This was posted 5 years 10 months 24 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Magnesium Oxide Prill Beads $30 (84 Gram) + Shipping @ GrainMills

32
Magnesium Oxide Prill Beads $30 (84 Gram) + Shipping @ GrainMills
Go to Deal
wisdomtooth on 25/05/2018 - 16:54 grainmills.com.au (147 clicks)
Last edited 25/05/2018 - 17:20 by 2 other users

Just bought this and found it to be substantially (~35%) lower than the competitors.

Magnesium oxide prill beads are used in water filtration to both disinfect, remove excess chlorine and fluoride, and raise pH (make it more alkaline). I did a bunch of research on this, and there's a lot of fanciful fantasy stuff written about this, about restructuring water and what not, but empirical results do show that the water comes out with less contaminants — both natural and artificial — and more alkaline (with higher magnesium concentration, which is a good thing).

Health & Beauty

Related Stores

grainmills.com.au
grainmills.com.au

closed Comments

  • BrainSand on 25/05/2018 - 17:02
    +17

    QUACK QUACK. Want some bread? what a waste of money, shit like this devalues the credibility of real science.
    Lmao all this "research", yet citations remain absent…
    EDIT: Actual picture of OP doing his "research"

    restructuring water

    Really? You're going to need to elaborate on that one.

    From the website

    "Prill water… ‘infused with life force’"

    When we are young the water content in our bodies is soft and thin which enables all the metabolic actions to function as nature intended. With time/ageour waters change, absorbing the pollutions of the environment and becoming thickened by these, making it difficult to absorb into the cells, creating only little hydration to cells.

    The first step in any attempt to reverse the destructive aging process, has to be returning the liquid stasis of the body to the softened “thin” type, and increasing hydration to cells.

    Have you tried doing some actually research? that is reading peer reviewed journal article published in a well standing journal then looking to other studies that find similar results to reaffirm what you're reading isn't bullshit. The downvote you slung my way indicates otherwise.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2018 - 17:31
      +1

      OP actually called-out the 'restructuring water claim as "….fanciful fantasy stuff….". I don't think he/she needs to elaborate anything at all.

      I down voted your comment for the self-righteous arrogance and angst, and personal attack on the OP.

      I hope you don't lose too much sleep over it and wake up happier person tomorrow.

    • wisdomtooth on 26/05/2018 - 11:06
      -1

      Have you tried doing some actually research? that is reading peer reviewed journal article published in a well standing journal then looking to other studies that find similar results to reaffirm what you're reading isn't bullshit.

      Yes, I did.

  • Detective Pikachu on 25/05/2018 - 17:14
    +1

    A reverse osmosis system would have better results for filtration purposes.

    • wisdomtooth on 26/05/2018 - 06:19
      +2

      Reverse osmosis is indeed the most effective filtration process, after distillation, but both these extract all the minerals we need in the water too. So you have to add the minerals back in or the water just leeches it out of your own body.

      Either way, these are in entirely different categories of products and price points.

  • Hasquarl on 25/05/2018 - 17:16
    +1

    I want to see these "empirical results" that you are referring to.

  • haboutnnah on 25/05/2018 - 18:00
    +1

    Hi Malcolm Roberts

  • HeXa on 25/05/2018 - 18:22
    +3

    seriously?

    this scammy shit is making a comeback?

  • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2018 - 22:18

    Must be store reps that up voted or new ozb recruits

  • Hogg on 26/05/2018 - 05:37
    +2

    It's ironic that someone with that username would recommend something that reduces the fluoride in the water.

    Fluoride is one of the most equitable and effective preventive health measures for teeth.

    • wisdomtooth on 26/05/2018 - 07:23
      -1

      Yeah, not really gonna bite this one; there's so much evidence now that INGESTING fluoride does NOTHING for the teeth, but most likely demineralise them, making them more (not less!) vulnerable to plaque and cavities (not to mention what it does to your brain and nervous system!!). Suffice it to say, the EPA Union testified in the US Congress AGAINST the dumping of fluoride in the water, and the cover-up of this yet another corporate capture of Western institutions.

      • Hogg on 26/05/2018 - 10:33
        +2

        I'm only going to reply once because I don't believe we will ever be able to agree and it's pointless to argue over this.

        I just want to make sure other people reading are informed. Excess fluoride is bad and toxic just like anything else. You can die from drinking too much water. But the amount of fluoride that has been added to our drinking water has been carefully chosen at the best benefit to risk ratio, and it is a minuscule amount

        However, fluoride has been clearly shown to decrease the incidence of dental decay. There are millions of us who grew up in fluoridated areas and there has not been any documented ill-effects.

        Anecdotally, which I know isn't great but, patients I see who are pre-fluoride era have much worse teeth than post-fluoride patients. I never brushed my teeth as a kid and I never got decay (although this is very lucky). I had perfect teeth because we always had good old tap water at home everyday.

        It's also ironic that people talk about big cover-ups putting down the little guy but in fact fighting against fluoride is actually fighting against inequality.

        The best think about fluoride to me is not just its effectiveness but that it is equitable. No matter if you're the richest guy in Australia or the poorest, you can still have tap water. Without fluoride, the wealthy and the poor may both end up with decay, but who has the means to access the best quality care.

        https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/two-towns-are-48kms-apar…

    • chyawala on 26/05/2018 - 07:32

      Except that a consortium of Nobel prize winners unanimously reject the idea based on concerns for safety. http://fluoridealert.org/content/nobel_winners/

      Fluoride is a schedule 4 prescription medication, and it's use in mass medication though addition to drinking water contradicts the law restricting this type of use. www.articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/05/17/f…

      There is no argument for water fluoridation as oral hygeine has improved in areas regardless of whether it was used, and this is in part due to better nutrition, hygeine practices, and the use of topical fluoride in toothpastes which puts it's where it should go, not systemically.
      There is an underhanded deal that gov makes to actually pay industry to dispose of their extremely toxic waste into municipal water supplies. There are only about five countries that fluoridated water, so you might ask yourself if it was miraculously safe why aren't other countries using it?

      • wisdomtooth on 26/05/2018 - 09:58
        +1

        Exactly.

        The countries that fluoridate their water are:

        • Australia (80%),
        • Brunei (95%);
        • Chile (70%),
        • Guyana (62%),
        • Hong Kong (100%),
        • The Irish Republic (73%),
        • Israel (70%),
        • Malaysia (75%),
        • New Zealand (62%),
        • Singapore (100%), and
        • The United States (64%).

        While 25 countries have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%).

        Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, for example, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water.
        In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population.

        There is no difference in tooth decay between western nations that fluoridate their water and those that do not.

        Some countries have areas with high natural fluoride levels in the water. These include India, China and parts of Africa. In these countries measures are being taken to remove the fluoride because of the health problems that fluoride can cause.

      • Hogg on 26/05/2018 - 10:36
        +2

        You're linking to an anti-fluoride conspiracy website. That's hardly unbiased nor convincing.

        Conspiracy theorists and anti-peeps have much more time and energy to argue this so I'm sure you'll both drown me out with your "sources" but I just want to stand up for the good of the people and present at least my information here.

        If anyone is reading this, my take away is:

        It's also ironic that people talk about big cover-ups putting down the little guy but in fact fighting against fluoride is actually fighting against inequality.

        The best think about fluoride to me is not just its effectiveness but that it is equitable. No matter if you're the richest guy in Australia or the poorest, you can still have tap water. Without fluoride, the wealthy and the poor may both end up with decay, but who has the means to access the best quality care.

        https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/two-towns-are-48kms-apar…

        • wisdomtooth on 26/05/2018 - 13:55

          By the sounds of it, you care about inequality. Great! So do I. If I guessed it right, you probably think there's much too much inequality in this world, that there are many policies and strategies we could undertake to mitigate economic injustice, but are simply ditched by the wayside or are kept filed away grabbing dust simply because there is no political will. I.e. people don't care. Except… for fluoridation! "Suuure", on everything else global corporates and the elites that command them have skimped on, except… for fluoride. Do you realise how incoherent that sounds??

          Now, do you remember seeing early pictures of aborigines? Did they have missing or discoloured teeth? No, they didn't. Neither did they have fluoridated water. They didn't even brush with fluoride! Yes, fluoride kills bacteria — it is indeed a POISON — but humans NEVER needed it before processed and pasteurised food, because we're PERFECTLY capable of fighting opportunistic bacteria with our own immune system, which INCLUDES bacterias!! There is, in fact, 4 times more bacteria in a healthy adult human body than actual human cells (i.e. with human DNA). So, yeah, fluoride does kill bacteria in the mouth — if you apply it topically, like fluoridated toothpaste, not if you DRINK it — but know what else it kills: ALL the friendly bacteria in your throat and gut. Wanna know what happens next? Yeah, cavities. The unchecked opportunistic bacteria takes over, and eats the tooth away (not to mention diseases in other parts of the body, including CANCER). Next, what do people do? Root canal. The tooth is permanently 'put down', so you don't feel it anymore. Does it stay vacant? Course not. It becomes a PERFECT habitat for bacteria, as the dentine is all porous, like a coral, and the tooth being dead and cut out from circulation is beyond reach of the immune system. But the story doesn't end there. If a colony develops, the body senses the toxic byproducts (you'll be swallowing them), and the circulatory system starts pumping blood ever more strongly to try to reach it. Result: high blood pressure and, eventually, a stroke or a heart attack.

          How do I know? I educated myself.

  • wisdomtooth on 26/05/2018 - 06:57
    +1

    People asked for the evidence that this works. It's not… water… tight, but here's what I found…

    First, let me say I came to learn about this because I was looking for a water filter after my son was born, and the magnesium oxide beads were — by far! — the most highly rated on ProductReview.

    Then I started looking into it, and tried to ignore the claims of "magic beads", and "reestructuring the water" (though I later learned that's not all that crazy; the idea that water is an inert substance is an outdated 19/20th century concept, which should be obvious given that no life exists without it; water is actually very weird).

    Let me also say that there's nothing really special about these "beads", how much ever the sellers try to talk it up to new age folk. They're simply magnesium oxide fragments, which is actually very simple to make.

    First piece of empirical evidence I came across was the one offered by the main seller in Australia, Vitel Water: SGS Australia and ALS Australia test results.

    The main points there are:
    * a 33% reduction in fluoride;
    • a 90% reduction in chlorine;
    * a raise in pH from 6.76 to 8.70;
    * a 53% increase in total hardness (as CaCO3); and
    * a 5x increase in magnesium.

    I don't fully understand all that is going on here, but on the face of it, it seems to me, contrary to sellers claims worldwide that the beads last forever, ever minute parts of the magnesium oxide are being pulled out by the water, and breaking down into magnesium and oxygen ions. The magnesium, while raising the pH, then pulls out the fluoride, the oxygen atoms join together to form oxygen molecules, and evaporate killing any microorganisms in its path, much like hydrogen peroxide does when we put it on a wound.

    So how does magnesium pull out fluoride from the water? Here's what I found:

    • Ashraf F. Ali, Sahar M. Atwa, Emad M. El-Giar, Water Purification, ch. 6, 2017, pp 209–262:

    Pure and modified Mg-based NPs, such as MgO, Mg(OH)2, and activated MgO have been used as adsorbents for the removal of several contaminants from drinking water and groundwater including fluoride ions, phosphates, nitrogen species, OM, heavy metals, suspended solids, and bacteria. The results of several studies showed that MgO NPs are very efficient in the removal of the pollutants especially the fluoride ions. Modified MgO was used to remove fluoride ions from groundwater in presence of several other coexisting ions with a high defluoridation capacity. Phosphates and bicarbonates are the two most competitors for fluoride removal (Maliyekkal et al., 2010).

    • Rashmi R. Devi, Iohborlang M. Umlong, Prasanta K. Raul, Bodhaditya Das, Saumen Banerjee & Lokendra Singh, “Defluoridation of water using nano-magnesium oxide”, Journal of Experimental Nanoscience, vol. 9, no. 5, 2014:

    Nano-sized magnesium oxide (nano-MgO) was investigated for adsorption of fluoride from water. The pure and fluoride adsorbed nano-MgO were characterised by Brunauer–Emmett–Teller, high resolution transmission electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray analyses. The surface area of the adsorbent was found to be 92.46 m2/g. Maximum (90%) fluoride removal was obtained with 0.6 g/L dosage of nano-MgO. Fluoride adsorption by nano-MgO was found to be less sensitive to pH variations. Fluoride sorption was mainly influenced by the presence of OH− ion. The presence of other ions studied did not affect the fluoride adsorption capacity of nano-MgO significantly. It has been observed that Freundlich model was better fitted as compared to Langmuir model which indicated the multilayer adsorption of the adsorbent following a pseudo-second order kinetics. Regeneration study showed that 1 M HCl was the best eluent with 95% desorption capacity towards fluoride removal followed by NaOH (2 M) with 25% regeneration of the adsorbent.

    • Nadukkandy, Minju & Venkat Swaroop, K & Krishnan, Haribabu & Velmurugan, Sivasubramanian & Ponnusamy, Senthil Kumar, “Removal of fluoride from aqueous media by magnesium oxide-coated nanoparticles”, Desalination and water treatment, 2013:

    In the present study, magnesium oxide (MgO)-coated magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles have been synthesized for analyzing the fluoride scavenging potential via modification of sol–gel method. The characterization of the nanoadsorbent was done by means of scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive analysis of x-rays, and dynamic light scattering analyses. Batch adsorption experiments were carried out by varying the parameters adsorbent dose (0.75–3 g/L), initial fluoride concentration (5.6–25 mg/L), and pH (5.0–7.0). The maximum removal of fluoride was estimated as 98.6% for an initial fluoride concentration of 13.6 mg/L at optimal conditions: pH 6.0, adsorbent dosage of 2 g/L, and contact time of 120 min. Results revealed that the adsorption was rapid and the fluoride affinity depends on the solution pH, adsorbent dosage, and contact time. The equilibrium was obtained in less than 180 min. The adsorption kinetic data were fitted well to the pseudo-second-order kinetic model. The adsorption equilibrium data were best fitted to the Langmuir isotherm model. Based on the results observed, it was identified that the prepared adsorbent posses adequate adsorption potential to remove the fluoride ions from the aqueous solution.

    • HeXa on 26/05/2018 - 16:09

      that's all great but these prill beads aren't nanoparticles

      • wisdomtooth on 26/05/2018 - 18:59

        Yeah, I know. As I said, I don't fully understand what's happening, and I haven't found anyone who does. But the test results are there. Perhaps the beads are gradually letting off nanoparticles.

      • wisdomtooth on 27/05/2018 - 07:16

        Also, the only difference there is surface area. That is in fact pointed out in those papers, that they use NPs because of the much area of contact between them and the water.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join