it) Natural ionizers like Ultrastream is built to maximize H2 levels in the water, at about 0.8 to 1.2 ppm. This is 3 to 4 times the amount of hydrogen in electrolysis ionizers. By not requiring electrolysis, natural ionizers do not produce waste water, requires no power supply and zero maintenance. Do note that a negative ORP does not mean that it is an antioxidant. In fact ORP is a poor measure of the benefit of the water itself due to how it functions. See this article for the misconceptions regarding ORP meters To learn more information about molecular hydrogen and the real science behind water ionizers, visit this link to the molecular hydrogen foundation website. 2) Convenience, Zero Maintenance. I find it best to have a filter that has minimum maintenance requirements or filter changes. Less items to worry about. Ionizers that requires 2h every 2 weeks are a big drain of time and money in the long run. 3) Waste water. Most electrolysis ionizers create waste acidic water which is difficult to utilize. I found myself wasting a lot of precious water using such ionizers. (Yes I can use it for laundry/mop the floor etc, but it is not everyday that I do those and I create more waste water than I can use which goes down the drain) Please do not keep the water too long to prevent mosquito from breeding! 4) Filtration ability, most ionizers are NOT water filters and only have a basic filter that filters chlorine. Always ask for the lab test report to understand what it removes. Lab test reports should be easy to read such as the one below, note the comparison when filter is new and after it filtered 3600 litres of water. Finally, a word of caution for RO systems or Nano filtration systems that makes the water too pure. WHO has issued a warning that there are health risks from consumption of demineralised water. Full report here WHO Report Here is my summary and thoughts after reading it. 1) Demineralised water is, RO water, distilled water, nano filtered water or any water so pure that it has little to no minerals in it. 2) Demineralised water is harmful, takes away essential minerals from our body causing mineral deficiency which compromise the function of vital organs. Symptoms at the very beginning of this condition include tiredness, weakness and headache; more severe symptoms are muscular cramps and impaired heart rate. 3) It is very important and beneficial for our water to contain Calcium and Magnesium. Lack of these minerals in our water will result in deficiencies within weeks or months. Although drinking water is not the major source of our calcium and magnesium intake, the health significance of supplemental intake of these elements from drinking water may outweigh its nutritional contribution expressed as the proportion of the total daily intake of these elements. Even in industrialized countries, diets deficient in terms of the quantity of calcium and magnesium, may not be able to fully compensate for the absence of calcium and, in particular, magnesium, in drinking water. 4) High loss of calcium, magnesium and other essential elements (over 60%!) in food cooked with demineralised water 5) Possible increased dietary intake of toxic metals as low-mineral leaches metals from materials in contact with water resulting in an increased metal content (highly aggressive water) 6) Calcium and, to a lesser extent, magnesium in water and food are known to have antitoxic activity. They can help prevent the absorption of some toxic elements such as lead and cadmium from the intestine into the blood Choosing a water filter and ionizer is not an easy task. We all want the best for our family and it won't do us any justice if the product is unable to deliver what it claims. I choose to trust lab test reports rather than take what a salesperson says at face value.