Talk:Carbonated water

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CMadara1. Peer reviewers: Realzspookyszn13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

chronic consumption/kidney issues

I removed the following claim: "Chronic excessive consumption is associated with recurrent nephrolithiasis (kidney stones)", but my edit summary was not entirely accurate. This was a study both of "colas" (with sugar and with artificial sweeteners) and "noncola carbonated beverages". The study conclued that "non-cola carbonated beverages were not associated with chronic kidney disease". So the study actually contradicts the claim attributed to it. It's consumption of "colas" that are associated with kidney problems, this gets blamed on phosphoric acid which is not present in carbonated water. Just want to protect my habit, you had me worried for a second, Hairhorn (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Uncited (and incorrect section)

This one part, "The phosphoric acid present in many soft drinks is what reduces bone density and increases bone fracture risk," is not cited. As well, there is contradictory information on the phosphoric acid page (Biological effects on bone calcium) that links to this study in the health section: Barger-Lux M.J., Heaney R.P. and Stegman M.R. (1990). "Effects of moderate caffeine intake on the calcium economy of premenopausal women [published erratum appears in Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1991

I'm not comfortable with wiki editing for public consumption so I'll leave this here for someone who cares to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.208.198 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Club Soda" is a trademark owned by Cantrell & Cochrane Ltd. of Belfast, Northern Ireland

This applies, if at all, only in the UK. The sources are frankly not that clear. Hairhorn (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It would apply in every country where trademark law is respected. Of course, there may be a few where it's not.Wahrmund (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A 19th century Belfast trademark does not automatically apply worldwide. The sources here are not clear... there's a trademark from the 19th century, and a legal decision about a company that wanted to use the term "Soda Club" in the UK. My local grocery store has several generic brands of carbonated water, all called "Club Soda". There are also corporate versions. If this is a trademark, it's not being protected, at least where I live. This needs a good third party source, neither of the sources given qualifies. Hairhorn (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: The US Patent Office lists the Cantrell & Cochrane trademark as "dead", and last renewed in 1966. Until a good third party source turns up, this looks pretty conclusive to me, at least as far as the status outside of the UK is concerned. Hairhorn (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the bad link, the USPTO doesn't seem to provide direct url links for trademarks; go here and search for "Club Soda". Hairhorn (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: According to the OED entry on "club soda" the UK patent is from 1877. There's no way such an old patent could still be alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.240.108 (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Carbonated water" vs. "club soda"

"Club soda" is mentioned twice in the article. I was under the impression that club soda contains minerals whereas "carbonated water" is just carbonated water. At least in a Boston super market, that is correct. "Sparkling water" is just carbonated water whereas at least one brand of "club soda" is carbonated water containing potassium bicarbonate and potassium citrate. I have always thought this was universal. If so, this page should mention that. In particular, I've heard of club soda works as a stain remover because of those ingredients (although a quick Google search suggests there's no consensus on this). —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Club soda can contain something other than carbonated water, but it needn't to be referred to as "club soda". I buy several brands of club soda, one of them is only carbonated water. The OED also agrees that club soda doesn't require minerals. Hairhorn (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"US-Centric"

This is quite US-Centric, it would be helpful if editors with information from elsewhere could contribute? Markb (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've recently come across Thwaites' Soda Water, which was founded in Dublin in 1799 . This reprinted London Globe article claims that this company were the first to patent and sell "Soda Water" under that name. The Thwaites' brand became "esteemed" around Ireland as this advert from the Limerick Gazette (29th March 1811) shows https://twitter.com/Limerick1912/status/244037370972872704/photo/1/large — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huxley10 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

--Huxley10 (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Merge with "Carbonic Acid"

Carbonic Acid and Carbonated water are so similar that why don't we merge "Carbonated water" and "Carbonic Acid" Together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.224.179 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They're not precisely the same, and the two entires are very different, so a merge is probably not called for. Note that there are also separate entries for vinegar and acetic acid. Hairhorn (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

OK.NOW I got it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.224.179 (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semetism?

I am personally (as a Jew) a bit concerned with the section on seltzer water and Jews ("Seltzer and Jewish-Americans"). It was interesting (in that I'd never really thought about it). But, the term "Jewish Champagne" is border-line deragatory and must be used carefully. (When I looked at the original use of the term, in the cited Atlantic article, it is used more neutrally than here.) Also, this sentence is WHOLLY UNSUPPORTED (i.e., does NOT come from the Atlantic article): "Anecdotally, significant portions of Jewish-Americans are believed to posses large quantities of seltzer in their homes, generally purchased from Cosco or other large wholesale stores." (And, also, as an American Jew, I don't know ANYONE who buys seltzer water -- from "Cosco" or anywhere else, for that matter! As "ancedotablly" correct as the opposite assertion made in this article!) At any rate, I'll bookmark this article and watch to see if anything comes from my comment. I will also check several Jewish cook books and food-related books I own to see if more substantiated info can be added. Otherwise, I will remove the "offending" sentences from this para. in a few weeks. Thanks! Cynthisa (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Seltzer and Jewish-Americans Carbonated water, generally referred to as seltzer, has long been a staple of the Ashkenazi Jewish-American diet since their widespread immigration from Eastern Europe and Russia to the United States that peaked in the 1920's. Anecdotally, significant portions of Jewish-Americans are believed to posses large quantities of seltzer in their homes, generally purchased from Cosco or other large wholesale stores. It is customarily placed on the dinner table at family gatherings. Seltzer is so commonplace in Jewish home that it is often referred to as "Jewish Champagne."[10] There is a fervent debate among cultural anthropologists about the origin and persistance of the Jewish love of seltzer. To date, no argument has proved conclusive."

I think the whole section is inappropriate, so I have simply removed it. Deli nk (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is antisemetic, but it wildly misrepresents what's actually stated in the Atlantic article given as a reference (where the term "the Jewish Champagne" is attributed to a by-gone era, not the present). So outright deletion is the best option for now. Hairhorn (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A medical use

Carbonated water is excellent, better than albendazole or any pharmaceutical out there, at eliminating parasitic worms from the gastrointestinal tract. Worms, like fish, require oxygenated water to breathe. Carbonated water is not oxygenated. Put them in carbonated water and they suffocate and die. You do need lots of it though but it works very well.

This idea is deemed obvious and not subject to patent protection.

Que the FDA trying to find ways to restrict or ban it by trying to regulate it as a drug or claiming it can be dangerous or whatever. Because anything that can serve a medical purpose is automatically subject to the FDA's political tyranny.

Also, here is an experiment suggesting that store bought carbonated water paralyzes worms for as long as they are immersed in it.

"All worms, including controls, were anesthetized with a carbon dioxide solution (store-bought carbon-ated water)"

Source (book):

Developments in Hydro-Biology

Aquatic Oligochaetes

Page 246

edited by Brenda M. Healy, Trefor B. Reynoldson, Kathryn A Coates

1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers

(found via Google Books)

Though they recovered after being placed in regular water, if you can expose them to carbonated water for long enough for your body to rid them then it can help rid them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36D9:9F0:D43A:A35C:C150:BA00 (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done I added this to the article. --David Hedlund (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This source only states that a certain species of worm can be temporarily anesthetized using carbonated water. There is absolutely nothing in that source to substantiate the claim that this helps the body subsequently combat them in any way. Unless someone can find additional substantiating documentation that actually supports this claim, I propose the entire Anti-Parasitic subsection be removed. ||bass (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This is absurd. By the time the carbonated water hits the stomach, it has already lost virtually all the carbonation. This is why you are compelled to issue a large belch just after a big gulp of fizzy. Water has to be cold in order to hold CO2; it becomes warm during its trip down the oesophagus. The idea that you can suffocate your pet worms in this way is ludicrous. Freddy011 (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Health effects

I feel like this section could be improved.

Intake of carbonated beverages has not been associated with increased bone fracture risk in observational studies. The effect of carbonated beverages on the amount of calcium in the body is negligible.

Does this even need to be here? There's probably a plethora of health problems carbonated beverages do not cause, are we going to list them all? Why is this here

One study states that consumers of carbonated water prepared at home had significantly higher mean drinking water intake (tap + bottled + carbonated water) in percentage of total water intake than non-consumers, and lower mean intakes of milk, bottled water and tap water, respectively.

Is this actually a health benefit? A higher % of consumers water-intake is "drinking water", what does that even mean? If someone has a % of water intake that is not "drinking water" then clearly they are going to be having some health issues occur, but I don't see how that context is being used as a "health benefit" of carbonated water.

I propose both items be removed. Jozsefs (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I just looked over the whole Health effects section, and it gives me an uneasy feeling. There are primary sources, and the conclusions are often possibilities rather than concrete statements. Some statements just leave me wondering -- does it matter that carbonated water increases blood alcohol faster? CNN is not my source for health news, but http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/expert.q.a/05/06/carbonated.water.jampolis/ seems to be level-headed and makes the statement that CW has little impact. Colas (not CW) is the real risk for teeth. Increased gas in the stomach is problem for IBS.

I'd just remove the whole section.

Glrx (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't remove the whole section, since this question obviously is interesting to people. To address reader's concerns, we should write that CO₂ does normally not constitute any problem, except for people with IBS. The CNN reference you bring up is good for this purpose. I won't object to removing the other highly specific bits of information, for some of which there has been link rot, anyway (at least for the Bastyr link). The Korean study is quite interesting in that it claims significant effects, so I have a slight preference for keeping it, but if/when it turns out to be accepted knowledge we should be able to find secondary sources instead. — Sebastian 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I made a stab; if you don't like it, feel free to revert me. Glrx (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Renasissance?

This is carbonated water, not Europe. Maybe the word could be used like this but I feel it's inappropriate for the topic and doesn't really work. 75.174.202.209 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What about non-hardware carbonation?

When I was a kid we had Fizzies (or some such trade name) that were large pills dropped into water that started to fizz (carbonate I assume). There was an upset-stomach pill too called Alka‑Seltzer that fizzes. Is there nothing like it now? I see an ad for "Fizzies Candy Drink Tablets" but it says the product is no longer made and is out of date "Use By". Would this not belong to History and maybe its own paragraph? Garylcamp (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carbonated water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060912105849/http://www.waitrose.com/food_drink/wfi/drinks/softdrinks/0208093.asp to http://www.waitrose.com/food_drink/wfi/drinks/softdrinks/0208093.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050403181308/http://www.priestleysociety.net/ to http://www.priestleysociety.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Home Soda Syphons

The section had been edited to say that the reason for home-carbonated water made in a seltzer bottle being less carbonated than commercial product is because (1) the water is not as cooled in a home refrigerator as in a commercial plant, and (2) the gas pressure is not as high as in the commercial product. Neither of these assumptions is correct. (1): A domestic refrigerator can be 0-4 degrees C; any colder and it would freeze. (2): Try opening a charged seltzer bottle; you will find no shortage of gas pressure. The carbonation difference is accountable by the fact that there necessarily has to be some air space left inside the bottle when it is filled with water, in order to accommodate the gas charge. Unless someone has figured out a way to compress water. As a result, the bottle contains a mixture of CO2 and air. This can only compromise the carbonation. But the result is still quite acceptable. Freddy011 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I had to revert your change because it had several problems. Please try again but focus on one section at a time. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Seltzer, Spring, Club, and Tonic

According to this article in the Huffington Post, there are important differences between seltzer water, spring water, club soda, and tonic water. The difference between tonic and the rest is quite clear, but right now it looks like we have redirects from the other three here to carbonated water, which doesn't look like it is a good idea. Has this ever been discussed before? I would be glad to start splitting these out, but would like to know if I am going to be wasting my time by doing so. Anyone know? A loose noose (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Another source that says those are different things [1]. Taxonomy of Carbonated Waters It hould be splitted. Types: Carbonated water, sparkling water, bubbly water, and fizzy water are umbrella terms describing water that has been pressurized with carbon dioxide gas to produce effervescence, i.e., bubbles. Carbonated water can occur naturally—as is the case with water from certain mineral springs—or it can be created artificially. Seltzer or seltzer water. Club soda. Mineral water is an umbrella term that can refer to either flat or sparkling water from a mineral spring. Soda water is an ambiguous term, probably because it’s been around for a long time: It is what the first commercially available artificially carbonated water was called in the late 18th century. Today, some people use soda water synonymously with seltzer; other people use it synonymously with club soda. Tonic water isn’t water. I raised the same question on talk page of one one the variants (before merger), but it seems that people in charge here are deaf and blind so it seems that the effort would be wasted Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

soda water, tonic water, and mineral water all have their own pages on WP. So, why would you propose a further split? Christopher Rath (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Industrial C02

Where is the CO2 in the water coming from? I once heared that it is produced as a byproduct in some industrial chemical reaction, but is this true? Does anyone has sources for that? --217.97.96.175 (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

In some cases carbonated water is obtained directly from natural geological sources. When carbonated water is produced from water itself, the carbon dioxide will not have a single source. As a gas that is produced and consumed on an industrial scale, carbon dioxide will certainly come from many different sources. This webpage gives a few examples: The most common operations from which commercially-produced carbon dioxide is recovered are industrial plants which produce hydrogen or ammonia from natural gas, coal, or other hydrocarbon feedstock, and large-volume fermentation operations in which plant products are made into ethanol for human consumption, automotive fuel, or industrial use. Breweries producing beer from various grain products are a traditional source. Corn-to-ethanol plants have been the most rapidly growing source of feed gas for CO2 recovery. CO2-rich natural gas reservoirs found in underground formations found primarily in the western United States and in Canada are another source of recoverable carbon dioxide. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not about lacking citations, but most likely a copyright violation

• This needs some research in some UK Film database.
• Carbonated water: carbonwater1.blogspot.com (dated Jan. 29, 2011)

Also, take a look at: https://forward.com/culture/334826/have-seltzer-will-travel Nuts240 (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

rmv'g OR/Original Research hatnote; looks like this is just a rephrasing/summary. Nuts240 (talk) 04:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Savannah yhzzz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Savannah yhzzz (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Could not corroborate conclusion about time to damage human teeth

The article contains the following text:

A 2017 study by the American Dental Association showed that it would take over 100 years of daily sparkling water consumption to cause damage to human teeth [...]

This section cites https://doi.org/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2842.2001.00795.x as footnote reference, but the footnote reference was published on 2001. Perhaps the reference is incorrect. 2001:1620:5459:0:F3C2:78CA:7391:9D8C (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I noticed this too, and the citation is for research carried out by the University of Birmingham Dental School in the UK. AdamFunk (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)