Editorial standards
Water attracts more confident misinformation than almost any other everyday subject, in both directions. These are the rules Hydrionis writes under.
What Hydrionis prefers
- Direct factual answers, stated early rather than after preamble
- Structured evidence: charts, tables, diagrams and comparisons over paragraphs
- Numbers with their source, method, period and unit attached
- Transparent caveats, stated where the reader will encounter the number rather than in a footnote
- Explaining the mechanism, not just the outcome
What Hydrionis avoids
- Sensationalism and unsupported fear, including where it would be popular
- Repeating water myths, even to debunk them without evidence
- Marketing language and vague qualifiers
- Filler and repetitive SEO prose
- Implying causation from a chart that shows correlation
- Presenting an estimate as an observation
How claims are classified
Marketing and health claims are assessed against published evidence and classified. The classification is applied consistently and is visible on the page.
| Verdict | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Supported by evidence | The evidence supports the claim as stated. |
| Partly supported | Something real underlies it, but the claim as stated goes further than the evidence. |
| Uncertain | A plausible mechanism and some evidence, but not enough to conclude either way. An open question. |
| Unproven | Adequate evidence does not exist. Not the same as disproven. |
| Misleading in context | Technically accurate but presented so as to imply something the evidence does not support. |
| Contradicted by evidence | The evidence, or the underlying chemistry or physiology, contradicts the claim. |
Corrections
If a figure here is wrong, or a licence has been recorded incorrectly, Hydrionis wants to know. Corrections are made and dated, and superseded observations are retained rather than deleted — the record of what was previously published is part of the provenance.