Incredible ..... solid water!

[Obamot]

It's not "my" freeze, I beg you to notify one last time Bamboo.

Then, I did not see that the plastic bottles you mentioned were banned? I'm not doing syllogism, huh! It's just that plastic is made from petroleum and can contain bisphenol or other shit, which is not the case here.

We can not exclude any hypothesis, for any product, that it is natural to the chemical, there is frankly not the problem, but again it is a question of setting the right priorities.

What are we dealing with? Has potassium initially (no oil residue). Potash is found everywhere in nature. This is for example ash from the burning of plants (from the word "potassiumOr English pot ash who literally mean "pot ash"). What's more, potash is a natural primary fertilizer needed for plant growth! Just see how fast it pushes back after a pine forest fire ...

And although you try desperately to justify your point of view, it is clear that you have fallen by the side. It would be easier to recognize it: it happens to me and in this case I recognize that I was wrong. We can not know everything.

For simplicity, if the water was metal and this polymer a magnet, you could consider that they stick to each other by electromagnetism (this is almost the case, the ions are positively charged VS negatively). Point bar. The rest are muddy baseless suputations.

Or you have to prove!

[Alain G]

This is the fundamental principle of water treatment using polymer!

[bamboo]

It's not "my" freeze, I beg you to notify one last time Bamboo.

When was the 1ère time ?? And who do I notify? Maybe you wanted to use another word?

Then, I did not see that the plastic bottles you mentioned were banned?

Exactly ! You say that a simple patent engages on the safety, whereas patented AND marketed things are bad for the health! You're going around in circles to get out of your impasse!

We can not exclude any hypothesis, for any product, that it is natural to the chemical, there is frankly not the problem, but again it is a question of setting the right priorities.

You see we agree!

plants (from the wordpotassiumOr English pot ash

One would think to read Dede! Details that are useless but allow you to fill pages ...

It is clear that you have fallen beside.

Next to what? I say do not get excited just because a guy says he found a martingale!

If it tells you to trust him, no problem.

[Obamot]

REACH is not retroactive! So old patents excluded: still next to the plate.

she can not read the big mouth.

[bamboo]

REACH is not retroactive! So old patents excluded: still next to the plate.

she can not read the big mouth.

[Did67]

Did67, you write:

And for the record, glyphosate (the active ingredient of Monsanto's famous Roundup) has a higher DL50 than ... sea salt

This is obviously a bit off topic, but this sentence calls for two remarks.
1 - the safety test you are referring to only measures short-term toxicity; a lot of products having obtained excellent results in the past are now banned because of the medium and long-term toxicity (eg the selective weed killer of corn, well known under the name of Simazine, endocrine disruptor, just like the phytocides 2-4D and 2-4-5-T).
2- It is known that it is an adjuvant of glyphosate (active ingredient of Round-up) which is mainly problematic, but this adjuvant without which glyphosate is perfectly ineffective has not been tested for its authorization to marketing.

Currently, given the potential activity of chemicals at very low doses and over long periods of time, the definition of "acceptable daily intake" (admirable formula!) Is a scholar (?) Compromise between incomplete scientific data and business interests.

Just to say that I am 100% agree with you.

And even to add that some derivatives of glyphosate, afterwards, in the soil, do not have this about "harmless" (relative in the case of a pesticide, we agree).

It was just to illustrate that the dogma that "what is synthetic is dangerous / what is natural is not" is a bit short!

Conclusion:

a) do not use Roundup, but hot water, hoe, ground cover (mulching, etc ...)

b) and above all strongly reduce your salt consumption if you have not already done so (but do not remove it)!

[For others, phthalates and bisphenol are molecules deliberately added to give certain properties to certain plastics - eg to remain flexible - and not a "derivative" that appears in plastic bottles; that said, to avoid going in circles: yes, in plastic bottles there are other undoubtedly undesirable derivatives, remnants of solvents or whatever ...

[moinsdewatt]

And -1 for Lessdewatt

J .......
6) The designer - as a chemist - declares that the water molecules are not denatured. By his patent, he commits his responsibility ... He must know what he is talking about!

No.

You can patent anything (except anticipation). The role of the patent agencies is in no way to prevent the inventor of any liability whatsoever.

Yes.

He commits him from the moment he starts - or is involved (which obviously seems to be the case) - himself in production and / or until marketing.

And since REACH:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enregistre ... _chimiques

The new regulation is progressively aimed at eliminating the most dangerous chemical substances in the European Union. For that, the burden of proving the safety of commonly used chemicals is reversed: it is up to the industry (and the importer) to demonstrate the safety of these substances to humans and nature, by studies on risks to human health and the environment, before they are placed on the market or used.

Every producer of chemicals has to prove that the new molecules he puts on the market are safe.

But once again, we surf on the inexistence of understanding the correct priorities in a global approach of the problems, for some in this thread!

You mix everything!

You speak to me patent and then you get on REACH.

Should have clear ideas.

The patent offices are dealing with what they do, and for the stories of responsibility for manufactured products it is Reach that applies, of course.

But there is a bunch of wacky patents that are not embarking on REACH for the simple reason that nothing will be manufactured.

[moinsdewatt]

REACH is not retroactive! So old patents excluded: still next to the plate.

she can not read the big mouth.

.
You say silly things.

REACH covers all chemical substances, produced or imported, existing or new, from an annual volume greater than one tonne, ie 30 000 substances (among the most 100 000 used in Europe).

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enregistre ... _chimiques

And then in any case there are a lot of substances that are manufactured and never patented. And yet they are subject to Reach.

In my box we ban the use of substances by our subcontractor, because of Reach. There are old ones (substances).

[Ahmed]

Yes, Did67:

And even to add that certain glyphosate derivatives, after the fact, in the soil, do not have this relative "harmlessness" (relative in the case of a pesticide, we agree).

You are right to point out the unfortunate role of metabolites in the soil; these products evolve in a way that is totally out of control and our ignorance of soil biochemistry does not help ...

To come back to the question of frozen water, I really do not see a somewhat "virtuous" agronomic use, because, apart from the case of ensuring the simple survival of a plant, what can actually do this kind of product, to really grow a production it is not enough to give it to drink: this therefore supposes that in the dose of jelly of each plant is incorporated fertilizing elements (= oil, = increased financial dependence ...) (we must admit that it is very tempting, once the first step is taken).

Because, assuming this harmless product, in organic farming as well as in traditional agriculture, so that nutrition can be done, it is necessary that all the nourishing roots can exchange with the bacteria of the soil and therefore that the entire either humid environment, or a large dose of "miracle" product ...
Personally, I feel bad, while simple and effective techniques such as mulching are very little used (it is true that there is nothing to sell ...).
What do you think?

[Obamot]

Who were you talking about in this thread? From Georges Charpak?

Other than that, you might be interested in such a process - which does not require ANY energy - instead of sinking into improbable and unproven assumptions.