Now you have posted a paper. That's pretty nice, because I'm researching in the field of molecular dynamics. So scientific papers are what I can use to evaluate certain things better than a docutainment movie.
Only looking at the title and the formulation, some questions come to my mind:
1. Why can't I find the paper on Google Scholar?
http://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&q=report+on+the+efficacy+of+anolyte+in+hospitals&btnG=&lr=Google Scholar is a search-engine for scientific publications. It cannot be found there. In which Journal has this paper been published?
Maybe Google Scholar is not specific enough (which is almost never the case). So let's do a try at ACS, american chemical society, where you can find an enormous amount of published papers. No match there.
http://search.acs.org/search?q=report+on+the+efficacy+of+anolyte+in+hospitals&client=acs_r2&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=acs_r2&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entqr=3&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&site=acs&filter=p&partialfields=&as_filetype=&as_ft=i&x=0&y=02. Why isn't it written in a typical style. Scientific papers are written in LaTeX, have an abstract not giving so many details, show where it was published, have a DOI or so and state clearly at which institute the research has been done. None of this is the case here.
3. Why do the authors use terms, which are all but common in scientific discussions? Anolyte? What is anolyte? Ok, I'm not a chemist, I'm a physicist with a field of research strongly connected to chemistry, but I haven't heard of anolyte. A mix of Electrolyte and Anode? Let's do a lookup at ACS:
http://search.acs.org/search?q=anolyte&client=acs_r2&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=acs_r2&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&entqr=3&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&site=acs&filter=p&partialfields=&as_filetype=&as_ft=i&x=0&y=0No entries.
4. Who are the authors? A short search yields that these guys really exist and are scientists.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9190297We find this PubMed. That's pretty cool, because the guys show up and we even get more information on the institute:
Hospital Infection Research Laboratory, City Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
This paper states where the research has been done. There seems to be some connections between the paper posted here and the paper I found. The published paper speaks about disinfection with Glutaraldehyd and why it leads to problems (misdiagnosis, infections). No words spoken about anolyte or at least any sort of reactor purifying water. These guys seem to be researching in applied medicine.
5. Why is a mixture of radicals, with potential above 1V and pH 5-7 not corrosive ? Probably because at pH 5-7 most radicals will be neutralised. But let's do an experiment:
A 1.2V battery is put into tap water. The pH is obviously 7, there are no radicals just 2 poles. What will happen if you wait some time? The metal will corrode. As a result of flow between the 2 poles. If we throw radicals into the water the situation gets more obvious. Metal will corode faster. I just tried to setup an experiment which belongs to school chemistry or physics, which already shows that these claims seem to be wrong.
Maybe there is a mixture which holds these claims but there aren't any information what are the portions of the given radicals. What happens to them (reaction equations). And even if there was such information, this leads to the next question:
6. How can a reactor produce this "anolyte", which consists of radicals as Cl2 (which is not a radical), ClO2 and so on, without having a supply of substances freeing these radicals. The videos from Vitold Bakhir say nothing is needed. Water gets purified just by electricity. This cannot be the case with anolyte. Supply of radicals will be necessary.
7. Why do we never get information on how the portions of these radicals should be? How they are put into solution and so on. Also the paper speaks of anolyte in the introductory and in the conclusion. The main part focuses highly on glutaraldehyde, only the tables have anolyte included.
This all leads me to a conclusion:
This paper does
not exist in the given shape. Everything points to the assumption that an existing paper (about glutaraldehyde) has been taken, modified and posted here. Maybe the authors are even the same, and Griffiths has been dropped. If this assumption is true, this is one of the worst things you can do with papers. Trying to look scientific underpinned by changing papers from others belongs to the worst things that can be done in the scientific community.
Even if you can clear the inconsistencies, there will always be the question why this has been posted.
