Pure Lighting 900604 Universal Plastic
|
There’s no such thing as pure water. The entire conception of pure water is misleading and needs to be cleared up. I was reading an interesting note in an issue of Smithsonian magazine in regards to harvesting icebergs as a source for bottled water and vodka. In the article, David Sacks, president of the Canadian Iceberg Vodka Corporation is cited as saying it is ‘the purest water in the world’. That got me thinking and marveling if that source is as pure as the people who trade it assert it to be. People buying bottled water are many times underneath the impression that they’re purchasing water that is pure. Generally it has been treated. Whether or not it is pure is another matter entirely. And those persons taking into account water purification or filtration have been led to think that pure water is something they will have to strive for in their homes. Many water treatment dealers and a good deal of health practitioners assert that either distilled water or water from Reverse Osmosis is ‘pure’. I don’t agree. Distillers use heat to turn water into steam. The steam rises, leaving any contaminants behind. That’s the theory. Gases, a good deal of chemicals, and volatile organic compounds may travel with the steam. Distillers use activated carbon to capture these pollutants and for the most share that works. Still, some contaminants may remain. Chloramine is an example of one contaminant that is not eradicated by this process. There are others. Distillation does remove more contaminants than any other single process. The real issue for those taking into account distillation is that it lowers the pH of the water it produces, thence rendering it acidic and less than optimal for health. Distillers are inconvenient, waste a significant amount of water and are highpriced to use but they do formulate the nearest thing to pure water. Reverse Osmosis is the term used to describe a rubber membrane said to concede the passage of water at the molecular level. Water is forced through the membrane leaving contaminants behind. Once again though, gases, a heap of chemicals including chloramine and one form of arsenic, and a great deal of bacteria may pass through the membrane. Some people assert the membrane becomes less effective with age. A ‘polishing’ filter of activated carbon is employed to capture the gases and volatile organics. If your city uses chloramines to treat your water you’ll need to use catalytic carbon in this stage to remove it. The Reverse Osmosis membrane is distinctively one element in a kitchen treatment scheme consisting of assorted treatment stages, ranging from one to three. One manufacturer has not long back come out with a seven stage RO unit, only one stage of which is the RO itself. So, if RO is so thorough, why seven stages? The fact is that ‘Reverse Osmosis’ or ‘RO’ are terms that are carelessly tossed around to describe what is in fact a multi-stage treatment scheme of which RO might be one component. There are other issues with reverse osmosis that the public is in general incognizant of. First, it too lowers the pH of water. Any procedure that removes the solid homogeneous inorgani substances from water will give rise to water that is ‘aggressive’ in that it will seek to replace those minerals. Both distilled and RO water become acidic upon exposure to air. The carbon dioxide in air reacts with the water, filling the void once filled by solid homogeneous inorgani substances or contaminants. There are ways to address this issue but nevertheless the systems that most of you buy do not address it and manufacture an aggressive low pH water. Another issue with reverse osmosis systems is bacterial growth in the water storage reservoir. These bacteria are said to colonize the tank from the faucet side of the RO system. Others suggest that unless your RO system has a UV light that living bacteria squeeze through the rubber membrane and colonize the keeping tank. In either case, once they do colonize the RO water tank each drop of water is contaminated. Testing has shown that the bacteria that colonize carbon filters and RO systems are in general heterotrophic populations, which means that they are not a health hazard. Still, my point is that RO schemes DO NOT remove all they assert to. And who wants to drink bacteria when the point was to purify the water in the primary place? Implicit in the use of the term ‘pure’ water is the suggestion that the water has not one thing in it. However, water in it is natural state has solid homogeneous inorgani substance content. When you remove those solid homogeneous inorgani substances you fabricate a highly reactive water that will interact with the basi organic material it encounters, including air or plastic. Other water purification schemes integrate a assortment of treatments that are effective at removing sure contaminants. Again buyers may buy the wrong product by failing to determine which treatments meet their needs. In any case, the end result is water that has been treated or cleansed of contaminants. It’s still not pure. There’s no such thing as pure water. To think that you may purify water using one of these technologies is misleading. The very conception of ‘pure’ water is misleading. Pure water does not subsist in nature. Water is the universal solvent. Even as it falls to world as rain it picks up corpuscles and solid homogeneous inorgani substances in the air. And as soon as it hits the ground it captures solid homogeneous inorgani substances from the soil and rock upon which it lands. It makes it is way into streams and rivers, carrying soil from the mountains to the sea. Nowadays water picks up contaminants such as airborne mercury while it’s falling as rain. What you may do is to remove contaminants from your water and you may determine how spacious you’d like to be in that effort. The approach I suggest (http://www.cleanairpurewater.com/) is to learn what’s in your water, set your goals, and then distinguish the technologies that will remove the contaminants that enable you to meet your goals. Consumers may achieve healthful water by identifying the unhealthful contaminants in their water and then taking action to remove them. In general, the public discussion regarding water may and will switch from the notion of ‘pure’ to ‘healthy’. Healthy water is attainable, whereas pure water is not. And just what is healthful water? I would suggest to you that healthful water has an optimal pH of 7.2 to 7.6. Harmful contaminants such as chlorine, chloramines, disinfection by-products such as the trihalomethanes, and any destructive chemical or metals whether man made or naturally occurring have been identified and got rid of with the suitable treatment. Healthy water holds minerals. If you’ve tested your water you’ll see these as calcium and magnesium. There may be trace amounts of others as well. I’ll go into more outstanding detail with regards to the make up of healthful water in my next paper. Back to the iceberg…is that water pure? Certainly the top layers would be just as contaminated as any other water subjected to the fallout of innovative day airborne pollutants. In fact studies now show that concentrations of mercury and pesticides are higher in the arctic and Antarctic due to wind patterns and fallout due to temperature extremes. Nor would I want to drink the layers formed after we dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. And what when it comes to the layers formed for the duration of the Industrial Revolution when pollution was at it is height? Theoretically I guess the ice formed a heap of thousands of years ago would be free of humane contaminants, but is that water pure? Is it free of dirt and dust from wind storms and the metals titanium or uranium from times long ago when meteors slammed into the earth? Do icebergs integrate pure water? I seriously doubt it. *** |
