General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Ozonated Water

Started by mrwht · · Last activity · 8 posts · 985 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
24 November 2005
Last activity
27 November 2005
Original author
mrwht
Posts
8
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
985
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–8 of 8
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. There are quite a number of sellers promoting water treated with ozone
    gas, suing an ozoniser in Singapore. They claim that this ozonated
    water if drank immediately, boost mediated immunity, T-cell function. I
    really wonder this is true. Does this ozonated water result in free
    radical issues in our body. I know ozone gas is very harmful to our
    cells. Water after being oxidised by the ozone gas turns in hydrogen
    peroxide with some dissolve traces of ozone. Can anyone throw some
    light on this? Best wishes.

    Matthias [censored] Heng Teck
    Current Undergraduate Stud
    Kansas State University

  2. It's another bad idea, like fish oil pills, though not as bad. Club
    soda is the real deal, as biochemist Ray Peat has explained. The CO2
    has uses in the body that American "experts" are mostly ignorant of.
    White tea and lightly roasted coffee are good too, for the anitoxidant
    benefits, without the drawbacks of substances that are too potent in
    their antioxidant qualities.

  3. mrwht said:

    There are quite a number of sellers promoting water treated with ozone
    gas, suing an ozoniser in Singapore. They claim that this ozonated
    water if drank immediately, boost mediated immunity, T-cell function. I
    really wonder this is true. Does this ozonated water result in free
    radical issues in our body. I know ozone gas is very harmful to our
    cells. Water after being oxidised by the ozone gas turns in hydrogen
    peroxide with some dissolve traces of ozone. Can anyone throw some
    light on this? Best wishes.

    Matthias [censored] Heng Teck
    Current Undergraduate Stud
    Kansas State University

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3494850&dopt=Abstract
    "By both 7 and 14 d, greater damage had occurred in the lungs of ozone-exposed, athymic animals than in similarly exposed euthymic animals."

    What this study says is small amount of ozone (in air) over 20 days has affects on T-Cells.
    Nothing about human drinking ozone-infused water (doubt that would pass an ethics committee)

    Ozone is a strong oxidiser & nobody should have large amounts of it in the blood.
    There are a number of quacks selling expensive oxygenated water.

    gtoomey

  4. montygram said:

    It's another bad idea, like fish oil pills, though not as bad. Club
    soda is the real deal, as biochemist Ray Peat has explained. The CO2
    has uses in the body that American "experts" are mostly ignorant of.

    Such as?

    Quoted message said:

    White tea and lightly roasted coffee are good too, for the anitoxidant
    benefits, without the drawbacks of substances that are too potent in
    their antioxidant qualities.

    What substances are "too potent" in their antioxidant qualities?

    MattLB

  5. The chemical reaction is as follows:

    ozone gas [O3] + water [H2O] -> Oxygen gas [O2]+ hydrogen peroxide
    [H2O2]

    I don't really understand why a litmus test done on water treated with
    ozone shows purple, showing strong alkalinity. I thought hydrogen
    peroxide is acidic in nature.

    So we are actually drinking something alkaline out of this water if it
    is not left to stand more than 20 minutes. My colleague tested the same
    water after many hours with litmus solution, producing yellowish
    outcome. Acidic....

    What sort of chemical reactions have taken place?

  6. mrwht said:

    The chemical reaction is as follows:

    ozone gas [O3] + water [H2O] -> Oxygen gas [O2]+ hydrogen peroxide
    [H2O2]

    I don't really understand why a litmus test done on water treated with
    ozone shows purple, showing strong alkalinity. I thought hydrogen
    peroxide is acidic in nature.

    So we are actually drinking something alkaline out of this water if it
    is not left to stand more than 20 minutes. My colleague tested the same
    water after many hours with litmus solution, producing yellowish
    outcome. Acidic....

    What sort of chemical reactions have taken place?

    The following site will probably give you a lot of insight about your questions.

    http://educate-yourself.org/cancer/benefitsofhydrogenperozide17jul03.shtml

    Ora

  7. "Gregory Toomey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    mrwht said:

    There are quite a number of sellers promoting water treated with ozone
    gas, suing an ozoniser in Singapore. They claim that this ozonated
    water if drank immediately, boost mediated immunity, T-cell function. I
    really wonder this is true. Does this ozonated water result in free
    radical issues in our body. I know ozone gas is very harmful to our
    cells. Water after being oxidised by the ozone gas turns in hydrogen
    peroxide with some dissolve traces of ozone. Can anyone throw some
    light on this? Best wishes.

    Matthias [censored] Heng Teck
    Current Undergraduate Stud
    Kansas State University

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3494850&dopt=Abstract
    "By both 7 and 14 d, greater damage had occurred in the lungs of
    ozone-exposed, athymic animals than in similarly exposed euthymic
    animals."

    What this study says is small amount of ozone (in air) over 20 days has
    affects on T-Cells.
    Nothing about human drinking ozone-infused water (doubt that would pass an
    ethics committee)

    Ozone is a strong oxidiser & nobody should have large amounts of it in the
    blood.
    There are a number of quacks selling expensive oxygenated water.

    gtoomey

    Dr Martin Goldstein, DVM uses ozone therapy (among other treatments) to
    treat animals with cancer. He has a very high success rate.

    René

  8. BHT supplements were big for a while, until the dangers became evident.
    Powerful antioxidants, such as rosemary herb, can inhibit normal
    biochemistry. There is a price to be paid for too much antioxidant
    activity. The funny thing is that critics like this MattLB character
    will make a claim in one post that the body needs to oxidize, then turn
    around and make the opposite claim in another thread. Why don't you
    tell us everything we need to know, MattLB, since you clearly thin you
    know everything?

    For those who want to read about the scientific reality, instead of the
    usual "associational markers," "surrogate endpoints," "dependent risk
    factors," "tentative correlations," and "postulated models," you can
    read some of biochemist Ray Peat's free essays on the internet. Here
    is one that is not too technical:

    Estrogen and Osteoporosis
    by Raymond Peat, PhD

    Excerpts from Ray Peat's Newsletter: Estrogen and Osteoporosis

    The government declared victory in the war on cancer, though the
    age-specific death rate from caner keeps increasing. In the equally
    well publicized effort to prevent disability and death from
    osteoporosis, no one is declaring victory, because the only trend in
    its incidence that has been reported is an increase. The
    estrogen-promoting culture tells us that this is because of the aging
    of the population, but the age corrected numbers still show a great
    increase-for example, in Finland between 1970 and 1995, the number of
    women (for a given population of women older than 60) breaking their
    forearm because of osteoporosis more than doubled (Palvannen, et al.,
    1998). That this happened during a time when the use of estrogen had
    become much more common doesn't present a good argument for the
    protective effects of estrogen treatment. (And during this period there
    was a large increase in the consumption of estrogenic soy products.)

    Recently our local newspaper had a story at the bottom of the front
    page reporting that lean women who used estrogen and synthetic
    progestins had a 80% higher rate of breast cancer. Several days later,
    across the top of the front page, there was a rebuttal article, quoting
    some doctors including a "world class expert on hormone replacement
    therapy" and as woman who has taken Premarin for forty years and
    urges everyone to take it. The "protection against osteoporosis"
    and against heart disease, they said, must be weighed against a trifle
    such as the 80% increase in cancer. It appeared that the newspaper was
    apologizing for reporting a fact that could make millions of women
    nervous. (Jan 26, Register-Guard).

    Medical magazines, like the mass media, don't like to miss any
    opportunity to inform the public about the importance of using estrogen
    to prevent osteoporosis. Their attention to the bone-protective effect
    of progesterone has been noticeably less than their mad campaign to
    sell estrogen, despite the evidence that progesterone can promote bone
    rebuilding, rather than just slow its loss...

    A former editor of Yearbook of Endocrinology had reviewed a series of
    studies showing that excess prolactin can cause osteoporosis. Then, he
    presented a group of studies showing how estrogen promotes the
    secretion of prolactin, and can cause hyperprolactinemia. In that
    review, he wryly wondered how something that increases something that
    causes osteoporosis could prevent osteoporosis.

    Women have a higher incidence of osteoporosis than men do. Young women
    have thinner more delicate bones than young men. The women who break
    bones in old age are generally the women who had the thinnest bones in
    youth. Menstrual irregularities, and luteal defects, that involve
    relatively high estrogen and low progesterone, increase bone loss.

    Fatter women are less likely to break bones than thinner women.
    Insulin, which causes the formation of fat, also stimulates bone
    growth. Estrogen however, increases the level of free fatty acids in
    the blood, indicating that it antagonizes insulin (insulin decreases
    the level of free fatty acids), and the fatty acids themselves strongly
    oppose the effects of insulin. Estrogen dominance is widely thought to
    predispose women to diabetes.

    Between the ages of 20 and 40, there is a very considerable increase in
    the blood level of estrogen in women. However, bone loss begins around
    the age of 23, and progresses through the years when estrogen levels
    are rising.

    Osteoarthritis, which involves degeneration of the bones around joints,
    is strongly associated with high levels of estrogen, and can be
    produced in animals with estrogen treatment.

    Thirty years ago, when people were already claiming that estrogen would
    prevent or cure osteoporosis, endocrinologists pointed out that there
    was no x-ray evidence to support the claim. Estrogen can cause a
    positive calcium balance, the retention of more calcium than is
    excreted, and the estrogen promoters argued that this showed it was
    being stored in the bones, but the endocrine physiologists showed that
    estrogen causes the retention of calcium by soft tissues. There are
    many reasons for not wanting calcium to accumulate in the soft tissues;
    this occurs normally in aging and stress.

    ....The toxic effects of excessive intracellular calcium (decreased
    respiration and increased excitation) are opposed by magnesium. Both
    thyroid and progesterone improve magnesium retention. Estrogen
    dominance is often associated with magnesium deficiency, which can be
    an important factor in osteoporosis (Abraham and Grewal, 1990;
    Muneyyirci-Delale, et all., 1999).

    As part of the campaign to get women to use estrogen, an x-ray (bone
    density) test was devised which can supposedly measure changes in the
    mineral content of bone. However, it happens that fat and water
    interfere with the measurements. Estrogen changes the fat and water
    content of tissues. By chance, the distortion produce by fat and water
    happen to be such that estrogen could appear to be increasing the
    density of a bone, when it is really just altering the soft tissues.
    Ultrasound measurements can provide very accurate measurements of bone
    density, without the fat and water artifacts that can produce
    misleading results in the x-ray procedure, and don't expose the
    patient to radiation, but the ultrasound method is seldom used.

    ....Recent studies have found that both men and women lose minerals from
    their bones at the rate of about 1% a year. Although men have lower
    estrogen in youth than women do, their bones are much heavier. During
    aging, as their bones get thinner, men's estrogen levels keep rising.

    Besides having weaker bones, old people have weaker muscle, and are
    more likely to injure themselves in a fall because their muscles
    don't react as well. Muscle loss occurs at about the rate of 1% per
    year.

    Women's muscles, like their bones, are normally smaller than men's,
    and estrogen contributes significantly to these differences.

    In the case of osteoporosis (A. Murrillo-Uribe, 1999) as in
    Alzheimer's disease, the incidence is two to three times as high in
    women as in men. In both Alzheimer's disease and osteoporosis, the
    estrogen industry is arguing that the problems are caused by a suddenly
    developing estrogen deficiency, rather than by prolonged exposure to
    estrogen.

    Similar arguments were made fifty years ago regarding the nature of the
    menopause itself-that it was caused by a sudden decrease in estrogen
    production. The evidence that has accumulated in the last forty years
    has decisively settled that argument: Menopause is the result of
    prolonged exposure to estrogen. (Even one large dose destroys certain
    areas in the brain, and chronic, natural levels damage the nerves that
    regulate the pituitary. Overactivity of the pituitary leads to many
    other features of aging.)

    ....Unsaturated fats, iron, and lactic acid are closely related to the
    actions and regulation of TNF (Tumor Necrosis Factor), and therefore
    they strongly influence the nature of stress and the rate of aging.

    The fact that cancer depends on the presence of polyunsaturated fats
    probably relates to the constructive and destructive effects such as
    multiple organ failure/congestive heart failure/shock-lung, etc.
    metabolites, which are based on the so-called essential fatty acids.
    When oxygen and the correct nutrients are available, the
    hypermetabolism produced by TNF could be reparative (K. [censored], et
    al., 1999) rather than destructive. Stimulation in the presence of
    oxygen produces carbon dioxide, allowing cells to excrete calcium and
    to deposit it in bones, but stimulation in the absence of oxygen
    produces lactic aid and causes cellular calcium uptake.

    It is in this context that the therapeutic effects of saturated fats,
    carbon dioxide, progesterone, and thyroid can be understood. They
    restore stability to a system that has been stimulated beyond its
    capacity to adapt without injury.

    Ray Peat's Newsletter(s) can be purchased by writing to: Ray Peat,
    PhD, PO Box 5764, Eugene, Oregon 97405

    Source:

    http://www.moonlighthealth.com/library2.asp?A=60

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.