Talk:Copper zinc water filtration/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sounds like an advertisement

This article should either be substantially revised or removed. It reads like a poorly prepared advertisement (and lacks an citations). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.214.3 (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources

A quick google search leads one to KDF Fluid Treatment, Inc, the purported patent holder/creator of the KDF system. Their website has a literature section, http://www.kdfft.com/literature.htm , that contains pdf documents, some which detail technical details. Users with more experience with wiki editing may find this useful for sourcing. 70.157.112.125 (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

COI tags

@Widefox:What is the evidence of COI participation? It's not at all apparent to me. In fact, your tag-bombing and AFD seem to border on WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Two WP:SPAs, promo language, editors agreeing it reads like an advert.
Not WP:AGF for my inability at finding the RS amongst the ad refs is one thing. Taking an unsourced advert article to AfD is hardly controvercial. Do you concede the sources have an uncommonly low signal-to-noise ratio? Blaming the messenger when we should never have orphan advert articles failing WP:V / WP:GNG is another. Removing the advert tag [1] was bold, but as you fixed the article not reckless. If one ignores all those, sure there was no problem here, but it wasn't was it. It's now OK thanks to your competence (and my inability which initiated this process). Widefox; talk 10:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, this article had at least two potential copyright violations i.e. copy/pastes from adverts/vendors site 1. [2] from [3] and 2. [4] from (or to, along with many other sales sites) [5]. User:Toddst1 please take copyright violations more seriously next time, rather than just removing the copyright warning without addressing this [6]. Widefox; talk 13:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I've made some pretty major changes to this article removing a lot of promotional material which I thought cleared the copyright violations. As you identified that there were copyright violations, why didn't you fix them yourself? Why haven't you made any effort to improve this article? Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
We're just coming at this from different angles. I didn't have to per WP:BURDEN - my CSD / WP:TNT / AfD as I didn't rescue it/object to deletion/remove copyvio tags. As I said, this dichotomy best summed up in WP:BOGOF. Widefox; talk 21:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Lack of evidence of benefit

This product is an alloy of copper and zinc. From simple inorganic chemistry and biology we would expect it to remove metals lower in the electrochemical series such as Cr and Ni (why not Pb?) and we would expect a high degree of toxicity to bacteria , algae and probably protozoa. Because it is claimed to be granular in form, we would also expect electrochemical reactions forming hydrogen ions and there reduction of some oxidised material and even oxidation of some reduced ions such as Sulfide. All that is fine - I don't need academic papers to sign up to that. It also claims to reduce Calcium and Aluminium but no evidence is pro0vided. In the technical data sheet here it asserts that backwashing is need to remove insoluble calcium and magnesium salts but whether this only works in waters with other ions present is not clear. Certainly if this is removing metal ions, it would be reasonable to assume that equal molar numbers of either copper or zinc ions are being released into the potable water stream. Given a choice, I would much rather have calcium ions in my drinking water than copper ions. Again, no information is provided about the quality and constituents of the effluent water stream. I have grave doubts about both the product and this article that can only be addressed by the provision of authoritative independent references which provide accurate analytical information.  Velella  Velella Talk   15:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Velella Am glad you raise the same fundamental objection that I had to this article (WP:PROVEIT), although it is shaping up better now after Toddst1's rewrite. I thought it was a hoax to start with [7], then softened to advert [8], and now object mainly to the use of sales material as an WP:RS for such scientific claims - extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. User:Toddst1 ? Widefox; talk 15:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I assume you're not disputing the HHS claim about mercury. If you want to remove that entire section, feel free but I hope my minor change puts it in context. Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I can see no support for the claim about Hg. If this was metallic Mercury, it would be believable but a mercury salt? . The Cedar Brook Document ref here mentions KDF but provides no analytical data to demonstrate that it has any benefits. The statement that it does not treat Thallium appears to come from Municipal Water Savings Corporation, the manufacturers of KDF-55. It is noteworthy that the US EPA make no mention of KDF in its guidance here on POET systems. I am seriously wondering whether this might not all be snake oil. I can find no analytical data to review nor can I conceive of many of the benefits claimed being able to be produced by adding Brass to water. If it isn't brass but a ground up metallic sandwich or something similar, then I can still find no logical reason to believe the claims. If there is something magic here, or some new physical law not previously described but which is secret because of the patents, then a review of good quality water analysis- before and after- would convince, but I can't find anything like that.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The mercury claim seems reasonable: the zinc would reduce the mercury ion to metal, with the resulting zinc ion being washed away, and then the mercury atom would amalgamate into the remaining brass. It may be doubted whether the effect is strong enough, but no new physics is needed.Norman Yarvin (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

100% agree Velella.

  • Toddst1 Better != fixed.
  • It's not for me to dispute - the mercury claim isn't referenced in the HHS source (to clarify - inside the HHS source there's refs but not for that), so I can't see the evidence. I actually have no opinion (for what it's worth). Care to add an expert tag to the article as I'm not one?
  • WP:V. It lacked sourcing to back the claims, agree we should base the article on independent, as I said before - being mindful of WP:MEDRS standard.
  • I'm still left asking myself what's different from any copper alloy filter?.
  • WP:NPOV WP:BALANCE WP:WEIGHT I'm assuming it needs another look to base the article on secondary independent. Suggest an NPOV tag. Originally I thought the article was a snake oil advert, as it reminded me of magnetic water treatment, but it isn't that clear-cut due to the solid antimicrobial properties of copper.
  • Toddst1 has done a good job rescuing a bad article. My concern may have been off a little, but appears well founded, it's still more WP:TNT than WP:TE, and Toddst1 I think it's time to fix the article and apologise. Widefox; talk 09:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Ping User:Toddst1, what do you want to do per WP:BURDEN ? Widefox; talk 09:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • www.municipalwatersavings.com is www.municipalwater.com . Regarding the Municipal Water Savings Corp ref, here's some comments Reddit don't think the source counts as an RS. This article isn't to be confused with Flux capacitor. Widefox; talk 18:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Can we be sure about that ? Going back to the future in a shower head filter seems strangely enchanting and slightly more plausible than the article itself.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Shame the names aren't close enough for me to hatnote this article to prevent confusion. Alas my good faith attempts at improvement have already been questioned, best stop myself from expressing my comic relief. Widefox; talk 21:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Claims and sources

I'm trying to resist AfDing again. There's just not many reliable sources to go on to base an article on. This is screaming at me. User:Toddst1 would it help if we split the article into say two main sections "Claims" / "Product" and "Reception" (better wording) and then we can detail both the inventor/vendor claims and what reception there is to make this more than a stub? If we're never getting more than a stub, why do we have such controvercial a topic? Thoughts Velella ? Certainly we can't even say this topic is controvercial as there's no sources saying as such, so it feels to me like a topic too built on primary claims, an NPOV issue possibly best handled by deletion. My early close of the AfD is no prejudice to an new nomination. Widefox; talk 08:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Widefox, I think you're obsessed with eliminating the article on this topic. Do you have some connection to Heskett or one of the manufacturers?
There are plenty of reliable sources like the three I just added for the new usage section. I can't imagine you think those sources are not reliable. Time to move on. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I am wholly in agreement with Widefox. Let us agree that KDF is a product and that it does perform some functions in relation to removing impurities in water (but not necessarily all that is claimed for it). It also gets a few mentions in some books. But that still does not make it notable. The arguments have been so tied up with concerns about whether it works at all or whether this is a just a scam that the simple test "is this notable" has been overlooked. I see no notability and I would support an AfD . For the record I have worked all my life in the water industry and in water quality regulation in the UK (see my user page) but have no connection with this or any other similar product, but I do understand what the references are saying and, for me, these are passing references not references that establish notability. I also think Toddst1 that making veiled suggestions of COI against a another editor simply because that editor disagrees with you, and on no other basis, is deeply concerning and the suggestion should be redacted.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Toddst1 it was good that you made me double check my gut feeling that this is just an advert, failing notability. I double checked. I'm doubting the depth of sources, and agree 100% with Velella, which is good as I'm not a specialist like they are. I'm confident that non-specialists can make a judgement at AfD about the depth and quality of sources, and I actually feel duped about being pressured to close early by you and the IP when clearly more opinions are healthy. This is a trainwreck of an article. It's brass! Period. Toddst1, for the record, I came to this article from the dab [9], and have no connection (of any kind) with the subject (including product, industry, company, or Heskett (I had to check who he is in the article!)) or other editors of this article. Also, I use "Widefox" here and you've spelt my name wrong (which I do not use on-wiki - can you remove please as a courtesy?). I'm also not in the US, so have no country connection and I'm guessing (I don't know) it's not on sale here, never heard of it before, as I said I came from the dab where this was a WP:PTM with the name "KDF-55" (now it isn't a PTM after title fix/rename). Of course, you have some evidence to make that accusation, else you really must withdraw it, as you're against the rough consensus here. I say again, it's brass. Granulated. Someone should take to AfD at any time with the current lack of depth of sources, although the claims have been reduced, well done. There's consensus here for an AfD. Widefox; talk 14:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Velella: a new AfD would be best (as my old one was for such a different article before I'd seen a single RS). I've marked as questioning the notability, but I'm guessing as a product this may well be notable, just that the claims aren't properly sourced. It depends on how much depth one requires, it would fail NCORP / CORPDEPTH but that's not applicable. With all this good work from Toddst1 it appears to be borderline WP:NPRODUCT but a WP:Permastub. Whatever, the claims are poorly sourced, remember I originally said we should be considering WP:MEDRS for these types of claims for drinking water. Widefox; talk 14:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
As I said on my talk page, if you don't think this merits an article, please take it back to AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Definition

The article seems to not know what it is exactly. A link to the original patent may help define. The lede had KDF is an alloy of copper and zinc. which is a synonym for KDF is brass.. Surely this just highlights how KDF should be defined as something else, say a "patented product" made of brass? Widefox; talk 12:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why this is WP:SYN [10] ? There's no two sources, that's just ridiculous. Embrace the fact. It's brass! (don't take my word for it, see brass "Brass is a metal alloy made of copper and zinc" ) The patent may help us define what KDF actually is, as this article doesn't currently help. It's a water filter product right, made from brass granules? Widefox; talk 14:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SYN is different from questioning the factual validity. I repeat, how can it be SYN when it's literally summarising in the lede using a synonym? It isn't for me to assert about brass Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but you to decide based on the evidence presented. Clicking on brass answers the alloy question, and may be an insight into why two scientists are reacting in a seemingly incomprehensible way. From WP:COMPETENCE "The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation, and their cultural context are lacking.". Sorry, but you asked.
  • Except that's a straw man argument, as that diff doesn't support the assertion. Nobody has removed the sourced statement (that diff or any another), but merely moved it and summarized in the lede [11] (update - I think you're misrepresenting the second diff too - it [12] still leaves the original referenced content in place - see that revision here [13]). You may correct that false assertion if you wish. You've yet to explain why it's SYN, let alone edit warring. As I explained my edit on the talk, but you reverted without discussing do you think edit warring really is fair? Do you not think going along with the rough consensus here would be more constructive? Widefox; talk 17:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This non-RS [14] defines KDF "KDF-55 is atomized brass in granular mesh size..". Not sure why I have to provide a sales document to state the obvious, but hey. Can you stop edit warring over this now? Widefox; talk 18:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Widefox. As you say, that is seriously NOT a reputable source! When it says " ....works electro-chemically generating 1100 to 1200 millivolts of electricity when water flows through it. This process reverse the electrochemical process by which chlorine was separated from sodium in a brine solution.The new electrochemical process is the only way to recombine two chlorine ions with some prevalent metal in the water to create a simple harmless chloride" you know that this is a product from cloud cuckoo land! Generating between 1.1V and 1.2V, certainly; zinc and copper make an excellent battery until hydrogen gas production limits ion diffusion. But the consequence of this effect is to dissolve zinc in the water stream - hence the reason that old-fashioned zinc-carbon batteries leak at the end of their life. So we have a filter with its zinc content rapidly dissolving as water passes through it. That leads to the next question as to the nature of the "prevalent metal" - this is, of course, zinc there being no other unbalanced metal ions in drinking water. So this filter works by creating zinc chloride from chlorine dissolved in water. So what on earth makes this notable or even useful? And what about all the other exotic claims (now thankfully removed from the article) ? If there was ever a justification for requiring good quality robust references to the true effectiveness of this product, this reference, which is the manufacturers own publication, makes that case. Perhaps what worries me more is the implicit assertion, re-iterated in one of the references, that chlorine is bad and needs to be removed. A quote in the "home that heal...." references a survey that linked chlorine by-products in women to increased prevalence of breast cancer. The chlorine products referred to are organochlorine products, mostly from old and current use of pesticides on food crops or accumulated into fat of marine organisms which are then eaten by us. This has nothing whatever to do with chlorine in domestic water supplies. This is scaremongering of the worst sort  Velella  Velella Talk   22:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what's going on in and around this article. I've had a handful of different attacks/insults thrown at me. My two favourites being asked to provide a citation for this being brass, and asked why I didn't do anything about the copyright violations. Luckily that non-RS was on hand to save WP from errors creeping in for the former, and it seems normally good editors have fallen into some sort of time/reality distortion field around this article (maybe a sort of fact black hole). Think I'll grab a glass of water, and a shower to refresh (non-filtered). Widefox; talk 22:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources

User:Sławomir Biały Re this non-RS source added here [15], removed by me, then readded here [16]. Per the guideline WP:SCHOLARSHIP in WP:RS considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. (as discussed at AfD). Where can it be shown it meets that? If not, can you revert yourself please. Widefox; talk 01:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. If you wish to challenge a statement in the article, you can do so here on the discussion page. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
it is WP:BRD not BRRD - as a courtesy I'm giving you a chance to remove it before I do. Per guideline if it meets it it can stay. Please engage here before attempting to edit war your contested edit in future. Widefox; talk 11:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
If you wish to challenge a statement in the article, please do so. You have not given any reason that the source must be removed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't need your permission thanks - see WP:OWN. Alternatively, based on the edit summary "In conducting any kind of scholarship, it is standard practice to cite one's sources. This includes all materials used in the preparation of the article. Besides, this Master's thesis contains a nice (and uncontroversial) description of the mechanism" we can agree to put in in a "Further reading" or EXT link section. Widefox; talk 11:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The thesis has a nice description of the mechanism, and as far as I can tell, that is not in any way contested information. There is another supporting source as well. The thesis is also publicly available. For these reasons, it enhances reader understanding. Removal in slavish deference to the rules is not in the interests of having a better article, but apparently is agenda-driven. If you wish to challenge a statement in the article, please do so. You have not given any reason that the source must be removed, other than teh rulez. In order to avoid plagiarism, you must either propose to delete the passage in question, or agree to include the source. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Reason is given several times at the AfD and above - see WP:CONSENSUS - where guidelines are a consensus. If you consider it important as a source why not take the source to the RS noticeboard for more opinions, as this is the wrong place to challenge either the definition of "MEDRS secondary" or Masters thesis as an RS. Per BRD the WP:burden is on the including editor to reach consensus here. I've provided a compromise above. Which do you prefer? Widefox; talk 12:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
There is not consensus. We disagree. Since I was the one that did the research on the article, I am in a better position to say what sources I consulted during the writing. You're free to remove a source boldly, but then if you're reverted, you must discuss the reasons for removal. So far, you have given no reasons why the article is actually better if the source is removed. I have already given you several opportunities to challenge thee material under WP:BURDEN, but you have not done so. I will offer again: If you wish to challenge a statement in the article, you may do it here on the discussion page. If not, then you cannot invoke WP:BURDEN. WP:MEDRS is irrelevant.
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. No reason whatsoever has been given that the source is not reliable for the statement that it supports. I can demonstrate that it is reliable, because I can provide another source that contains almost the same description (but is paywalled). That should have settled the discussion. If you want to discuss more meaningfully why the source is unreliable, please do so. But unthinkingly referring to WP:BURDEN, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, etc., is not a substitute for proper discussion.
Finally, policy does not support the removal of this source. Nowhere in WP:RS is there anything about removing sources. So, not only has no reason been given that the article is actually improved by the removal of the source, but even the "rules" mandating the removal of the source appear to have been fabricated. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
(been over this) Not correct, your edit has been challenged so it is up to you to reach consensus here. I see you've clashed with others over MEDRS before going to ANI, so I've taken this to your talk page as an editor issue. I see no consensus here or in guideline and continuing to push this against the consensus in the guideline is disruptive (again taking to your talk as offtopic here). Widefox; talk 12:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It's clear that you no longer want to discuss. If you wish to accuse me of disruptive editing, you are free to take it up at WP:ANI. Your edits to remove a source do not represent consensus. You are certainly free to challenge this edit under WP:BRD, but this was not a "revert". It was a new bold edit, and a new proposed consensus. As you say, I am free to revert that under the rules of WP:BRD. The onus is now on you to build consensus to remove the source. So far, you haven't done that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
(editor behaviour offtopic here - taken to their talk) I'm waiting for a reply to my compromise above, there's no rush. Widefox; talk 12:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see why the source can't just be left in? Is there a reason that it must be removed? I have looked at WP:RS and can find nothing about removal of sources. Yet your entire rationale for removing the source appears to be "A masters' thesis is unreliable, and therefore must be removed." It is the second part of this sentence that I can find no justification for. The actual article content is not challenged, so what is the harm in the source? Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Copper_zinc_water_filtration/Archive_1&oldid=776670342"