by binding to the receptors on immune system cells?
Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Calilasseia wrote:Given the ubiquity of water here on Earth, there's not much scope for organisms to avoid it. It would also be pretty remarkable for any immune protein in any organism to develop a binding site for water, because there's not much scope for organisms that develop such a binding site. Plus, the usual outcome of such a weird event would be a fairly short but nasty death.
Plus, there's only two ways for a reaction to take place in such a scenario. One would be ionisation, in which case you'd need something else to bind to the H+ and OH- ions produced, and the end result would be an acid-base pair that would immediately react and reconstitute the original water molecule. The other would involve producing hydrogen and oxygen gas. Which would involve its own potentially lethal brand of hilarity.
Finally, anyone who treats the output of the Daily Mail seriously, isn't someone I'd treat seriously, given the reputation that pathetic excuse for a newspaper has.
WiggleHead wrote:
This is also the same case for another 'water allergy' sufferer named Heidi Falconer who says she cannot drink water or even touch water without needing an epi-pen, so she drinks milk and orange juice, which ''do her no harm'' according to the article I read.
Calilasseia wrote:Given the ubiquity of water here on Earth, there's not much scope for organisms to avoid it. It would also be pretty remarkable for any immune protein in any organism to develop a binding site for water, because there's not much scope for organisms that develop such a binding site. Plus, the usual outcome of such a weird event would be a fairly short but nasty death.
Plus, there's only two ways for a reaction to take place in such a scenario. One would be ionisation, in which case you'd need something else to bind to the H+ and OH- ions produced, and the end result would be an acid-base pair that would immediately react and reconstitute the original water molecule. The other would involve producing hydrogen and oxygen gas. Which would involve its own potentially lethal brand of hilarity.
Finally, anyone who treats the output of the Daily Mail seriously, isn't someone I'd treat seriously, given the reputation that pathetic excuse for a newspaper has.
Cito di Pense wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Given the ubiquity of water here on Earth, there's not much scope for organisms to avoid it. It would also be pretty remarkable for any immune protein in any organism to develop a binding site for water, because there's not much scope for organisms that develop such a binding site. Plus, the usual outcome of such a weird event would be a fairly short but nasty death.
Plus, there's only two ways for a reaction to take place in such a scenario. One would be ionisation, in which case you'd need something else to bind to the H+ and OH- ions produced, and the end result would be an acid-base pair that would immediately react and reconstitute the original water molecule. The other would involve producing hydrogen and oxygen gas. Which would involve its own potentially lethal brand of hilarity.
Finally, anyone who treats the output of the Daily Mail seriously, isn't someone I'd treat seriously, given the reputation that pathetic excuse for a newspaper has.
Could the purported allergic reaction to water molecules alone be tested with lab-grade DIW? Do the sort of folks who obsess about allergies to water (including touchy-feely physicians) even remember their experiences with DIW in the chemistry lab?
Cito di Pense wrote:
You can look this up. Trust me, Wigglehead, I wouldn't shoot anything at you that you can't handle. If you say you can't handle looking up an acronym on the internet, you're lying. You're on the internet, after all. If you say it's too much work to look it up, you're saying that you're lazy.
WiggleHead wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:
You can look this up. Trust me, Wigglehead, I wouldn't shoot anything at you that you can't handle. If you say you can't handle looking up an acronym on the internet, you're lying. You're on the internet, after all. If you say it's too much work to look it up, you're saying that you're lazy.
For deionized water I don't think they said they've tried drinking distilled/deionized water but I'll check.
Cito di Pense wrote:WiggleHead wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:
You can look this up. Trust me, Wigglehead, I wouldn't shoot anything at you that you can't handle. If you say you can't handle looking up an acronym on the internet, you're lying. You're on the internet, after all. If you say it's too much work to look it up, you're saying that you're lazy.
For deionized water I don't think they said they've tried drinking distilled/deionized water but I'll check.
For anyone who needs to drink something besides tap water or Coca Cola, DIW is not recommended, because it's missing electrolytes that are important in normal metabolism. There isn't any easy way out of a purported water allergy besides drinking milk or orange juice.
WiggleHead wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:WiggleHead wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:
You can look this up. Trust me, Wigglehead, I wouldn't shoot anything at you that you can't handle. If you say you can't handle looking up an acronym on the internet, you're lying. You're on the internet, after all. If you say it's too much work to look it up, you're saying that you're lazy.
For deionized water I don't think they said they've tried drinking distilled/deionized water but I'll check.
For anyone who needs to drink something besides tap water or Coca Cola, DIW is not recommended, because it's missing electrolytes that are important in normal metabolism. There isn't any easy way out of a purported water allergy besides drinking milk or orange juice.
Milk and OJ seem OK for the most part, in some cases though it seems like milk and OJ still cause some reaction when ingested but it isn't as bad.
WiggleHead wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Given the ubiquity of water here on Earth, there's not much scope for organisms to avoid it. It would also be pretty remarkable for any immune protein in any organism to develop a binding site for water, because there's not much scope for organisms that develop such a binding site. Plus, the usual outcome of such a weird event would be a fairly short but nasty death.
Plus, there's only two ways for a reaction to take place in such a scenario. One would be ionisation, in which case you'd need something else to bind to the H+ and OH- ions produced, and the end result would be an acid-base pair that would immediately react and reconstitute the original water molecule. The other would involve producing hydrogen and oxygen gas. Which would involve its own potentially lethal brand of hilarity.
Finally, anyone who treats the output of the Daily Mail seriously, isn't someone I'd treat seriously, given the reputation that pathetic excuse for a newspaper has.
I don't read the daily mail personally, it just came up when I googled water allergy. What makes it have a bad reputation?
Calilasseia wrote:WiggleHead wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Given the ubiquity of water here on Earth, there's not much scope for organisms to avoid it. It would also be pretty remarkable for any immune protein in any organism to develop a binding site for water, because there's not much scope for organisms that develop such a binding site. Plus, the usual outcome of such a weird event would be a fairly short but nasty death.
Plus, there's only two ways for a reaction to take place in such a scenario. One would be ionisation, in which case you'd need something else to bind to the H+ and OH- ions produced, and the end result would be an acid-base pair that would immediately react and reconstitute the original water molecule. The other would involve producing hydrogen and oxygen gas. Which would involve its own potentially lethal brand of hilarity.
Finally, anyone who treats the output of the Daily Mail seriously, isn't someone I'd treat seriously, given the reputation that pathetic excuse for a newspaper has.
I don't read the daily mail personally, it just came up when I googled water allergy. What makes it have a bad reputation?
Among those of us with a scientific education, the Daily Mail is one of the worst tabloid offenders, with respect to the matter of bad science reporting. There are talking budgies that could do a better job.
The exact underlying cause of aquagenic urticaria is poorly understood. As of 2016, the main scientific ideas about the cause are that the person is reacting to tiny amounts of an unknown substance dissolved in the water, or that the water interacts with or combines with an unknown substance present in or on the skin, and that the person's immune system is reacting to this compound. Despite the common name water allergy, scientists do not believe that this condition technically represents a true allergy to pure water.
laklak wrote:Pour distilled water on them and see what happens.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest