Just about everybody that's used to normal unsoftened water has experienced that slippery feeling when getting into a shower of softened water. But softened water is still a long way from being pure and once you get used to it you don't notice the extra slippery feel to it.
Hmmm.... Maybe I'm just used to it then? Maybe I've lost some of the sensation in my fingers burning them cooking so I can't tell the difference anymore lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Read the link, even eatting extra didn't replace what was missing in the water And I see no evidence at all comming.from you or read, seems that you think a PR worker had a better science background than those who work for the WHO, maybe you should go for a job there to save them.money on all that costly resurch, they could replace it with "ask phlogistician" I don't know what logical faciliy this one is, apeals to anacdotal evidence? Appeals to stupidity?
Some (not necessarily reliable) thoughts from a pre-clinical med student... I don't think water intoxication would be confused with heat stroke, unless there was some existing heat exhaustion anyway. The key first line management of heat stroke is reducing temperature. They certainly shouldn't be just pumping you full of IV fluids. There is a long list of differential diagnoses for heat stroke (including nasties like sepsis, meningitis, and thyroid storm), so they'll want to get a good history and run the standard blood tests in the emergency department (full blood count, liver function tests, urea and electrolytes) before aggressive fluid therapy. I'm pretty sure that taking bloods and electrolytes is required before any fluid resus, because maintaining or correcting electrolytes is an inseparable part of maintaining fluid balance. Fun! Also dangerous! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Kids, get your parents to help out. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! video
I think you need to sit down and carefully re-read(or understand) this paper, here is a quote: "Experiments in animals, primarily rats, for up to one-year periods have repeatedly shown that the intake of distilled water or water with TDS ≤ 75 mg/l leads to: 1) increased water intake, diuresis, extracellular fluid volume, and serum concentrations of sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl) ions and their increased elimination from the body, resulting in an overall negative balance if it is not adequately compensated from food" I.E. What you eat can stop the effects. HOWEVER, I will agree that for the intended audience (people trying to help in the third world) this is important to keep in mind. With our first world diet we replace anything that this would wash away with all the crap we eat but if you feed a third world kid who has nothing to eat some pure water it could be bad for them. You would have to re-mineralize it for sure if the diet would not compensate for the withdrawal of minerals from the body (not huge but if your already on the edge it could definitely affect you) so you are half right.
I'm not a pre-med lol. Actually I've gotten this one from experience (and the military where it happens more often). You hear about a couple of deaths from this every year because the outward signs are similar.
Thanks Believe. Experience trumps classrooms! I'm guessing that the military cases would involve some heat exhaustion as well? E.g. a soldier is heavily exercising, and accordingly drinking lots of water (without electrolytes) to replace losses? I remember reading a case (long ago, before I was thinking of medicine) where a young soldier died because he suffered heat exhaustion, then was rested and told (several times, by different people) to drink water, which he did to the point of intoxication. I should look up the paramedic protocols regarding oral and IV fluid replacement. It would be interesting reading.
And if you read further down both rat and human modling showed that the loss of calcium and magnesium were NOT replaced by increase in food EVEN IN WESTEN COUNTRIES. You read only the first page not the whole article
Show me where it says that (not being a dick I really didn't see it if it's there). My quote is from like the 12th page btw.
2.2 deals with calicium and magnesium and 2.3 deals with fluride, zinc ect both say the loss from water, even when compensated with a higher dose from food is not compensated leading to deficiency in those minerals. As calcium is one of the most important minerals because without it mussles (including the heart) can't contract its deficiency is pritty bloody important. If you want more you will have to wait till tomorrow when I'm home with a computer I.can copy paste on rather than my phone
Ok I got it now bottom of page 8 where it says: "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 not 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." Key word there is MAY as in it's an untested assumption at best (note the lack of a source for that area of the paper if you read it) Also, the version of this paper that you provided explicitly states that: Draft for review and comments (Not for citation) I.E. not finished. I wonder if that little bit even made it in the final paper.
Hi Asguard, Maybe I'm biased, but a skim of that WHO document doesn't instill confidence in its conclusions. I've tried chasing down a few of its references. The one it uses most is a 1980 document, WHO, Guidelines on health aspects of water desalination. ETS/80.4, but I can't find that document online to see what it actually says. I can find plenty of references to it on sites that maintain the toxicity of deionized water, but I have a cynical suspicion that this is reference recycling. There are a couple of things to consider - the total electrolytes, which is related to cells bursting, and individual electrolytes, which is related to arrhythmias. That article seemed to consider calcium and magnesium to be the most important deficiencies. Short version: Injecting tap water into your veins is just as bad as injecting distilled deionized water. Children with severe diarrhea and vomiting are not any better off drinking tap water than distilled deionized water. They need electrolyte supplementation, possibly via IV. More detail: Total electrolytes The swelling and exploding of cells can happen when intercellular fluid has a higher osmolarity (ie more electrolytes) than extracellular fluid. (I think protein oncotic pressure is also involved, but not relevant to us right now.) You can see this happen if you put red blood cells in tap water: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The normal osmolarity of blood plasma can vary from 275 to 300 mosm/L. It is pretty tightly controlled by your kidneys, which can alter the excretion of water and electrolytes over a huge range with no ill effects. I think your bowel is also able to control how much electrolyte they secrete and absorb if necessary, but mainly its your kidneys. Now, the osmolarity of tap water is low enough that it is usually considered to be zero. If you inject tap water into your veins, it will explode your cells just as readily as distilled, deionized water. Moderately hard tapwater, with say 150mg/L altogether of calcium, magnesium, sodium, and chloride would have an osmolarity of about 5mosm/L. It's not enough to make your kidneys blink. Calcium and magnesium This is more interesting. In short, drinking a couple of litres of moderately hard water a day can provide maybe 10-20% of the recommended daily intake, and there are studies (eg Chun-Yuh Yang, 1998) that show a link between certain health outcomes and the hardness of the local water supply in poor areas. However, for people wealthy enough to have access to deionized drinking water, it is not difficult to reach the recommended intake of these minerals from food, and their malnutrition problems will be overnutrition rather than undernutrition. Thanks Asguard - you motivated me to do some interesting reading.
Here is an update on the WHO position on health aspects of desalinated water: Safe drinking-water from desalination Guidance on risk assessment and risk management procedures to ensure the safety of desalinated drinking-water, WHO, March 2011 Extract: Consumption of low-mineral water There have been suggestions that drinking-water with a very low mineral content (low total dissolved solids) can have a number of adverse effects on humans, particularly on the gastrointestinal tract, even with a diet that provides an adequate level of essential minerals (Kozisek, 2005). However, this hypothesis remains controversial in many quarters. In order to resolve this controversy, there is a need to investigate this subject in more detail to determine its significance in a wide range of circumstances, such as those encountered with desalinated and other potentially low-mineral manufactured waters. Desalination has been used in some parts of the world for many decades, and this experience potentially provides a basis for total diet and water epidemiological studies of various health outcomes, including CVD, osteoporosis and metabolic syndrome. Such studies, if properly controlled and with proper consideration of potential confounding factors, would be of considerable value in ensuring the safety of desalinated water. WHO is recommending that before-and-after studies of acute CVD mortality should be conducted in drinking-water supplies that are undergoing changes in calcium and magnesium content .
Couldn't find any reviews. Found only two studies in the register of controlled trials related to beneficial minerals in drinking water: Iodine Journal of Tropical Pediatrics, Feb 2008, Iodine nutritional status among school children in selected areas of Howrah District in West Bengal, India. PubMed 'Sulfurous' mineral water European journal of clinical nutrition, Jan 2009, Antioxidative effects of sulfurous mineral water: protection against lipid and protein oxidation Pubmed
I saw a low of instances of the word 'may' in that report. That is not a causal link. Or you could go ask an Eskimo,.... I see you avoided that point.
I gave Asgard the numbers, ... a recommended maximum intake of 6g of salt a day, vs the recommended 2l of water, containing about 160mg of minerals per litre, but it seems he can't do the maths. It also seems to go over his head that WHO reports tend to target 3rd world countries, not developed nations,....
Hey, phlo, Lots of things go completely over Asguard's head. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As in this instance, he didn't even notice that the document contained a lot of ambiguities and even a few outright contradictions. All he focused on were the bits that *seemed* to support his rather ignorant agenda. He's done this kind of silly thing SO often that I no longer bother to point out to him how VERY poor his reading comprehension is (it's terrible!!!) even when he makes stupid accusations directly at me (and you) as he did this time. It's nothing more than a bone-headed attitude just being even more bone-headed. He seems to never learn. :shrug:
