Dr. Masaru Emoto absurd research

[azredrock30]

hello,

i have been a lurker here for quite some time, perhaps nearing a year. i enjoy reading many of the posts on these forums. so that brings me to my first ever posting of my own.

i like to subscribe to woo woo newsletters (Free of course) to hear the latest absurd claims made by those involved with pseudo science.

which brings me to this study here:

edit

and here:

edit

now , i am not nearly as smart, or educated as i perceive many on these boards to be, therefore, my intention in posting those studies, is so someone, much brighter than myself, can point out the problems with their methods, conclusions, etc.

thank you

edit: i guess i am not allowed to post url's until i have made atleast 15 posts. so i am not sure how to let anyone see the research studies i was talking about. they are several pages of reading each, so i cant copy and paste them....

http :// www .ions. org/emails/ishift/articles/radin_crystal2.pdf

http: // www . deanradin. com/papers/Radin_crystal_EXPLORE.pdf

edit: i just put some spaces in between ..not sure if thats against the rules or not, but we shall see....

[LTC8K6]

http://www.ions.org/emails/ishift/articles/radin_crystal2.pdf

http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Radin_crystal_EXPLORE.pdf

[jasonpatterson]

In the first paper, assuming that all of the individuals involved were being truthful, it would seem that the effect that they actually found was that their proximal control was significantly uglier than the other two samples. They state clearly near the end of the paper that the distant control was found to be more beautiful than the experimentally treated bottle. That means that its difference relative to the proximal control was more significant than the experimentally treated bottles (that is, that ice made from water placed far from a bottle that is being prayed to is prettier than ice made from water that is near.)

The photographic method for these leaves much to be desired. The photographer was supposed to search the water drops for an ice crystal and photograph it, but there was no process describing which crystal to photograph or at what power/depth of focus/etc. What it really looks like this shows is that the photographer, by chance, didn't find a dozen or so attractive ice crystals belonging to the proximal water. Other than that the distribution of values look nearly identical, with the vast majority of ice crystals being voted as 3/5 or less on the beauty rating scale.

Much of the process is confusing as well. Why, for instance, did the water have to be shipped to Japan to be photographed? Any decent science lab should have the ability to take a darkfield image of some ice crystals. I also wonder which bottles were assigned to which treatment and in which order they were photographed. If, by chance, the proximal bottles were examined last, it seems entirely possible that a photographer, having just taken 200 pictures of ice crystals, might be more or less interested and/or adept at finding pretty ones.

Another odd thing that is done is analyzing the data for all crystals with beauty > 1. They only chose to do this after the data was recorded, and I can only imagine that they also checked b > 2, 3, 4 as well... It looks like they needed 'evidence' that the distant control wasn't as beautiful as the experimentally controlled one.

Another problem with the experiment is that the very claim that they are trying to test is basically impossible to block out. Suppose that we had a group of skeptical people do the exact same thing. They could claim that the skeptics had introduced bad vibes to the water during the testing and that that is why it didn't work, which is the usual excuse for physics going for the MDC as well...

I only really looked at the first paper, the silliness of it all got to me.

[kitakaze]

*deep inhale*

mmmm... Japanese woo. There is no lack for it.

There is only one for this Emoto character...

馬鹿

(baka)

That about sums it up.

[ExMinister]

The other possible explanations Radin offers on the last page of his paper are so ridiculous, I can't believe they've been published. Sheesh. He really thinks we should seriously consider that maybe future readers influenced the outcome of the study? :confused:

I'm not a scientist but I think, even if this study did qualify as a properly performed double-blind study, these results need to be able to be replicated by other scientists before being able to be considered significant. To me the easiest explanation for the results is chance - i.e. the more studies conducted, the more the results will disappear or even reverse, similar to the prayer studies.

Another issue with Mr. Emoto is that his claim to the title of doctor is based on having received certification as a Doctor of Alternative Medicine from the Open International University for Alternative Medicine in India. That doesn't appear to be anything remotely resembling a real university. So calling himself doctor is misleading to say the least.

[madurobob]

I don't think I've ever seen as poster with one post and "Banned" under their name. I might actually have to read the PDFs now...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Step two -- replication.

Have some else do it again. With improved controls. Get similar positive results.

Then I will pay attention. :cool:

[Biscuit]

I didn't make it through the whole study so maybe they addressed this and maybe I am being to picky but wouldn't the cultural back ground of the people rating the 'beauty' of the crystals inform their ratings? If it was all Japanese people Vs. using all Spanish people wouldn't you expect them to find different aesthetics pleasing?

Maybe I am way out in left field with that but for some reason it seems important to me. That is probably the least disturbing attribute of this test.

[Ashles]

I don't think I've ever seen as poster with one post and "Banned" under their name. I might actually have to read the PDFs now...
Huh? How does that work?

In Forum Management it says he was "already banned" and links to Darat's notification of when he was banned in January.

How can he have posted today if he was already banned?

And how can he have been banned in January if he only has one post which is dated today?

I'm really confused.

ETA: Never mind - I figured it out. He was previously azredrock20 and now he is azredrock30.

That's not the most cunning sockpuppet I have ever seen. (Although I didn't see it at first...)

[madurobob]

Huh? How does that work?

In Forum Management it says he was "already banned" and links to Darat's notification of when he was banned in January.

How can he have posted today if he was already banned?

And how can he have been banned in January if he only has one post which is dated today?

I'm really confused.
You need to read that last bit in Radin's PDF:
"...the intentions of future observers (including readers of this article) retroactively influenced the water"

I think that clearly explains how a poster banned in January can have a single post today.

ETA: Never mind - I figured it out. He was previously azredrock20 and now he is azredrock30.

That's not the most cunning sockpuppet I have ever seen. (Although I didn't see it at first...)
Oh, yeah... never mind.

[jasonpatterson]

Step two -- replication.

Have some else do it again. With improved controls. Get similar positive results.

Then I will pay attention. :cool:

To make it clear, I don't believe in any of this even the slightest bit, however, the experiment that I looked at was a replication of the earlier experiment with tougher controls, etc. Assuming honesty in the participants, they were fairly stringent in their controls. I just don't believe that the data shows what the experimenters suggest they do.

Supposing that this did actually occur, that is, that the effect was real in some bizarre version of the universe, what reputable scientist is going to study it? I imagine that further studies from the Noetic Research Institute (or whatever it was called) would probably bear no greater weight in your mind than this one. How could it ever be shown to be real with that in mind? (Again, purely as a pie-in-the-sky question, I do not think it is a real effect in any way shape or form...)

[VisionFromFeeling]

Comments on http://www.ions.org/emails/ishift/articles/radin_crystal2.pdf

The article describes an experiment that was carried out by Mr. Emoto and others, to determine whether human intention, targeted at water samples, would affect the structure of water. Drops of water were frozen into crystals and then photographed. Structural differences between water targeted by intention and water not targeted by intention were compared by 2,579 persons who offer their subjective impressions of the aesthetic beauty of the crystals.

Three groups of water were prepared. Intentional water which would be the target of intention. Proximal water placed in the same room as the intentional water. And distant water placed in a distant location in the same building. The proximal and the distant water would not be targeted by intention. Several measures were taken to ensure a triple-blind procedure.

After exposure to intention, a total of 300 photographs were taken of crystals made from the waters.
Of the 300 images, 270 obtained average beauty ratings greater than 1.0. This subset of images was examined in a secondary analysis because it was more likely to contain crystalline shapes, which was of main interest in this experiment. That is, the intentional hypothesis was not that more crystals would form due to intention, but rather that crystals that did form would appear to be more beautiful in the treatment condition vs. the proximal control condition.What this is saying is that after all 300 photographs had been beauty rated, the 30 least beautiful ones were omitted in order to perform data analysis on all 300 pictures, and then separately on the 270 most beautiful ones to obtain two sets of data. The reason given for why this was done (included in above quote), makes no sense to me. What does make sense, when you look carefully at Figure 4. page 7, is that the data set for the 300 pictures (black columns) is much less in favor of the hypothesis, showing that the distant samples were considered much more beautiful. Then when the second and adjusted data set is used (gray columns), it gives all three waters higher beauty ratings (since the least beautiful pictures are omitted), and just by chance this trick happens to produce a slight favor for the intentional samples. This is clearly some form of biased data selection to support the hypothesis.

The fact that the distant water shows much higher beauty rating for data set with all 300 pictures, and that the other data set with selected 270 pictures shows only slight favor of intentional samples, neither of these sets of data are in favor of the hypothesis.

However, see how the authors describe the data:
The treatment condition resulted in a significant, albeit weak main effect"Treatment condition" refers to the intended water samples. And this weak effect was only obtained after selecting out 30 of the 300 pictures.
The comparison of main interest confirmed, weakly, that the treated water crystals were rated as more beautiful, on average, than the proximal controlsThere should never be one comparison of main interest. All comparisons hold equal weight in obtaining reliable results. And this weak effect was only obtained after omitting a select 30 of 300 pictures. This discussion referring to the select 270 data set also avoids mentioning that the distant samples still come very close to the intentional ones.

It should be noted that the distant controls were judged as being slightly (nonsignificantly) more beautiful than the treated samples when considering all trialsLook closely at Figure 4. The slightly higher beauty rating for intentional water for the select data set (gray columns) is referred to as "confirming", yet the much higher difference when all pictures are considered (black columns) is referred to as "nonsignificant". It is clear that the author is describing the data in a non-objective manner, trying to present in favor of the hypothesis.

Another hypothesis not supported by the data, was the predicted correlation between crystal size and beauty rating. Crystal presence and size were assessed by having a computer give each photograph a contrast value, one that rates the proportion between black and white in the image, in which crystals that are larger would produce higher values of contrast.
We predicted that these contrast values would be correlated with the average ratings of aesthetic beauty, and thus that contrast in the treatment condition would be higher than in the proximal control condition.Again "treatment condition" refers to the intentional (target) water. They predicted that target water crystals would not only be rated as more beautiful but also be larger as shown by larger contrast values. This prediction was falsified, although the intentional water did rate highest in contrast, it did not have a corresponding height in beauty rate, suggesting that contrast (and crystal size) and aesthetic beauty are not related.

but for the comparison of main interest (treated vs. proximal controls) the results were in alignment with the previously reported pilot test.
The article seems to emphasize on hypotheses and conclusions based on comparison of the intentional (treated) and proximal samples and forgets much of the discussion on the distant samples, which is where the data that doesn't support the hypothesis lies.

At first blush this seems to imply that distant intention influenced water crystallization properties in accordance with the hypothesis.No it doesn't! Data from all 300 pictures shows that the distant water crystals were considered much more beautiful, and even when 30 images were selected out, the intentional water crystals were only slightly higher in beauty rating than the distant ones, to an extent that seems insufficient to base conclusions on.

And into Quantum Physics world:
In addition, there were many uncontrolled degrees of freedom in this experiment which may have allowed "unintended intentional" effects to creep in. They all involve human decisions, e.g. selecting six specific bottles of water from a huge population of available bottlesGranted, since the study does involve the factor of human intention.
However, as in any experiment involving intention, the intentions of the investigators cannot be cleanly isolated from that of the nominal participants and this in turn constrains how one should properly interpret the results.And this is what Locknar would call "the way out".

Overall:
I am pleased that they are taking steps toward better and more controlled experimental setups as well as involving other parties. It is an interesting hypothesis and one that demands more insight. However in this presentation and interpretation of data several cases of bias to favor their hypothesis are revealed. I encourage them to perform further testing in order to more strongly reveal patterns or show extents of data fluctuation and randomness. Independent tests, data interpretation and presentation must also be done by other organizations and entirely without involvement by Mr. Emoto and affiliates. Provided that their intentions won't interfere with the results, before or after the experiment has taken place, that is. ;)

And as for hypotheses:
The intentional (target, treated) water and proximal water were placed in an "electromagnetically shielded room". How would electromagnetic brain waves from human intention then reach into that room? What do they suggest human intention consists of if not electromagnetism? Gravity waves?

By analogy with a quantum optics system, in which the knowledge one has of the path that photons take through a double-slit apparatus influences the behavior of those photons, we speculated that knowledge of the experimental conditions in this test might influence what was ultimately measured.
[not serious mode]To add to this speculation, one woo to another, I propose that as the intention-photons were targeted at the target water, which they reached, they were somehow diffracted by the target water, causing the famous double-slit effect of diffraction. The main maximum of diffraction occurred at the target water, causing the effect of structural changes, but another maxima occurred exactly at the distant water, changing it also. The proximal water was not affected because it happened to be located at a diffraction minimum. I propose future tests where waters are placed within intervals that match the diffraction pattern produced when intention-waves reach the target water. That will prove everything once and for all. ;) :p [/not serious mode]

PS. Intention photons? Electromagnetically shielded room?
Don't they know that photons are electromagnetism! :D

[KingMerv00]

And as for hypotheses:
The intentional (target, treated) water and proximal water were placed in an "electromagnetically shielded room". How would electromagnetic brain waves from human intention then reach into that room? What do they suggest human intention consists of if not electromagnetism? Gravity waves?

To create gravity waves inside your skull, your brain would have to increase or decrease in mass rapidly. Which is it?

Nevermind. I think I know.

[Uncayimmy]

I am pleased that they are taking steps toward better and more controlled experimental setups as well as involving other parties. It is an interesting hypothesis and one that demands more insight.
It's a nonsense hypothesis that doesn't deserve much less demand any insight. There is absolutely no science anywhere that would make one think, "Hey! I wonder if I think happy thoughts about some water in a bucket it will notice and get happy too!" And there's absolutely no basis for saying, "If that happens, I bet the water crystals will be prettier than the others!"

That's like saying, "I wonder if I quack like a duck when cooking a quiche it will sense my quacks. I'll test this by checking to see if people eating it think that it would be something an NHL goalie would eat."

Or maybe, "Gee, I wonder if I sit behind someone hidden from my view I can detect if which hand, if any, that person dunks into a bucket of ice!"

Wishful thinking that leads to nonsensical experiments is not science.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

To make it clear, I don't believe in any of this even the slightest bit, however, the experiment that I looked at was a replication of the earlier experiment with tougher controls, etc. Assuming honesty in the participants, they were fairly stringent in their controls. I just don't believe that the data shows what the experimenters suggest they do.

Supposing that this did actually occur, that is, that the effect was real in some bizarre version of the universe, what reputable scientist is going to study it? I imagine that further studies from the Noetic Research Institute (or whatever it was called) would probably bear no greater weight in your mind than this one. How could it ever be shown to be real with that in mind? (Again, purely as a pie-in-the-sky question, I do not think it is a real effect in any way shape or form...)

I hesitate to repeat, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". ;)

However, what else is there to say? The history of high-temperature superconductivity is interesting in this regard. Before 1986 superconductivity at any temperature not close to 0o Kelvin was thought to be theoretically impossible. When in that year it was discovered others tried to replicate the experiment and got the same results.

Replication is the key. Fleishmann and Pons please copy.

[wardenclyffe]

VfF's analysis of this is interesting and probably took quite some time and effort. I only wish she would put that kind of effort into analysis of her own study which took place well over two months ago. According to UncaYimmy's website, she has all the paperwork returned to her. According to her own website: "The results, data, and conclusions will be presented on the study page soon."

She put up a new distorted picture of herself, though.

Remember when she complained that the IIG was so slow in getting back to her? Now we know how she felt.

Ward

[Apology]

I don't understand why anyone would even attempt to carry out a scientific study that was based on subjective values, like aesthetics. "Pretty" is only an opinion, it cannot be measured objectively, no matter how many different people you ask. Seems like rubbish to me.

[Wowbagger]

I made this poster over 2 years ago:

http://www.mitchlampert.net/images/Msgwater4-poster.jpg

[VisionFromFeeling]

A year ago I e-mailed Mr. Emoto's organization introducing myself as a science student who is specializing in light-matter interaction and that I was very interested in conducting an independent experiment based on their research. If I were to obtain supporting evidence then that could be added in support of their claim. I also said that if I were to not obtain supporting evidence, this time I would not hold that against them since I am only an undergraduate and they do state that special care is required during the process and perhaps my experimental procedures and conduct were not to the standard that is required. So it was an offer for a chance to obtain independent supporting evidence.

I received no reply. I would advise that they encourage independent studies of their research claims. Especially since many, including I, have raised suspicion regarding their scientific credibility. Still, I find it an interesting claim and look forward to progress made in it, whether that progress leads toward proving it or its falsification.

Official Website of Masaru Emoto (http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/e_ome_home.html)
Hado Institute in Japan (http://www.hado.net/)

For $560 one can send a water sample to them and receive photographs of its crystals.

[Professor Yaffle]

Off-topic posts moved to AAH. Please stick to discussing the topic and not other members

[Uncayimmy]

A year ago I e-mailed Mr. Emoto's organization introducing myself as a science student who is specializing in light-matter interaction and that I was very interested in conducting an independent experiment based on their research. If I were to obtain supporting evidence then that could be added in support of their claim. I also said that if I were to not obtain supporting evidence, this time I would not hold that against them since I am only an undergraduate and they do state that special care is required during the process and perhaps my experimental procedures and conduct were not to the standard that is required. So it was an offer for a chance to obtain independent supporting evidence.

Perhaps the reason that they never contacted you was because your offer was ridiculous and not indicative of someone who understands the scientific method. Either your evidence would have been reliable or not. The very notion that you would tell them which results they could use (positive) or ignore (negative) speaks volumes about your own reliability and an insult to anyone doing serious research.

[Cuddles]

Perhaps the reason that they never contacted you was because your offer was ridiculous and not indicative of someone who understands the scientific method.

Ridiculous? Lack of understanding? Dude, these guys think that ice can be happy. How could being ridiculous possibly be a problem for them?

[Mashuna]

Ridiculous? Lack of understanding? Dude, these guys think that ice can be happy. How could being ridiculous possibly be a problem for them?

Happy ice is Gin and Tonic ice.

[Psi Baba]

You need to read that last bit in Radin's PDF:
"...the intentions of future observers (including readers of this article) retroactively influenced the water"
The only way for that to work would be to add Thiotimoline. ;)

[VisionFromFeeling]

The claim/research hypothesis that human thoughtwaves could affect the structure of water is a very interesting one.
(I apologise for going basic but some Forum readers don't know the scientific foundation.)

Molecules
A sample of water, such as a drop, contains a vast amount of water molecules, and each water molecule consists of three atoms: one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms attached to it, arranged in a bent (http://images.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/w/wa/water_molecule_dimensions.svg.png) shape.

An atom consists of a nucleus (center) and electrons shimmering around the nucleus. Atomic nuclei contain protons which are particles that carry a constant positive electrical charge. Electrons are particles that carry a constant negative electrical charge. Electrical charges that are opposite (neg. with pos. or pos. with neg.) attract, they will move closer to one another. Electric charges that are the same (pos. with pos. or neg. with neg.) will repulse and move further away from one another. Similar to how North poles on bar magnets interact with South poles and you see attractive and repulsive behavior. The attractive electrostatic force between atomic nuclei and electrons are what bring these two components together into atoms.

Electric charges are always surrounded by a constant electrical field. This electrical field is simply a description of how the pulling or pushing force has its strength distributed across space. A charge radiates its force field equally in all directions forming a spherical electrical field. Electric force weakens with distance. The closer you are to the source charge, the stronger the push or pull that is affecting another charge at that point.

An electrical field is a force field and is similar to a gravitational field. If you place an object into the air and let go, the gravitational force field of the planet will pull it downward to the ground. Gravitational fields however can only attract, not repulse. And similarly as with the electrical field its strength weakens with distance, which is why if you go far enough away from the planet it will not be able to pull you down.

Atoms are composed of both positive and negative charges. Electrons gather around atomic nuclei starting from closest to the nucleus and adding more electron particles layer after layer. Atoms are often simplified such that we are only concerned with the outermost layer of electrons because this is where the "contact surface" of the atom is where most chemical behavior, such as chemical reactions, occurs.

Atoms stick together into molecules. Atomic nuclei compete with each other for possession of electrons. Different types of nuclei, depending on the size of the nucleus, have different strength in attracting electrons and some win over others. Atomic nuclei that end up sharing electrons form a chemical bond between them and stick together. Shared electrons in between atoms are what bind them into molecules.

Water (http://virtualbiologytutor.co.uk/images/212/water_molecule.jpg) is a molecule in which one oxygen atom shares electrons with two hydrogen atoms. (A "dash" drawn between two atoms actually depicts two electrons shared between the connected atoms.)

Molecular polarity
Oxygen is much more strong in attracting electrons toward its nucleus than are hydrogen atoms which is why the sharing of electrons that takes place in a water molecule is not equal sharing.

Electrons are in constant motion across the space that they occupy near atomic nuclei, and this space defines the electron distribution. Electrons do not move in circular orbits as is popularly depicted (http://z.hubpages.com/u/237110_f520.jpg). Rather they shimmer within volumetric spaces (http://www.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/orbitals.gif). Oxygen pulls to itself more electron density (http://pages.prodigy.net/sullydog/archives/qm/image22.gif) from the hydrogen atoms.

Electromagnetism
As said, charged particles such as electrons, are surrounded by a constant electric field which can both attract or repulse, push or pull, on other charged particles. Other charged particles are other electrons, atomic nuclei, complete atoms, or molecules, such as water.

When charged particles move, the electrical field around them is also moving in space. A changing electrical field generates a magnetic field. A magnetic field also pushes and pulls on charged particles. The electrical field and magnetic field do not overlap and their effects on charges combine.

However, a changing magnetic field also induces an electric field. When charged particles move, their electric fields move accordingly, and the moving electric fields create magnetic fields. Electromagnetic waves (http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/cf131.gif) are generated.

Once electromagnetic waves are constructed and emitted, they are released into the world and are independent of the particle/physical source that created them. Once emitted, even if the material source that created them is destroyed, the waves will continue to exist. Several things, such as interaction with matter, can alter and reduce electromagnetic waves from what they originally were, so they might not last forever.

Strength of Electromagnetism
The electric and magnetic fields that make up electromagnetic waves change in amplitude periodically in a repeating pattern. Frequency is a measure of the speed at which the electric and magnetic field components change in amplitude. Electromagnetism that has a higher frequency contains more energy. Frequency and energy are proportional.

Remember that electromagnetic rays are propagating force fields and that these force fields are capable of pushing and pulling on charged particles! Electromagnetism does interact with matter, since matter consists of charged particles. But what happens depends on how much energy the radiation contains.

When electromagnetism reaches matter, which is made up of molecules (such as water) it interacts with the electrons of material substances. In water molecules, electromagnetism interacts with the electrons of the oxygen atom and the two hydrogen atoms, the electron density that is within and surrounding the water molecule.

When electromagnetic waves reach an electron, the energy of the electromagnetism is transferred to the electron. The energy of electrons determines at least two things for the electron: an electron that has more energy will move further away from the atomic nucleus, sort of having "enough energy" to overcome the pulling effect of the nucleus. Electron energy also determines how the electrons move about the nuclei.

Radiowaves are electromagnetic radiation with fairly low frequency. I do not know much about how they interact with electrons.

Microwaves are electromagnetic radiation with a relatively low frequency, low energy. In interaction with molecules they cause rotational motion for molecules.

Heat waves are actually light waves but with a frequency (energy content) that our body is able to feel (part of the human illusion experience of reality, since in reality, all light would/would not feel like something). Heat waves (http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/physics_gcse/Unit_1/Topic_5/em_spectrum.jpg) are also called infrared waves. Infrared heat waves contain the amount of energy that in interaction with molecules cause the electrons that are shared between atoms as chemical bonds to move such that the atoms begin to vibrate along those bonds. And that is the principle behind using heat to bring liquid water to a boil, the vibration increases the spacing between water molecules, decreasing the density of water, making it a lighter-weight substance that rises up.

Light with much more energy than that, such as what is called ultraviolet radiation, contains enough energy that when transferred to an electron, an electron will be pushed further out from the atomic nucleus. This is called "excitation" and changes the actual construction of atoms.

Light with even more energy is for instance x-rays. This energy content within electromagnetism is enough that when transferred to electrons, the electrons are removed entirely from the atomic nuclei, and that is called "ionization".

Human Electromagnetic Emissions
The human brain conducts charged particles along nerve paths to construct voltage patterns in the tissues. Voltage deals with the accumulation of charge. The moved charges carry along changes in their electrical fields which result in magnetic fields, and electromagnetic waves are emitted from humans.

Now, luckily for all of us, human emissions of electromagnetism have been measured as being within the "extremely low frequency range". Phew. Otherwise our mere thoughts would be destroying everything around us.

This source (http://www.measurement.sk/2005/S2/Lipkova.pdf) states that humans emit electromagnetic waves within an interval of 0.5 to 30 Hz, also suggesting that brain waves are the highest in frequency (the highest in energy) of all the various sources of electromagnetic waves from the body (other sources being for instance the heart and other nerves located across the body).

Wavelength (http://scipp.ucsc.edu/~haber/ph5B/Electromagnetic-Spectrum-3.png) is another descriptive property of electromagnetic waves. Converting the given human emission frequencies into corresponding values of wavelength, humans emit wavelengths within 6.0x1017 nanometers to 1.0x1016 nanometers. (Or, in meters, 10,000,000 meters to 600,000,000 meters.) Electromagnetic radiation is named based on which range its frequency (energy content) falls into or can also be named by its corresponding wavelength. Human E.M. emissions fall into the "extremely low frequency" (ELF) range.

Here (http://www.sgnis.org/publicat/ext.htm) is a very interesting and relevant abstract for research that investigated the effect of ELF waves on the solubility of calcium carbonate in water,
ELF EM is thought to increase the solubility of calcium carbonate by enhancing the ion-dipole bonding probability of water with dissolved salts.
Indicating that ELF, at least with calcium carbonate-water interaction, and with the frequencies (not given in abstract) of ELF used in this experiment, did have some effect on the electrical environment within the sample.

Thoughts
Remember that radio waves are used in communication technologies to carry information even as intricate as television or radio programs. And that a single human thought is the composite of several added concepts. A simple thought such as "love" is represented in the human mind by many superimposed fragments that construct the idea of what the thought means, such that when humans think, they are sending out electromagnetic emissions that are composites of several waves and are thus structured. Light structures, in my opinion, ought to have structured effects in their interaction with matter and electrons.

So the hypothesis is very interesting, in these experiments with the effect of human intention on water as reflected in ice crystal formation, we do have a wave source, and an investigated effect due to light-matter interaction.

My thoughts are that the electron distribution that exists around a molecule may pick up lingering adjustments due to influence from electromagnetism or electric or magnetic fields. Inflicting very minute and detailed changes to the exact appearance of electron distribution.

To my knowledge so far, there are no scientific instruments that can directly measure the electron distribution across an actual molecular sample, other than x-ray crystallography which in itself does not produce an exact picture. The changes that may occur to electron distribution due to outside effects may be within the range that these instruments do not describe, yet.

To my knowledge, science mainly uses computer generated calculations that approximate what the electron distribution should be, given the known atoms in a molecule, and depicting it in ideal and normal circumstances without consideration to added distortion.

If molecules are placed within an electric or magnetic field, they can align according to the field since they have unsymmetric electron distribution across the molecule and one side will be more strongly "pulled along" by the force field than is the other side that has lower electron density.

Water molecules amidst themselves have intermolecular attraction (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2325/2250890007_7e2f4f4eac.jpg) and repulsion which affects their alignment among one another. Oxygen from one water molecule attracts - but does not bind to - to other hydrogen atoms from other molecules besides its own. In solid water, ice (http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/nilssongroup/images/structure_ice.jpg), the water molecules adopt a more ordered and rigid intermolecular structure.

Does the influence from electromagnetism, electrical and magnetic fields, somehow "linger" as a lasting change across the electron distribution of atoms and molecules, although too 'modest' to be detected by the scopes of today's scientific instruments and methods?

Changing the exact way in which an electron occupies its space within the orbitals, absorbing change to its pattern of motion, a change that reflects the pattern that was in the electromagnetic waves?

If it were so, then certainly different thoughts, generating unique electromagnetic thought wave composites, would produce unique and corresponding changes to the electron field across molecules.

However. Will the human ELF thought wave emissions lead to structural changes within water molecules? Would such changes reflect on the structural arrangement water molecules take when forming solid ice structures? And would human thoughts - really - be constructed to reach a specified target across continents, and be able to penetrate through an "electromagnetically shielded (http://www.ions.org/emails/ishift/articles/radin_crystal2.pdf)" room?

I certainly encourage more research within the field of light-matter interaction, and in interesting hypotheses such as the interaction between human intention and water structure. I just wanted to mention all this to show that the hypothesis is not as strange as it might seem. I look forward to more results from Mr. Emoto and his research affiliates. And remember, all scientific and technological advances that we have today were at some point considered paranormal and strange.

[Uncayimmy]

Electromagnetic thought wave composites? You're making up phrases. Despite your Wall o' Text you have not made a case that "human intention" should have any influence on the structure of water crystals. It's just a bunch of hand waving.

And remember, all scientific and technological advances that we have today were at some point considered paranormal and strange.
How can I remember something that isn't true? I hardly think the diesel engine was paranormal or strange.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Electromagnetic thought wave composites? You're making up phrases. Yes, I make up some phrases to describe what I mean. What I mean by "electromagnetic thought wave composites", is that the thought of one thing, actually involves the combination of several thought fragments that together represent the composite of what the concept means to that person, and that this, then, involves nerve firing across many paths not just one, generating not just one electromagnetic emission, but equally a composite of several thought wave emissions.

Forming what I chose to call, an electromagnetic thought wave composite. Still strange to you?

And yes, if you travel far back in time enough, I am sure that the diesel engine would be considered magic.
you have not made a case that "human intention" should have any influence on the structure of water crystalsThe point was not to present evidence that their hypothesis of human thought-water crystal interaction would be proven or true, but, as I said,
I just wanted to mention all this to show that the hypothesis is not as strange as it might seem.

[desertgal]

Yes, I make up some phrases to describe what I mean.

And even things that are nonexistent, like "Vibrational Algebra". ;)

[Audible Click]

Originally Posted by VisionFromFeeling
I just wanted to mention all this to show that the hypothesis is not as strange as it might seem.

IMO you've failed. The hypothesis is still strange.

[Uncayimmy]

Yes, I make up some phrases to describe what I mean. What I mean by "electromagnetic thought wave composites", is that the thought of one thing, actually involves the combination of several thought fragments that together represent the composite of what the concept means to that person, and that this, then, involves nerve firing across many paths not just one, generating not just one electromagnetic emission, but equally a composite of several thought wave emissions.

Forming what I chose to call, an electromagnetic thought wave composite. Still strange to you?
I never said it was strange. I said you're making up phrases. Which you are.

And yes, if you travel far back in time enough, I am sure that the diesel engine would be considered magic.
But we cannot travel back in time, can we? We're talking about the real world here. You said that every scientific advancement was at one point considered strange or paranormal. The diesel engine and countless other advancements were never considered strange or paranormal. Might they have been 10,000 years ago? Perhaps, but that's not what you said.

And you said it to refute the notion that thinking happy thoughts to make pretty crystals in water is, well, kinda stupid.

The point was not to present evidence that their hypothesis of human thought-water crystal interaction would be proven or true, but, as I said,
I never said it was strange. I said it lacked any scientific basis. Your lecture has not changed that opinion.

[VisionFromFeeling]

I just wanted to mention all this to show that the hypothesis is not as strange as it might seem.
IMO you've failed. The hypothesis is still strange.I'm certain that with the information I've provided the hypothesis is not as strange as it would have been for someone who isn't familiar with some light-matter interaction. I'm not saying I've found supporting evidence that human thoughts affect the structure of water crystals, but I do think the hypothesis is entitled to some consideration and tolerance.

And you said it to refute the notion that thinking happy thoughts to make pretty crystals in water is, well, kinda stupid.
I find it a very interesting hypothesis and I will be following their progress with great interest, whether it leads toward proving the hypothesis, to some other new knowledge, or to falsification.
I never said it was strange. I said it lacked any scientific basis. Your lecture has not changed that opinion. Actually I showed that their hypothesis does hold some scientific basis. I explained that human intention produces electromagnetic emission, and found that it is within a range that has been found to at least affect solubility properties of water which suggests that it does affect the electrons within water. The electrons in turn are responsible for the binding that connects water molecules into ice crystals.

I begun investigating their hypothesis, actually expecting to find reasons to dismiss it. I expected that the human electromagnetic emission would be too low in energy to have any observable effect on matter or intermolecular structure. Instead I stumbled on some interesting research that supports the idea that human intention might have some effect on properties of water.

In my opinion, I have not seen evidence in support of their claim that human intention affects the structure of water crystals, and I was able to find plenty things wrong with their article (http://www.ions.org/emails/ishift/articles/radin_crystal2.pdf). I remain objective and only let the data affect my opinions on this. On one hand I remain skeptic and suspicious of their claims and reports and am finding problems with their credibility and scientific conduct as well as with certain specifics of their hypothesis, such as that mind waves supposedly target a location across continents, and penetrate into an "electromagnetically shielded" room. Yet on the other hand I am willing to consider their claim and to admit that it does hold some validity as a claim and is deserving of more insight from those who are willing to devote some time and effort into it.

[Uncayimmy]

Actually I showed that their hypothesis does hold some scientific basis. I explained that human intention produces electromagnetic emission,
Not quite. You explained, which everyone already knew, that humans have electromagnetic emissions. There's nothing special about intention.

and found that it is within a range that has been found to at least affect solubility properties of water which suggests that it does affect the electrons within water. The electrons in turn are responsible for the binding that connects water molecules into ice crystals.
Your ideas are so childish I don't even know where to start. The study you cited was about using ELF to control zebra mussel infestation in impure water due to its effect on the mussels' rate of calcium loss and their ability to absorb replacement calcium. You jumped from there to a "hypothesis that [bottled] water exposed to distant intentions affects the aesthetic rating of ice crystals formed from that water."

I begun investigating their hypothesis, actually expecting to find reasons to dismiss it. I expected that the human electromagnetic emission would be too low in energy to have any observable effect on matter or intermolecular structure. Instead I stumbled on some interesting research that supports the idea that human intention might have some effect on properties of water.
Nonsense. If you think groups of people "praying" from thousands of miles away is somehow affecting the water in a lab because some people think the frozen crystals look prettier, well, you're something. What, I can't say. I can say you're not much of a scientist. There are so many unconnected dots I don't even know where to start.

Science is not about investigating fantasies. The ELF example is an example of good science. They built upon known effects of ELF on water and an understanding of the biology of mussels. It was an incremental step with a solid foundation in science.

If you think the proper way to study the potential of human ELF emissions on water is to have people "pray" about a couple of bottles of water in a lab thousands of miles away, then I doubt there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

[VisionFromFeeling]

No Jim Carr, I do not think that their hypothesis seems plausible. I have stated time and time again, that I fail to see how human thought waves would locate a target that is continents apart, and how they would penetrate the walls of an "electromagnetically isolated" room.

I do not find their claim plausible, yet, I have looked at some of the elements that make the claim and have considered each. However, I encourage them to do more research, even if it leads to falsification of the claim.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Here we go again

Thousands of words that say nothing

[desertgal]

Here we go again

Thousands of words that say nothing

Except "I am a narcissist. I am here for attention. I, I, I, I, I...."

[Uncayimmy]

No Jim Carr,
I go by UncaYimmy here. Not Honey. Not Jim Carr. Please show some courtesy.

I do not think that their hypothesis seems plausible. I have stated time and time again, that I fail to see how human thought waves would locate a target that is continents apart, and how they would penetrate the walls of an "electromagnetically isolated" room.
No, you have said no such thing time and time again. You made one mention of the sealed room. Beyond that you have supported their hypothesis right from the start:

"It is an interesting hypothesis and one that demands more insight. "

"A year ago I e-mailed [saying] that I was very interested in conducting an independent experiment based on their research."

"I certainly encourage more research within the field of light-matter interaction, and in interesting hypotheses such as the interaction between human intention and water structure."

"I'm not saying I've found supporting evidence that human thoughts affect the structure of water crystals, but I do think the hypothesis is entitled to some consideration and tolerance."

I do not find their claim plausible, yet, I have looked at some of the elements that make the claim and have considered each. However, I encourage them to do more research, even if it leads to falsification of the claim.
You got one thing right: It's just a claim. It's not science.

[Ashles]

Yes, I make up some phrases to describe what I mean. What I mean by "electromagnetic thought wave composites", is that the thought of one thing, actually involves the combination of several thought fragments that together represent the composite of what the concept means to that person, and that this, then, involves nerve firing across many paths not just one, generating not just one electromagnetic emission, but equally a composite of several thought wave emissions.
So we can add Experimental Psychology to the long list of things you pretend to understand, yet display ignorance of?

Real scientists don't make up meaningless phrases in lieu of actual understanding - they display actual understanding then build upon that understanding to generate clear, testable theories.
The actual theory and the testing should be what the new part consists of, not solely gibberish new phrases.

You need to understand what a "thought" or "concept" consists of.
Little tip: One 'thought' does not equal one 'nerve firing'. Just as a 'concept' does not equal 'many nerves firing'. It's just a tiny bit more complicated than that.
But obviously that isn't relevant to your perception of your own understanding of something. You like to guess and as you are the only one marking your own guesses, you judge everything you do or think to be absolutely brilliant.
It just, sadly, bears little resemblance to reality.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Happy ice is Gin and Tonic ice.
And the tonic is ecstatic.

~~ Paul

[ParrotPirate]

Happy ice is Gin and Tonic ice.

I second that!

[Madalch]

I just noticed that Emoto's book is proudly featured in a display of science books at my college.

I'll have to do something about that.

[NagP]

>http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Radi...al_EXPLORE.pdf

I once asked questions about this paper directly to Dean Radin at his blog.
https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16158865&postID=116062501099622501

Let me quot that part.
_____

NagaP said...
Dear Dr. Radin,

Hi, I am from Japan.
I have read your paper published in Explore. However, I am a bit disappointed because none of the water crystal photographs was presented in the paper. The aesthetic beauty of the crystals was scored on a scale from zero to six (zero meant “not beautiful” and six meant “beautiful”). However, even the average score of the treated sample is only about 2.9 (less than 3!). None of the crystals scored more than 4.5!! What does this mean? Does it mean that the crystals were overall not very beautiful?

Friday, January 12, 2007
_____

Dean Radin said...
Yes, it means the majority of the crystal images were not considered to be beautiful.

Sunday, January 14, 2007
_____

NagaP said...
Dear Dr. Radin,

That's interesting.
I guess many people considered the crystal photos in Mr. Emoto's book treated with "good words" to be beautiful. (That’s why the book became so popular, right?)
If the treated crystals in the experiment were not as beautiful as the ones in Mr. Emoto's book, what do you think was the problem?
1. The distance between Tokyo and Calfornia?
2. The bottled water used in the experiment?
3. Some human error?
4. Something else?
(If the water was the problem, I guess it was not a good advertisement for Fiji Water…)

I have one more minor question.
It is written in the paper that 2000 people gathered for the prayer.
From the date of experiment (16, Nov. 2005), I guess this gathering was held in Bunkyo Civic Hall in Tokyo. From the website of this hall, I found out that they have only 1802 seats. Were 200 people standing in the hall or were they in a different room? Or 1800 was round off to be 2000?

I will be greatful for your reply.
(Sorry for my broken English.)

Thursday, January 18, 2007
_____

Dean Radin said...
NagaP said... If the treated crystals in the experiment were not as beautiful as the ones in Mr. Emoto's book, what do you think was the problem?

My guess is that the pictures in Mr. Emoto's books were selected from a larger population of available pictures. Based on similar experiments by other investigators, we know that the effects of intention on physical systems tend to be quite weak. The statistical results observed in this experiment are in alignment with previously reported effects. The results reported in Mr. Emoto's books are presented more in (my interpretation) artistic terms, without the types of details normally expected in scientific or technical reports.

It is also conceivable that distance, type of water used, and the nature of the intentions applied made a difference.

From the date of experiment (16, Nov. 2005), I guess this gathering was held in Bunkyo Civic Hall in Tokyo. From the website of this hall, I found out that they have only 1802 seats. Were 200 people standing in the hall or were they in a different room? Or 1800 was round off to be 2000?

I don't know. I wasn't present at that meeting, but was told afterwards that there were 2000 people. So the figure cited was either a round-up or there were 200 additional people in attendance.

Thursday, January 25, 2007
_____

End of quot.

[NagP]

Here's a YouTube of some Japanese scientists gathered at Osaka on Nov. 23 to criticize pseudo-science.
One of the subject was about Mr. Emoto's claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF7usjmg-xw

[Madalch]

I just noticed that Emoto's book is proudly featured in a display of science books at my college.

I'll have to do something about that.

Well, I sent an email to the librarian asking why we have such a book on our shelf, and got a nasty reply about how the library is not in the business of censoring books.

Any time I've tried to donate books to the library, they've been turned down because they weren't directly related to any courses taught at the college (and we've got such a small library, don't you know, that we just don't have room for books of general interest). But plenty of shelf space that that garbage.

I'm not impressed.

[blutoski]

Well, I sent an email to the librarian asking why we have such a book on our shelf, and got a nasty reply about how the library is not in the business of censoring books.

Any time I've tried to donate books to the library, they've been turned down because they weren't directly related to any courses taught at the college (and we've got such a small library, don't you know, that we just don't have room for books of general interest). But plenty of shelf space that that garbage.

I'm not impressed.

Librarians are somewhat protective of their right to select books. They deal with all complaints the same way, whether they come from skeptics or creation scientists.

What I would suggest instead is trying to convince them that maybe some healthfraud books are misclassified as 'science' when they should be under, say, paranormal or general health or self-help.

[NagP]

I just noticed that Emoto's book is proudly featured in a display of science books at my college.

I'll have to do something about that.

In the library of Osaka University, it was displayed in the shelf of "Inorganic Chemistry".
I told the librarian that the book should not be displayed there, because it is not a science book.
Then the librarian moved the book to the parapsychology section.

According to this article,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1144934/masaru_emotos_wonderful_world_of_water/index.html
"Masaru Emoto's Wonderful World of Water",
the Dewey decimal system lists Emoto's books under Religion-Special Topics.
So it should be possible to remove it from the science section,
and move it to the shelf of religion.

[VisionFromFeeling]

Studies show that the frequency range of electromagnetic radiation that is near the range of human brainwave emission, has effect of redistribution of cell structure and tissue structure. However, even at that, I fail to see how Mr. Emoto's team suggest that their thoughtwaves would penetrate into an "electromagnetically shielded room".

ETA: I need to provide references to those studies. I do not have them with me at the moment.

[Jeff Corey]

The claim/research hypothesis that human thoughtwaves could affect the structure of water is a very interesting one.


Not interesting, just bizarre. What, exactly are "human thoughtwaves" and how could they affect anything beyond the human skin covering the skull?

[Uncayimmy]

Not interesting, just bizarre. What, exactly are "human thoughtwaves" and how could they affect anything beyond the human skin covering the skull?

Warning: Kinda gross...

HY-03vYYAjA