Estas páginas están en proceso de traducción por voluntarios, cuyas lenguas maternas no son el español.
Nuestro objetivo es ofrecer una información útil para el público hispanohablante. Para mejorar la calidad de esta información estamos buscando colaboradores voluntarios para corregir, o encargarse de la traducción de otras páginas. Los traductores siempre tienen la posibilidad de eligir lo que quieren traducir.
La propuesta de colaboración puede ser dirigida a Joseph Országh
El texto de esta página se publicó por primera vez en francés en www.eautarcie.com: en 2003
La adaptación hispana del texto original y primera publicación de este pagina sobre www.eautarcie.org : 2017-02-26
«Agua potable» es un concepto jurídico definido por ley que pretende definir qué agua es apta para el consumo humano. Dicha agua debe cumplir cincuenta parámetros fisicoquímicos y microbiológicos, pero no proporciona una seguridad completa para la salud de una persona.
En cuanto al cloro, examinaremos las desventajas de la desinfección química. Los actuales estándares legales de agua potable son el resultado de la idea de que nuestro agua potable debe, a toda costa, estar totalmente libre de bacterias patógenas de renombre. Tales estrictas normas bacteriológicas hacen inevitable la desinfección química.
Hasta donde sabemos, las normas que limitan el contenido bacteriano nunca se basaron en estudios epidemiológicos del nivel de tolerancia de una persona sana, sino que surgieron como resultado de las posibilidades técnicas proporcionadas por la desinfección química..
Al confrontar los estándares bacteriológicos del agua potable con la experiencia de campo, se descubren discrepancias incoherentes. Teniendo en cuenta la extrema sensibilidad (o eficiencia) de los métodos de detección bacteriana, es difícil cumplir con estas normas, incluso para el agua natural que no contiene desinfectante químico. La experiencia ha demostrado que las muestras de agua perfectamente puras pueden ser rápidamente declaradas «no potables» si las muestras estuvieran incluso ligeramente contaminadas (no obstante, inofensivas) durante su manipulación antes del análisis.
Un ejemplo de tal tragedia ha afligido a granjas lecheras de pequeña escala y muy antiguas, que han producido leche de buena calidad durante generaciones. Después de un análisis bacteriológico de su agua de pozo, algunos han visto sus permisos de producción de leche revocados debido a que se detectaron algunos estreptococos o estafilococos en el agua de pozo usada para alimentar la lechería. Sin embargo, los mismos pozos han estado alimentando a hombres y animales durante generaciones sin ningún problema de salud. Algunas de estas industrias lecheras se han visto forzadas a abandonar el negocio debido al alto costo de tener que actualizarse y recurrir al transporte centralizado de agua purificada.
Con el agua de la ciudad, a menos que pongamos nuestra boca directamente al grifo para beber, es muy raro que bebamos agua que cumple con los estándares legales. Para probar el impacto real de las normas de agua, sólo tiene que verter el agua de la ciudad en un dispensador abierto, dejarlo expuesto a 12 horas de luz del día para eliminar su contenido de cloro, luego verterlo en un cristal limpio (pero no desinfectado) y enviarlo a Un laboratorio para pruebas. Repita el experimento muchas veces, y descubrirá que un cierto número de muestras serán declaradas «no aptas». De hecho, para asegurar la conformidad microbiológica en su vaso y su plato después del lavado de vajilla, usted necesitaría limpiar con vapor sus platos y utensilios, los servirá sobre manteles estériles, mientras que usa guantes estériles y una máscara protectora sobre su boca.
Exigir que el agua de su vaso sea totalmente compatible con los estándares bacteriológicos es poco realista. Lo que las leyes dicen sobre la calidad del agua potable sólo debe aplicarse a esa agua que emana de la red de distribución de agua de la red. Por desgracia, en algunos países existe una tendencia abusiva a extender estas prescripciones al agua contenida en su vaso, incluso en Bélgica, donde la garantía de cumplimiento del agua se detiene en el contador de agua. En Francia, el gobierno tiene derecho a decidir sobre la calidad del agua en su vaso, si no está conectado a un sistema centralizado de transporte de agua, violando así su propia ley que se supone protege los derechos privados de un ciudadano.
Hablar sobre la «peligrosa costumbre» de usar el agua de lluvia doméstica se vuelve menos creíble en un país como Bélgica, por ejemplo, donde más de 750.000 personas han estado utilizando agua de lluvia filtrada para la higiene personal durante muchos años. (De esos, 100 000 han estado bebiéndolo.)
El agua biocompatible es un concepto que fue propuesto por Joseph Országh en 1995  basado en criterios BEV, que define el agua «segura» que se ajusta a valores distintos del agua potable legalmente compatible y cuyo consumo prolongado no representa un riesgo para la salud. El agua biocompatible nunca se obtiene por desinfección química. Está débilmente mineralizado (menos de 250 mg/l), ligeramente ácido a neutro y químicamente «indiferente» o neutro en términos de propiedades redox, nunca oxidativo (con respecto al agua químicamente pura).
Sin, el agua biocompatible también puede contener algunas bacterias contaminadas con heces (menos de una docena por 100 ml) y más de un centenar de gérmenes comunes. Este contenido bacteriano es muy bien tolerado por el organismo humano.
El conocimiento científico actual nos proporciona valores orientativos (en contraste con estándares rígidos) para la calidad del agua, cuyo consumo prolongado no constituirá un riesgo para la salud.
En cuanto a las normas fisicoquímicas, son mucho más estrictas que para el agua legalmente potable. Aquí hay una tabla de valores guía para el agua biocompatible. Estos no son normas legales, sino valores a debatir.
|Tabla de valores guía para el agua biocompatible
(en comparación con los valores para el agua legalmente potable)
|pH||5,0 - 7,5||6,5 – 8,5||6,5 – 9,2|
|rH2*||18 - 29||28 – 30||No considerado|
|k**||10 – 200 µS/cm||200 – 850||< 2 300|
|W***||3 – 30 µW||30 – 100 µW||No considerado|
To be biocompatible, water must be molecularly structured. Let us not forget that life originated in salted seawater. The memory of this is encoded in our blood's serum. The ordered electrochemical structure of water is due to the dissolved ions' intense electric field. These ions come from electrolytic dissociation of the mineral salts. For biocompatibility, the whole of water's mass must be structured by the ions' electric field. In electrochemistry, we say that water is in the cybotactic region (the volume immediately surrounding a solute molecule (i.e. the cosphere) in which the local solvent structure is strongly affected by intermolecular forces between the solute and the solvent), as originally defined by Dr. E.W. Kosower. In the solute ions' cosphere, quadri-polar water molecules take on a determined order due to the solute's electric field. Instead of being disordered, like in chemically pure water, the molecules form an ordered array.
The solute's coshpere has a radius no longer that 10 Angstroms. It is therefore finite. Water is «structured» when neighbouring solutes' cospheres come into contact. This situation is attained when mineral salt concentration reaches a 10 mg/litre threshold. Beyond this value, water's structure does not increase, yet water becomes loaded with more ions. Below this level, it is only partly structured. This threshold value was established using the classical Debye-Hückel theory on electrolytes. This theory provides a mathematical model of electrolytic structures in a water medium.
That is the reason biocompatible water must contain at least 10 mg of mineral salts per litre.
Precipitation contains very little mineral salts. During rainwater's neutralization in the (concrete) cistern, the water absorbs a light quantity of minerals. Its mineral content, although weak, is largely sufficient for an electrochemical structuring of the water.
About water quality for food purposes, there exists a preconceived notion that we need mineral salts in the drinking water we consume. On this basis, some people advise against the consumption of rainwater due to its weak mineral content, which would provoke a «demineralization» of our body.
This notion, which is far from being scientifically founded, is largely invoked by the bottled water industry. In their commercials, we read or hear things like «mineral balance» with indications of the mineral content (calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium etc.) that the human body needs every day. By association, it is suggested that this fundamental truth is directly related to the mineral content of the bottled water being publicized. The consumer is left to apply the simple rule of three to determine how much bottled water he must drink daily to cover his mineral needs. This type of publicity constitutes a falsehood by omission.
In fact, the fixing of mineral salts within the human body is a complex process, extremely difficult to measure experimentally because of the flux interactions. Minerals absorbed with drinking water only transit through our body. After a relatively short time (about 20 minutes, if we urinate), these salts are rejected with the urine. It would be more precise to state that an almost equivalent quantity of minerals is eliminated with the urine. Our body's mineral needs are covered by our food and not by the water we drink.
As a whole, one can say that during normal feeding (i.e. when not fasting) the mineral salts contained in our drinking water do not participate in our body's tissue-building process (or at best, very marginally). However, the ions resulting from electrolytic dissociation of the dissolved salts in our water can participate in our body's biological processes, without being actually «absorbed». A dynamic equilibrium settles in between the intake of salts through feeding and the discharge of salts through urination and perspiration. Generally speaking, to be available to the body, these minerals (ions) must be interlinked (chelated) with organic molecules. These chelated ions can only be found in our food, not in drinking water. Vegetables, fruit, milk products, meat, etc. constitute this source of absorbable mineral salts. Food supplements sold in pharmacies to make up for mineral deficiency in fact contain chelated metal ions, and are therefore bio-absorbed.
Drinking water's main role is to compensate water lost through evaporation, breathing and our excreta. Water that is lost in these ways carries with it our body's waste. Water we drink «washes» our inside. Thus, the greater our drinking water is loaded with minerals, the less it can play its role of purifying our body, and the greater our kidneys will need to work. That is not to say that we should drink distilled water or combined reverse osmosis / deionisation treated water, as some companies would have us believe.
If one could so easily absorb the calcium and magnesium found in hard water, wouldn't that mean the end of such ailments as osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and magnesium deficiency? Similarly, the consumption of ferruginous water should mean the end of anaemia? Medical experience has not confirmed such assertions.
The human body's fixing of mineral salts contained in drinking water only comes into effect during prolonged fasting (beyond one week). That is the reason why during fasting, one should avoid drinking rainwater or any other weakly mineralized water.
Certain companies, claiming to adhere to the bioelectronics theory of Vincent (BEV) recommend drinking distilled water. This is an abusive interpretation of Professor Louis-Claude Vincent's work. Water distillation «wipes the slate clean» in terms of solutes (dissolved substances in the water). By repeated distillation, chemists can prepare chemically pure water. Such water does not contain electrolytes (mineral salts) and is therefore not molecularly structured (or clustered). Disordered water is not biocompatible and can even become harmful to one's health. To be structured, it is essential that water contain a small quantity of ions resulting from electrolytic dissociation of mineral salts.
Therefore, drinking distilled or demineralized water is not a healthy habit. A distillation apparatus is really only useful in first-aid kits on sea rescue ships.
A common reverse osmosis system may remove a large part of dissolved salts from water, however it leaves enough to maintain water's molecular order. Reverse osmosis filtered water is therefore biocompatible. Unfortunately, some companies propose reverse osmosis coupled with a deionisation system that works with resins. Some of these same companies propose that their clients purchase standardized mineral salts to be dissolved in the purified water, in order to restore a certain mineral content. Yet, this is altogether unnecessary because a simple reverse osmosis system already supplies a weakly mineralized water of equivalent quality, at a lesser cost. Other companies that would otherwise advocate distilled water consumption present their reverse osmosis & deionisation system as a more efficient way of getting chemically pure water. Let me reaffirm that chemically pure water thus obtained is not biocompatible. The other characteristics of biocompatible water are identical to those of legally potable water.
Important notice : It is much easier to remove bacteria from water than to modify its physicochemical characteristics. Microfiltration removes almost all bacteria, without needing chemical disinfection. The physicochemical characteristics of correctly stored rainwater (in a concrete cistern) correspond to the guideline values for biocompatible water.
Therapeutic mineral water is obviously not considered here. Its dissolved salt content has its virtues. Yet its consumption must be temporary, as a healing aid. It would be an error to make it your principal drinking water. See your doctor on this matter.
Remember that an electrolyte content above 200 mg/l can overload our kidneys. However, a healthy person can tolerate a mineral content up to 800 mg/l without immediate problem. The risk is that we don't rightly know if our kidney functions are our body's «weak point» or not. More often than not, it is only when we get older that we realize if that is so – much too late in our life. Drinking biocompatible water is therefore a wise precaution.
All will agree that a healthy person should drink about 1.5 litres of water a day. This compensates the above-mentioned water loss, but is also necessary to feed the body's physiological processes.
For many years, I thought I drank enough water. When confronted with certain health (mainly heart) problems, my doctor pointed out a commonplace notion that I had overlooked. In the said 1.5 litres per day (more correctly, it should be 1/30th of our body weight), you mustn't count all fluids ingested (e.g. soup, coffee, tea, juice and other drinks, etc.), nor the water contained in our food. These are absorbed by our body as food. Yet, we still need «free» water that is not loaded with dissolved substances. Therefore, nothing can replace pure (preferably biocompatible) water. It is interesting to read the work done on this subject by Dr. F. Batmanhelidj.
It may be a mistake to consider that water contained in soup or beer has the same physiological effect as good spring or well water. In both cases, we are looking at H2O. However, water that is tied up by solutes is not «free». It is held in an electrostatic field that is called the cybotactic region, as previously described. In the process of osmotic exchange, our body needs a certain quantity of «free» or «mobile» water to maintain vital functions.
It is interesting to read the works of Dr. F. Batmanhelidj on this subject. According to him, even when we daily consume insufficient «free» water, our body extracts the needed water from our food, a phenomenon that is due to our adaptability as living creatures. But this puts our body in a state of physiological thirst. As this state settles in, we eventually lose the feeling of thirst. Undetected chronic thirst ends up altering our vital functions, which leads to health problems that even experienced doctors cannot guess the origin of. Each organism reacts differently to chronic thirst. Initially, we can simply feel a bit of fatigue and energy loss. After that, headaches and eventually migraines can set in that no medical analysis can properly diagnose. For some, joints will ache. For others, high blood pressure, stomach ulcers, chronic constipation or even heart problems can be the anomaly. It is altogether obvious that such health problems cannot always be blamed on chronic thirst. But chronic thirst will certainly aggravate them. Sometimes, it is the sole culprit.
Chronic thirst leads to cell dehydration (premature aging, for one). Considering the large quantities of fluids usually absorbed (coffee, tea, fruit juice, sweet drinks, wine, beer, etc.), the process of thirst can easily be explained. You need only measure the osmotic pressure of these fluids and compare it to that of pure (biocompatible) water. You will discover that these «food» fluids are hypotonic. In the digestive system, they create an osmotic pressure loss that «pumps» the body's water towards the intestines and kidneys. Some even suspect that this generates a demineralization problem.
In contradiction to preconceived views, it is precisely due to our body's absorption of highly mineralized or solute containing water that osmotic pressure exchanges somewhat «pump» mineral salts to our body's general excretion functions. This is a reason why weakly mineralized water is what our body needs, and that is what defines biocompatible water.
As mentioned above, I was convinced I drank enough water until one day, as scientist, I decided to monitor every millilitre of water I consumed. The result was surprising: I drank less that a half-litre per day, without any feeling whatsoever of thirst. From then on, I forced myself to drink about 1.5 litres per day. At first, I really had to force myself because I was really not thirsty. It took two weeks for my thirst sensitivity to adjust itself to this new diet, and the positive results quickly showed up on my health: constipation receded, kidney ailments progressively disappeared and cardiac functions became stable as palpitations disappeared.
Without necessarily being a panacea, I believe that increasing one's water consumption to recommended doses will improve one's health, sometimes spectacularly.
In all honesty, I must mention that these considerations are not shared by all nutritionists and dieticians. For example, a Belgian nutritionist, Alain Mahieu, asserts that absorption of excessive water quantities can also lead to health problems. He mentions examples of large quantity water drinkers who coincidentally, also suffer from various ailments (swelling of legs, water retention, abdominal bloat, general bloated sensation), in brief, such ailments that are supposed to be eliminated by consumption of large quantities of water.
We must recognize that interactions between our body and the water it absorbs are highly complex. The sometimes-contradictory opinions are often based on objective clinical observations. Even for a scientist, it's sometimes difficult to verify an assertion's merit. Various clinical observations are made on patients having differing biological and pathological parameters. Our knowledge of molecular biology is insufficient to clearly settle this matter.
As is often the case, there exists a middle ground, coupled with careful observation of one's own body functions. In terms of water consumption, the ideal is to find the capacity to feel real thirst. This feeling is easily lost with an unsuitable diet. You can initiate this water therapy, i.e. ingesting 1/30th of your body weight, for two weeks to start off. This will have no adverse health effects. As you continue, observe your body's reaction, and if needed, adjust your water absorption to attain a level of well-being. Between too much water and too little, it is our own well-being that will determine the proper middle ground.
Thus, after one week of water therapy, detect the moment when, even before absorbing the intended quantity, your body expresses clear refusal: no drinking pleasure. Another test consists in examining your urine colour: too clear = too much water absorbed; too dark = too little water absorbed. Caution: urine's colour varies from morning to night. For this test, you need to collect an entire day's worth of urine in one bottle and analyse the resulting overall colour.
Logically, the more water you consume, the greater the need to be careful of its quality. However, this notion can be somewhat tempered. At the risk of disappointing a few, I believe it is far preferable to drink the required quantity of water, even if it is lesser quality city water (preferably de-chlorinated by aeration in an open decanter) than to absorb too little high-quality biocompatible water, or to drink so-called «dynamised» or «magnetized» water. The first health initiative you must take needs to be on increasing water quantity consumption, before thinking about water quality, which presents more subtle differences.
Finally, more and more nutrition and dietary experts seem to recognize the scientific foundations of the bioelectronics theory of Vincent. Even if on the notion of water quantity, opinions diverge, there appears to be a consensus on the question of water quality: biocompatible water is weakly mineralized (less than 250 mg/l) lightly acid or neutral, and chemically «indifferent» or neutral (rH2 below 29).
In the field of drinking water, you often hear about water «dynamisation». In fact, I am often asked about how to choose an apparatus that «dynamises» or «energizes» potable water.
The notion of water dynamisation appeared in the 1920's. Some researchers have worked on this question throughout the 20th century, giving rise to various dynamisation «principles» for treating water – mechanically (specific turbulences), acoustically (sound and music), electromagnetically («magnetized» water), electrostatically, etc. – in order to restructure water «to restore its original vital properties». Thus, water dynamisation purposes to stimulate beneficial effects on the human body and on one's health. These principles have led to the commercializing of various water «dynamisation» apparatuses, each working according to its own principle, but which's efficiency and pertinence are often dubious.
These apparatuses always come at enormously high prices when compared to their true fabrication cost! Their marketing will often highlight «proof» of their «miraculous» character, supported by clinical observations. One problem is how to discern the objective versus the subjective experience of these observations.
One «dynamisation» approach is to introduce structural information into water. For this, the essential condition – although insufficient – is the creation of a chaotic molecular state in water. Such a state is extremely short-lived: a few milliseconds. The information must therefore be introduced at this precise moment. Such a technical feat can be admitted in a framework of controlled turbulence that can generate a more or less recurrent colloidal state. With such an apparatus, the difficulty is twofold: the time span of colloidal formation and the nature of the introduced structural information.
Artificial turbulences in water also generate an electric potential that is perfectly measurable with a sensitive galvanometer. This is another approach to modifying water's structural information. But it's important to note that initial water quality (i.e. biocompatible) has to be respected.
Electrostatic interactions with crystalline surfaces can also influence water's structure. Some minerals – like natural zeolite or colloidal silica – have this property. This explains the remarkable properties of water emanating form certain natural springs.
Another approach consists in generating an information transfer by combined electrostatic / magnetic fields, pulsated at high frequency. The starting point is a crystalline structure within a solid matrix that we wish to transfer either directly into water or either on a crystalline support (made of very pure silica for example) that is introduced thereafter into water needing to be modified. An example of this process is found in the manufacturing of Plocher products.
The simplest and most common approach is information transfer by water's contact with a terra-cotta support in such a way that crystals form on the surface, with an intense electrostatic field that will tend to modify water's structure. Very few top-level research labs are equipped to monitor and control such crystal formations. Even electron microscopy seems unable to detect such formations. I seriously doubt that ceramic manufacturers dispose of such scanning tunnelling microscopes. I can however accept simple pertinent observations that have led to interesting results. That is the best we can admit without more substantial proof. About dynamisation with terra cotta, I can perfectly accept an information transfer by direct contact with water, in a terra-cotta decanter for example. I am however sceptical of the feasibility of water modification with a ceramic plate or platter on which a pitcher or glass of the said water (or other fluid) would be placed for a just few seconds. With such ceramic water dynamisation systems, I have witnessed taste tests done with a public that asks no better than to believe the promoter.
The problem with these methods is their empirical and often non-reproducible nature. Nevertheless, even this can produce interesting solutions, if done in all honesty and transparency. This is where the problem lies with inventors of these apparatuses. I have had the opportunity of meeting a few, in order to better understand their invention. In all cases, without exception, I only obtained a pseudo-scientific and totally incoherent sales pitch. I am totally willing to recognize observed experimented facts. But if coherent scientific explanations cannot be produced and the technical nature of the apparatus sold cannot be provided, especially considering the existence of copyright laws, than proper validation of the system cannot occur, and the commercial enterprise can be suspected as a total scam.
There are more and more such apparatuses on the market. Whatever improvements these bring to water are undetectable by conventional chemical and electrochemical analyses – including bioelectronics. It's important to note that these systems – except on very rare exceptions – don't modify the chemical and electrochemical (including bioelectronic) properties of water. This is not to say that some of these inventions have no impact on water quality. Qualitative analyses by fractal crystallization (some call this sensitive crystallization) effectively detect certain modifications.
Yet, those properties are the ones that set the necessary conditions for the safeguard of one's health. In light of this, there is no advantage to dynamising mediocre-quality water (in terms of chemical and electrochemical properties) at great expense. Those who allege making biocompatible water from mediocre city water without prior modifying its chemical composition are deceiving their clients. At the price some of these apparatuses are sold, one may even consider them a fraud.
Some salesmen will often invoke the notion of water's molecular structuring (as previously described) without having any electrochemical understanding of the process. Let us examine this aspect. When considering biocompatible water's mineral content range of 10 to 250 mg/l, its structure will be modified by the introduction of particles such as pesticide residues, detergents, conventional drugs, organic compounds, etc. The addition of too many mineral salts will also modify this structure, but differently.
Both cases steer away from biocompatibility. Water dynamisation apparatuses purpose to correct the water's structure and bring it back to below 100, 50, 20 or 15 mg/l of electrolyte content, but only in absence of other pollutants. If these pollutants are still contained in water, it is not reasonable to expect conclusive results. The fundamental reason lies in the enormous electric field intensity of ions situated at a few Angstroms distance. These are undetectable with electronic or electrochemical means. Fractal crystallization tests (including ice crystal tests) only show ionic rearrangements that may modify nucleation foci of water crystals. This is the molecular basis of magnetic apparatus designed to precipitate calcium in home appliances.
With a valid water dynamisation apparatus, the water to be dynamised would have to be biocompatible to start off. Here again, there is no advantage to dynamising mediocre-quality water like city water (this time, in terms of water structure). It's like placing a gold ring in a fish' snout to make it look nicer.
Para seguir leyendo, ir a la página El cloro y la irradiación UV