Quick, cheap way to improve your health with common materials at home

[ckaihatsu]

The particular subculture(s) around this kind of thing may certainly give one pause, along with the garage-type commerciality, but all that aside, the merits can't be beat.

Get one of those plastic toy 'vortex in a bottle' thingees for a few bucks at the store or online, and use it -- ! You'll notice a distinct difference in the water after one try, and you may find additional run-throughs on the same quantity of water is worth it, too.


My 2 Liter Water Vortex Device with Ph Drops

vI_poLsLtC8

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Lol

[ckaihatsu]

---





The water and water solutions passed through these magnetic fields acquire finer and more homogeneous structures (Tkachenko and Semyonova, 1995). This increases the fluidity of the water and helps increase the water's ability to dissolve various constituents like minerals and vitamins (Kronenberg, 1985; Mikesell, 1985), and consequently improves the biological activity of solutions, positively affecting the performance of humans, animals and plants (Lin and Yotvat, 1989 and 1990; Tkachenko and Semyonova, 1995; Goldsworthy et al., 1999).




http://www.jonbarron.org/natural-health/water-bioavailability-magnets

[Ele'ill]

what is the notable positive affects on performance

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Exposure to magnetic fields has no effect on bioavailability; method of administration does. Ex, if you shoot up ... manganese, or something, the bioavailability is 100%.



An actual way to improve your health would be to trade out that pot of white rice for brown rice.

[ckaihatsu]

what is the notable positive affects on performance





By magnetizing water we can now hydrate faster and more completely while drinking less.




A study was conducted (and repeated several times) in April 2005 thru June 2005 to determine what effect magnetized water has vs. non magnetized water on the germination rate and growth pattern of mung beans. Prior research indicated that magnetic fields have a positive effect in the improvement in both rate of growth and in the vitality of the plants. This benefit has been attributed to the water becoming more “Bio-available” due to the de-clustering effect magnet fields have on water.




[T]he difference in germination rates between magnetized and non-magnetized unfiltered city tap water was 100% vs. 15%!





Exposure to magnetic fields has no effect on bioavailability;


Not true.





method of administration does.


True.





Ex, if you shoot up ... manganese, or something, the bioavailability is 100%.


True.





An actual way to improve your health would be to trade out that pot of white rice for brown rice.


"An *additional* way..."

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Not true.
You're repeating claims from a snake oil web site. Water can't be magnetized in any meaningful sense, and the magnetic state of, say, iron, in the water has zero effect on bioavailability. I don't think you understand what bioavailability is. Show me where these claims have been confirmed through peer review. (Hint: You can't, because it's pseudoscience)


One thing that REALLY stands out on the page from my cursory glance is the claim that water is paramagnetic: it's not. It's diamagnetic. I'll take a closer look at these asshats later.

[ckaihatsu]

You're repeating claims from a snake oil web site.


This is a snap judgment, or mischaracterization.





Water can't be magnetized in any meaningful sense,


Not true.





and the magnetic state of, say, iron, in the water has zero effect on bioavailability.


Also not true, most likely, though I can't speak to iron itself myself.





I don't think you understand what bioavailability is.


Yes, 'bioavailability' is not a difficult concept to understand. I'll assure you that I comprehend it.





Show me where these claims have been confirmed through peer review. (Hint: You can't, because it's pseudoscience)


I have no interest in being a researcher here, nor do I claim credentials in the matter. I'll contend that direct experience is more to the point, so one may want to risk the three dollars or whatever and see for yourself.





One thing that REALLY stands out on the page from my cursory glance is the claim that water is paramagnetic: it's not. It's diamagnetic. I'll take a closer look at these asshats later.


How, um, _generous_ of you....

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Yeah, anecdotal evidence is really scientific.

I come across as harsh, and I know your intention is to help people, but pseudoscience is more damaging than just not doing anything.


I know you said you have no interest in research, but if you can go ahead and attempt to find peer-reviewed studies showing bioavailability being affected by magnetic state of anything that'd be great.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, anecdotal evidence is really scientific.


While your interest here may be to settle on a general (academic-type) conclusion, the *purpose* of this method is as the title says -- to improve one's health. For the individual this technique, if approached blindly, is low-risk and can be determined by oneself through direct experience.





I come across as harsh, and I know your intention is to help people, but pseudoscience is more damaging than just not doing anything.


In this case the intellectual / cognitive *and* social-political risk are low as well, if done discreetly.





I know you said you have no interest in actually learning about this shit, but if you can go ahead and attempt to find peer-reviewed studies showing bioavailability being affected by magnetic state of anything that'd be great.


Feel free, since you brought it up.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

You're not going to improve your health by swirling water and waving magnets over it. That's laughable. There is no credible evidence for this, it is snake oil. You brought up this nonsense, you're the one making an extraordinary claim, now where is the extraordinary evidence?

It's like me saying eating limestone will cure cancer because the position of venus lets positive ions flow to your third eye, and then reacting to someone demanding evidence by saying "no, you prove it doesn't happen!!!!"

[ckaihatsu]

You're not going to improve your health by swirling water and waving magnets over it.


Since that's your conclusion then *don't* do it.





That's laughable. There is no credible evidence for this, it is snake oil.


I provided one study, as a courtesy.

If you want to summarily dismiss that study and take on the role of a researcher, go right ahead.





You brought up this nonsense, you're the one making an extraordinary claim, now where is the extraordinary evidence?


You don't *get* it -- I am not attempting to speak for any-*one* or any-*thing*. I have shared certain information and the individual is on their own as to what to make of it.





It's like me saying eating limestone will cure cancer because the position of venus lets positive ions flow to your third eye, and then reacting to someone demanding evidence by saying "no, you prove it doesn't happen!!!!"


You're characterizing the information I shared as being 'extraordinary'. Others may find it to be commonplace and practically self-evident -- especially if experienced for oneself.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I provided one study, as a courtesy.

If you want to summarily dismiss that study and take on the role of a researcher, go right ahead.
That's not how science works. I can create a bunk paper stating that the distance of Jupiter from Earth has an inverse relation to cases of type 2 diabetes (or the correlation between global warming and the general decline of sea piracy) because stats can be manipulated to show correlation between anything. That doesn't prove it's real. If results can't be independently confirmed and re-tested and all variables accounted for over and over and over again, it's bullshit. That is peer review.



You don't *get* it -- I am not attempting to speak for any-*one* or any-*thing*. I have shared certain information and the individual is on their own as to what to make of it.
You're providing pseudoscientific nonsense as medical advice. And yes, saying "this will improve your health", however vaguely it's qualified, is medical advice.



You're characterizing the information I shared as being 'extraordinary'. Others may find it to be commonplace and practically self-evident -- especially if experienced for oneself.
Because you're claiming crap that isn't true - water can't hold a magnetic state in the sense you're claiming and magnetic state has no effect on bioavailability. That's kind of like saying how often a cow farts in Montana has an immediately measurable effect on cellulose digestion in the guts of Indonesian termites.

[ckaihatsu]

That's not how science works. I can create a bunk paper stating that the distance of Jupiter from Earth has an inverse relation to cases of type 2 diabetes (or the correlation between global warming and the general decline of sea piracy) because stats can be manipulated to show correlation between anything. That doesn't prove it's real. If results can't be independently confirmed and re-tested and all variables accounted for over and over and over again, it's bullshit. That is peer review.


Great -- if you want to bolster the science behind whatever, then enjoy.





You're providing pseudoscientific nonsense as medical advice. And yes, saying "this will improve your health", however vaguely it's qualified, is medical advice.


Yes, I have reached the point to where I feel that this is sound advice. I am not a medical professional.





Because you're claiming crap that isn't true - water can't hold a magnetic state in the sense you're claiming and magnetic state has no effect on bioavailability.


Untrue.





That's kind of like saying how often a cow farts in Montana has an immediately measurable effect on cellulose digestion in the guts of Indonesian termites.

[Will Scarlet]

Drinking water is medically advisable.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Great -- if you want to bolster the science behind whatever, then enjoy.
I don't think you understand what I was implying. One single study, that was never tested and verified independently over and over about some nonsense regarding swirly-water and magnet waving because it's so absurd it couldn't be possible, doesn't prove shit. I'm thinking Burzynski's urine-cancer-cure when I say this, or raw milk conspiracy theorists, because it's the same type of crap.




Untrue.
Listen, dude, since you couldn't even be bothered to fucking google what diamagnetism is, here's the first paragraph from wikipedia:

Diamagnetism is the property of an object or material which causes it to create a magnetic field (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field) in opposition to an externally applied magnetic field. Unlike a ferromagnet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnet), a diamagnet is not a permanent magnet. Diamagnetism is believed to be due to quantum mechanics (and is understood in terms of Landau levels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau_levels)[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism#cite_note-0)) and occurs because the external field alters the orbital velocity of electrons around their nuclei, thus changing the magnetic dipole moment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dipole_moment). According to Lenz's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law), the field of these electrons will oppose the magnetic field changes provided by the applied field. The magnetic permeability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_%28electromagnetism%29) of diamagnets is less than https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/d/7/9d7d948f0c85e55e1c799c1b3087b7be.png (a relative permeability less than 1). In most materials diamagnetism is a weak effect, but in a superconductor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity) a strong quantum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) effect repels the magnetic field entirely, apart from a thin layer at the surface.



the field of these electrons will oppose the magnetic field changes provided by the applied field.



oppose the magnetic field changes provided by the applied field



oppose the magnetic field changes

[ckaihatsu]

I don't think you understand what I was implying. One single study, that was never tested and verified independently over and over about some nonsense regarding swirly-water and magnet waving because it's so absurd it couldn't be possible, doesn't prove shit. I'm thinking Burzynski's urine-cancer-cure when I say this, or raw milk conspiracy theorists, because it's the same type of crap.


Oh, okay -- you've already found the perfect analogues for comparison, so thank you Mr. Science.





Listen, dude, since you couldn't even be bothered to fucking google what diamagnetism is, here's the first paragraph from wikipedia:


Uh-huh -- I'm not the guy who bickers with you over whether it's *para*-magnetism or *dia*-magnetism, so save the Coke-bottom glasses for someone who *wants* to wear them.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Oh, okay -- you've already found the perfect analogues for comparison, so thank you Mr. Science.
You're welcome



Uh-huh -- I'm not the guy who bickers with you over whether it's *para*-magnetism or *dia*-magnetism, so save the Coke-bottom glasses for someone who *wants* to wear them.
That's a HUGE difference. But, again, you don't bother to check up on anything and take it at face value. And, really, insinuating someone is a 'nerd' for pointing out the absurdity of these claims?


By the way, I own the Brooklyn Bridge. It'd be a great investment for you, and I can let it go for the right price ... ?

[ckaihatsu]

You're welcome


Yeah, that's really scientifically rigorous when you can pull something out of your ass to show people as "proof" for something else....





That's a HUGE difference. But, again, you don't bother to check up on anything and take it at face value. And, really, insinuating someone is a 'nerd' for pointing out the absurdity of these claims?


Yeah, thanks, Alex Trebek -- and do you also discuss hormones and the endocrine system while in the middle of having sex -- ? (!)





By the way, I own the Brooklyn Bridge. It'd be a great investment for you, and I can let it go for the right price ... ?


So glad to see some comedy relief injected into this series of exchanges. Otherwise it'd be a *total* loss....

[hetz]

This increases the fluidity of the water:laugh:

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Yeah, that's really scientifically rigorous when you can pull something out of your ass to show people as "proof" for something else....
Speak for yourself ...



Yeah, thanks, Alex Trebek -- and do you also discuss hormones and the endocrine system while in the middle of having sex -- ? (!)
So you attempt to mock people when they call you out on bullshit ...


So glad to see some comedy relief injected into this series of exchanges. Otherwise it'd be a *total* loss....
Well if you're gullible enough to believe that shit, it was worth a try!

[ckaihatsu]

Speak for yourself ...


No, I provided one study on the efficacy of the theory.





Well if you're gullible enough to believe that shit, it was worth a try!




So you attempt to mock people when they call you out on bullshit ...


No, I don't mean to *mock* you -- rather, my point is that academics has a limit on its utility / usefulness. At some point the individual has to make a decision, based on their comprehensive (or not) study and interpretation of the data that's out there.

I'll borrow from the creative / cultural realm here, and say that if you hear a movie recommendation -- or even *several*, from various people you know quite well -- you're *still* at a loss as to whether it would be a good experience for *you*, personally.

The only way you can definitively determine if such a movie (or book, piece of artwork, event, etc.) is entirely appropriate for you is to take the plunge and actually experience it.

Obviously I'm saying the same thing for this thing, and your talking about it without actually having done it -- just as with a movie you haven't actually seen -- is of little utility to others.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

No, I provided one study on the efficacy of the theory.
And, again, one study that contradicts everything we as humans know about the natural world. Diamagnetism, bioavailability curves, etc. You're peddling pseudoscience. That Burzynski shit-head also had a study or two that "proved" his urine cancer cure. It doesn't mean shit if it can't be independently tested and verified. The common thread between his work and this shit? It's all make-believe crap that can't be verified because it's not real.




No, I don't mean to *mock* you -- rather, my point is that academics has a limit on its utility / usefulness. At some point the individual has to make a decision, based on their comprehensive (or not) study and interpretation of the data that's out there.

I'll borrow from the creative / cultural realm here, and say that if you hear a movie recommendation -- or even *several*, from various people you know quite well -- you're *still* at a loss as to whether it would be a good experience for *you*, personally.

The only way you can definitively determine if such a movie (or book, piece of artwork, event, etc.) is entirely appropriate for you is to take the plunge and actually experience it.

Obviously I'm saying the same thing for this thing, and your talking about it without actually having done it -- just as with a movie you haven't actually seen -- is of little utility to others.
Wow, so according to you, whether or not water even has the fucking physical properties for this to even happen (hint: it doesn't) is subjective like movie preferences.


Scientific fact is not subjective. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific. How do you not understand this?

[doesn't even make sense]

So I gotta say none of this makes an iota of goddamn sense to me.

[ckaihatsu]

And, again, one study that contradicts everything we as humans know about the natural world. Diamagnetism, bioavailability curves, etc. You're peddling pseudoscience. That Burzynski shit-head also had a study or two that "proved" his urine cancer cure. It doesn't mean shit if it can't be independently tested and verified. The common thread between his work and this shit? It's all make-believe crap that can't be verified because it's not real.




Wow, so according to you, whether or not water even has the fucking physical properties for this to even happen (hint: it doesn't) is subjective like movie preferences.


No, to be clear, I'm concerned with the *health* benefits from this method.





Scientific fact is not subjective. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific. How do you not understand this?


Well, according to scientific practice the more testing and data that's made available, the better. The most well-established understandings are still subject to renewed re-examination at any time.

I just don't see this as the closed-book case that you see it as -- obviously we disagree.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Oh my god I think I'm having a stroke

[Ele'ill]

So I gotta say none of this makes an iota of goddamn sense to me.

basically you steal your 8 year old's science project and make it relevant to your otherwise miserable life

[Ele'ill]

ckaihatsu, most things that absorb all your energy in order to do something really simple like drink a glass of rain are probably ridiculously useless.

[doesn't even make sense]

No, to be clear, I'm concerned with the *health* benefits from this method.

So you're saying by swishing water around under magnets before we drink it we make special water that you don't have to drink as much of? Is that the big health boon we're talking about here?

[The Jay]

What the hell is all this pseudoscience bullshit going on in here? It is painful and I hope that whoever thinks that dumbass in the video has a clue reads a book found in a section other than "new age".

[Yuppie Grinder]

Drinking water is medically advisable.

Bullshit, I don't buy it. Name one person who was a habitual user of water who hasn't died.
I suggest a fitness plan of 420 situps a day, 69 pushups a day, and a diet consisting strictly of gatorade with magnetized ions and protein powder fried in snake oil.

[ellipsis]

moved to sports and health

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

what's wrong with eating healthily, not smoking, not drinking to excess and exercising/taking up a sport?

People make shit so complicated these days :(

[hashbangbinzsh]

Whatever this magical water treatment is, it might be a useful placebo. It could be worth recommending to people who have general complaints. In serious cases, the magic water could be injected for emergency interventions.

[Sea]

Yes, 'bioavailability' is not a difficult concept to understand. I'll assure you that I comprehend it.Saying things like this is what will get amateur pharmacologists writing you death threats. Yes I realize that has no bearing on the scientific (in)validity of your claims.
No, to be clear, I'm concerned with the *health* benefits from this method.So now medical properties are independent of the physical properties that you claim to back them up?
A study was conducted (and repeated several times) in April 2005 thru June 2005 to determine what effect magnetized water has vs. non magnetized water on the germination rate and growth pattern of mung beans. Prior research indicated that magnetic fields have a positive effect in the improvement in both rate of growth and in the vitality of the plants. This benefit has been attributed to the water becoming more “Bio-available” due to the de-clustering effect magnet fields have on water.Links? I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's not enough to make claims. It's not even enough to parrot other people's claims. You also have to back them up with accredited evidence. Also, it's a hell of a lot better to admit that you're wrong than it is to deceive yourself. Just think what would Humble Hoxha do? and you'll be all set.

[ckaihatsu]

To all critics:

You're making it sound like it's my job to *convince* you, with the results of a research industry's worth of experimental proof.

You're mistaken. I would be glad to provide more links to more similar studies on the topic, if they were readily available, but that would be the extent of my further involvement.

Again, direct personal experiential results are available to you for the topic. You could probably even hot-glue two plastic bottlecaps together, top-to-top, and drill a hole through them to make your own if you don't want to buy the toy thing.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Damn.. reading that made me a lot more emotional than it had any right to..
Why?

[Sea]

To all critics:

You're making it sound like it's my job to *convince* you, with the results of a research industry's worth of experimental proof.

You're mistaken. I would be glad to provide more links to more similar studies on the topic, if they were readily available, but that would be the extent of my further involvement.

Again, direct personal experiential results are available to you for the topic. You could probably even hot-glue two plastic bottlecaps together, top-to-top, and drill a hole through them to make your own if you don't want to buy the toy thing.But could you please provide links to the studies you cite?

[ckaihatsu]

But could you please provide links to the studies you cite?


Yeah -- there's the one at post #3, and I'll kick this one in, too, on a strictly f.y.i. basis:


Structured Water: Future of Medicine? 2/8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hn8QekvArI

[Sea]

Yeah -- there's the one at post #3, and I'll kick this one in, too, on a strictly f.y.i. basis:


Structured Water: Future of Medicine? 2/8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hn8QekvArI
"Structured, hexagonal water acts as a powerful anti-oxidant, capable of destroying vast numbers of excess free radicals which can accumulate in our bodies; and a wide variety of additional tasks that water in its basic, H2O format, cannot do." from the vid description

You should be able to find the problems in that by yourself. If not, you must've failed high school chemistry.

[ckaihatsu]

"Structured, hexagonal water acts as a powerful anti-oxidant, capable of destroying vast numbers of excess free radicals which can accumulate in our bodies; and a wide variety of additional tasks that water in its basic, H2O format, cannot do." from the vid description

You should be able to find the problems in that by yourself. If not, you must've failed high school chemistry.


Actually, we focused more on stoichiometry -- not so much on nutritional science. (Whatever.)

[ckaihatsu]

You could probably even hot-glue two plastic bottlecaps together, top-to-top, and drill a hole through them to make your own if you don't want to buy the toy thing.


Okay, I did some web searches and found the following video that explains a particular technique very well:


Weld Bottle Caps Together to Make a Vortex

http://youtu.be/hjMB-IsvURo


It basically says that you can use a Teflon-coated (non-stick) pan to quickly partially melt the tops of two plastic bottlecaps so that you can then press the tops together to seal them. A hole can then be drilled through the sealed tops, which creates the water vortex from the top plastic bottle to the lower one.

If you're going to do it make sure to view the video since it goes in-depth on the details.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Again, direct personal experiential results are available to you for the topic.

Those are anecdotes, not scientific data. Otherwise placebos would actually work and not be placebos.

[ckaihatsu]

Those are anecdotes, not scientific data.


You're mixing contexts here, ÑóẊîöʼn.

One can be an academician about all of this and go down the scholasticism route, if one is interested in large-scale laboratory-type testing for deriving extensive clinical empirical data.

But *individual experience* may *vary* from person to person -- especially around life and health matters, since everyone has varying physiological and personal makeups.

That's why I wouldn't presume to *guarantee* certain results for a person, on a person-by-person basis, since I don't have appropriate *data* on a person-by-person level.

The study I *did* find, though, at post #3, indicates *generalizable results*, since we know that the physical properties of water are consistent regardless of where the water is physically located.





Otherwise placebos would actually work and not be placebos.


Your reasoning is incorrect here since it's a misapplication of a concern about scientific methodology -- if you'd like to critique the method used in the study at post #3, then go ahead and address its actual specifics. Otherwise you're just talking abstractly in a way that has nothing to do with the subject matter here.

You're summarily dismissing actual scientific data, likening it to "anecdotes" -- and doing *that* is *definitely* not scientific.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You're mixing contexts here, ÑóẊîöʼn.

One can be an academician about all of this and go down the scholasticism route, if one is interested in large-scale laboratory-type testing for deriving extensive clinical empirical data.

But *individual experience* may *vary* from person to person -- especially around life and health matters, since everyone has varying physiological and personal makeups.

That's why I wouldn't presume to *guarantee* certain results for a person, on a person-by-person basis, since I don't have appropriate *data* on a person-by-person level.

That is exactly why more than one study is necessary.


The study I *did* find, though, at post #3, indicates *generalizable results*, since we know that the physical properties of water are consistent regardless of where the water is physically located.

You realise that that the author of your "study" made a boo-boo about a basic magnetic property of water, right?

And no, the results of a single study are not generalisable by anyone honest.

Also, read this:


Bottom line

The plants with the healthiest observed germination rate, growth rate, largest size, and best overall appearance were those watered with the NNSS configured AQUATOMIC.

AQUATOMIC®

The new patent pending AQUATOMIC water treatment device has been designed to fit in many various aqueous delivery systems and utilizes a group of ultra strong, coated Neodymium Iron Boron (NdFeB) magnets that deliver over 17,000 gauss directly into the water to be treated. The AQUATOMIC's Super-Strength Rare Earth NdFeB magnets have the characteristics of extreme strong Br resident induction and excellent demagnetization resistance capability.

This new design incorporates an adjustable elastic strap that can be utilized and easily adapted onto existing water filter housings, water bottles, sun tea jars, water pitchers, canteens, water lines, shower nozzles, and garden hoses…to name just a few possibilities.

"Patent pending"? This isn't science, you are being conned by a science-y aura appropriated by a huckster in order to sell "alternative" health crap.


Your reasoning is incorrect here since it's a misapplication of a concern about scientific methodology -- if you'd like to critique the method used in the study at post #3, then go ahead and address its actual specifics. Otherwise you're just talking abstractly in a way that has nothing to do with the subject matter here.

You're summarily dismissing actual scientific data, likening it to "anecdotes" -- and doing *that* is *definitely* not scientific.

How about the fact that the claims made are far beyond what can be confirmed in a single study? Also the salesman crap, as well.

[ckaihatsu]

That is exactly why more than one study is necessary.


Certainly, agreed. Does that mean you just volunteered yourself -- ? (grin)





You realise that that the author of your "study" made a boo-boo about a basic magnetic property of water, right?


Oh, okay, so what were the results of *your* study, then...?





And no, the results of a single study are not generalisable by anyone honest.


So for the 5,230,194th time, my interest isn't an academic one -- it's a direct-experience one. With this bottlecap-melding technique most people now have the means to create a suitable water vortex using two 2-liter plastic bottles.

(Likewise, consider that one could endlessly study political institutions, and even political movements, or one could be part of a present-day political movement that uses direct action to "get the goods".)





Also, read this:




"Patent pending"? This isn't science, you are being conned by a science-y aura appropriated by a huckster in order to sell "alternative" health crap.


Yeah, more presumptions on your part, but thanks for the concern.





How about the fact that the claims made are far beyond what can be confirmed in a single study? Also the salesman crap, as well.


In science additional trials (and more variations around those trials) just lends additional *certainty* -- a single experiment could very well provide adequate data and conclusions that wind up being generalizable, given numerous additional trials for a higher degree of certainty.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

So for the 5,230,194th time, my interest isn't an academic one --
And for the 5,230,194th time, that "little mistake" completely contradicts and invalidates any hypothesis the author is putting forward. It's like saying hydrogen nuclei have six protons, then claiming your interest isn't academic when someone says you're wrong.

[ckaihatsu]

And for the 5,230,194th time, that "little mistake" completely contradicts and invalidates any hypothesis the author is putting forward. It's like saying hydrogen nuclei have six protons, then claiming your interest isn't academic when someone says you're wrong.


Yeah, there's no mistake -- you'd make better use of *everyone's* time here if you go kick back, relax, and have a refreshing soft drink.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Yeah, there's no mistake -- you'd make better use of *everyone's* time here if you go kick back, relax, and have a refreshing soft drink.
I think you'd make better use of everyone's time if you quit posting and/or defending this pseudoscience crap.

[ckaihatsu]

I think you'd make better use of everyone's time if you quit posting and/or defending this pseudoscience crap.


Yeah, well, I'm sorry you happen to disagree with it, for whatever idiosyncratic personal reasons you may have -- you can find the 'unsubscribe' option at your User Control Panel.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yeah, there's no mistake -- you'd make better use of *everyone's* time here if you go kick back, relax, and have a refreshing soft drink.

What do you mean "there's no mistake"? The author of the study that you seem to think is so significant made a schoolboy error in identifying the correct magnetic property of water, is obviously trying to sell something*, and have not had their results repeated elsewhere which is why multiple studies are so important - they act as (dis)confirmations of any initial study.

As for better uses of time, maybe you should try learning about the real magnetic properties of water, rather than waste your time farting about with water based on a sophomoric mistake.

*from the beginning of this so-called "study":
"For this issue, we have something special. Jon is turning this issue over to his friend, Michael Pedersen, the President of Aquaspace Water Systems. Jon and Michael met after Jon started recommending the Aquaspace Triple Filter as the best kitchen water filtration system available. (Incidentally, if you mention Jon's name when ordering, they give you a 20% discount.)"


Yeah, well, I'm sorry you happen to disagree with it, for whatever idiosyncratic personal reasons you may have -- you can find the 'unsubscribe' option at your User Control Panel.

It's not a personal problem, it's a scientific problem - the author of your "study" made a basic mistake about a known property of water. How the fuck can you trust a single study written by someone who's made such an elementary error?

Bleating that "your interest isn't academic" just says to me that you are so desperate for this silly little panacea to work that you are willing to ignore scientific methodology if it fails to confirm your own biases.

You are being scammed, for fuck's sake. It is clear that you want this to work, but that is not the same thing as wanting the truth as to whether it works or not.

[ckaihatsu]

For the sake of clarification, and this sub-issue, I'll note that I have no association with any of the people, entities, or claims made, at anything that I've linked to in this thread. I have not purchased any of the products, and I have no intellectual interest in any of the claims made regarding *magnetism* and its effects on water and health.

I began this thread with a video that shows a method for vortexing water from one 2-liter plastic bottle to another, and now I've also provided subsequent information on how one can do this themselves. This is the purpose of the posting.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For the sake of clarification, and this sub-issue, I'll note that I have no association with any of the people, entities, or claims made, at anything that I've linked to in this thread. I have not purchased any of the products, and I have no intellectual interest in any of the claims made regarding *magnetism* and its effects on water and health.

I began this thread with a video that shows a method for vortexing water from one 2-liter plastic bottle to another, and now I've also provided subsequent information on how one can do this themselves. This is the purpose of the posting.

But why would you post this information if doing so has nothing to do with the claims being made about the technique contained therein?

Why does the title of this thread (written by you, I presume) include the phrase "quick, cheap way to improve your health" when the thread contents contain no such thing?

Your back-pedalling and evasiveness clearly indicate that you haven't got any evidence to support your claims. If you're not invested in this in any way, then why are you so reticent to recognise the glaring and fatal flaws with this technique?

[ckaihatsu]

But why would you post this information if doing so has nothing to do with the claims being made about the technique contained therein?


Because it's easier to reference existing work (YouTube videos, etc.) than to do a custom-made presentation. Apologies for any imprecision as a result of overlap of topics therein.





Why does the title of this thread (written by you, I presume) include the phrase "quick, cheap way to improve your health" when the thread contents contain no such thing?


Well, just because you and others assert such things ('pseudoscience') doesn't mean that you're correct. Again, it would be far more appropriate for you to deal with the actual claims made, and their evidence, than to summarily slap your arbitrary value judgments and labels on what's being presented.





Your back-pedalling and evasiveness clearly indicate that you haven't got any evidence to support your claims. If you're not invested in this in any way, then why are you so reticent to recognise the glaring and fatal flaws with this technique?


I don't agree with you here.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because it's easier to reference existing work (YouTube videos, etc.) than to do a custom-made presentation. Apologies for any imprecision as a result of overlap of topics therein.

You still haven't explained why anyone would want to swirl around their water in such a manner. Why should they?


Well, just because you and others assert such things ('pseudoscience') doesn't mean that you're correct. Again, it would be far more appropriate for you to deal with the actual claims made, and their evidence, than to summarily slap your arbitrary value judgments and labels on what's being presented.

You mentioned this technique as a "quick, cheap way to improve your health". What are the specifics of this claim and what is your supporting evidence?

You are the one making the claim, so you have to furnish us with the evidence.

Hopefully I won't have to explain to you why the skeptical position is the default.


I don't agree with you here.

With what part are you disagreeing?

Are you at least willing to recognise the fundamental error made by the author of the study you linked to?

[ckaihatsu]

From the linked article at post #3:





[I]t may be possible to actually alter water's “structure” to create “healthier water.”

For example, it has been discovered that:

- Drinking water with an elevated pH is beneficial.

- Declustering water (reducing its surface tension) renders the water more “bio-available,” thus improving the transfer of nutrients into cells – and the removal of waste from cells.

[...]





What happens when we drink water that has smaller clusters?

Jon Barron, internationally renowned health expert, reports: “Although all water consists of the same basic H20 molecules, water nevertheless varies according to how these molecules bond together to form "water molecule groups." To put it simply, it is in the size of these groupings that water differs.

“The smaller the groupings, the more bio-available the water is -- the more easily it is able to pass through cell walls, to transport nutrients and remove waste, to facilitate all of the communications systems in your body, and to pass through your body as a whole. The larger the groupings, the more inefficient water is at performing these same functions.

“What holds water molecules together in clusters is surface tension. This is what you see when you wash your car and the water beads up in droplets on the hood. When washing your car, you use detergent to break that surface tension -- which breaks apart the large molecular clusters, making the water wetter and better able to clean. Obviously, you can't use detergent to "improve" the bioavailability of your drinking water. [...]

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why does this make such a difference to one's health?

I reall don't get the fuss. Surely it's more important to focus on eating/drinking a proper diet, than this sort of voodoo science stuff??

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

From the linked article at post #3:

Drinking water with elevated pH is beneficial, eh? What pH values are we talking here? What are the benefits, specifically? You might want to read this page (http://www.chem1.com/CQ/ionbunk.html) before giving your answer, because the article itself sure as hell doesn't say.

As for water clusters, that appears to a be a real scientific thing that snake oil salesmen have latched onto (http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html).

Also, Jon Barron is one of those snake oil salesman, not a scientist.


Why does this make such a difference to one's health?

I reall don't get the fuss. Surely it's more important to focus on eating/drinking a proper diet, than this sort of voodoo science stuff??

But that's difficult you see, and nowhere near as impressive to the rubes as a swirly magnetising SCIENCE-y device which uses ION CLUSTER BABBLE ACIDITY HURBLE to REJUVENATE YOUR PROTEIN MATRICES HERP DERP.

What such devices are actually good at is the separation of fools from their money.

What makes it really sad in this case is that ckaihatsu appears to be a true believer - if he really hasn't handed anyone any money for the purposes of pouring snake oil in his ear, then I have to wonder if his investment in this is psychological rather than financial.

[ckaihatsu]

It's not a bad thing that much of this area is controversial -- as with anything questionable the subject would gain from additional rigorous scientific testing.

I introduced a simple, almost-free way for anyone to test one aspect of the claims here -- one can vortex their own water and see for themselves what the difference is. (Try placing two identical glasses side-by-side, one with regular tap water, and the other with the vortexed water, to *see* the visual difference that results.)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It's not a bad thing that much of this area is controversial -- as with anything questionable the subject would gain from additional rigorous scientific testing.

You've yet to show that there is anything worth investigating. The described mechanism is completely invalidated by a basic error - water is diamagnetic, not paramagnetic.


I introduced a simple, almost-free way for anyone to test one aspect of the claims here -- one can vortex their own water and see for themselves what the difference is. (Try placing two identical glasses side-by-side, one with regular tap water, and the other with the vortexed water, to *see* the visual difference that results.)

How do you expect people to account for bias and expectations? Especially for a single result which could be heavily influenced by such things?

[ckaihatsu]

You've yet to show that there is anything worth investigating.










- Declustering water (reducing its surface tension) renders the water more “bio-available,” thus improving the transfer of nutrients into cells – and the removal of waste from cells.





The described mechanism is completely invalidated by a basic error - water is diamagnetic, not paramagnetic.





I have no intellectual interest in any of the claims made regarding *magnetism* and its effects on water and health.





How do you expect people to account for bias and expectations? Especially for a single result which could be heavily influenced by such things?


You're talking authoritatively about something you haven't actually done.





[T]he physical properties of water are consistent regardless of where the water is physically located.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

- Declustering water (reducing its surface tension) renders the water more “bio-available,” thus improving the transfer of nutrients into cells – and the removal of waste from cells.

This quote is from an article which is already heavily suspect due to a basic error of physics. You need better sources.

Also, check this page (http://www.chem1.com/CQ/aquaporin.html) out. Surface tension is irrelevant to cellular nutrition because water molecules pass through cell walls one at a time, not in clusters.


You're talking authoritatively about something you haven't actually done.

I don't need to do anything. In science, those making the positive claims are the ones with the burden of evidence. You have repeatedly failed to meet that burden.

Why should anyone take you seriously on this matter?

[ckaihatsu]

This quote is from an article which is already heavily suspect due to a basic error of physics. You need better sources.


Again, I disagree, and, from what I can tell, you're the one who's incorrect.





Also, check this page (http://www.chem1.com/CQ/aquaporin.html) out. Surface tension is irrelevant to cellular nutrition because water molecules pass through cell walls one at a time, not in clusters.


Surface tension and water molecule clusters are two different things, though related, I suppose. (That's why merely adding detergent to water to reduce surface tension is not equivalent to vortexing the water to reduce molecular clustering.)





I don't need to do anything. In science, those making the positive claims are the ones with the burden of evidence. You have repeatedly failed to meet that burden.


Only according to you.





Why should anyone take you seriously on this matter?


No one *has* to take *any* of this seriously -- none of this is mandatory in any sense of the word. I'm providing it as a courtesy, with a very low cost of participation and self-verification.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Again, I disagree, and, from what I can tell, you're the one who's incorrect.

How? Are you claiming that water paramagnetic? Because a few seconds on Google will tell one that is not the case.


Surface tension and water molecule clusters are two different things, though related, I suppose. (That's why merely adding detergent to water to reduce surface tension is not equivalent to vortexing the water to reduce molecular clustering.)

You've still not given any substance to claims made in relation to either phenomenon. How does any of this "improve health" and what is your evidence that it does?


Only according to you.

Do I really to go over the logic behind it, or are you merely pretending to be ignorant of how science works?

Let me give you a hint: does one need evidence against the existence of a small teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, or is the burden of evidence upon the one making the claim that such a teapot does exist?


No one *has* to take *any* of this seriously -- none of this is mandatory in any sense of the word. I'm providing it as a courtesy, with a very low cost of participation and self-verification.

It doesn't matter how little it costs, what matters is that "self-verification" is fucking useless for the kind of claims you are making. You are promoting quackery and that kind of shit does not belong here.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Entertaining thread. Most are shouting "Science!," while one sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "I can't hear you!"

[ckaihatsu]

It doesn't matter how little it costs, what matters is that "self-verification" is fucking useless for the kind of claims you are making. You are promoting quackery and that kind of shit does not belong here.


Look, ÑóẊîöʼn, I don't have additional time for this crap -- if you don't want to do it, then don't do it. I have nothing further to add to this thread, and I am not actively promoting it to anyone.

If you want to start a research foundation and find funding to test all of the little intricacies that you're so concerned with, then go right ahead.

Please stop attempting to bicker. Thanks.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

It's not 'little intricacies' he's concerned with but the complete lack of any evidence to the contrary. There's little wonder these things are found in the toy section and not in the pharmaceutical section.... does look cool though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Look, ÑóẊîöʼn, I don't have additional time for this crap -- if you don't want to do it, then don't do it. I have nothing further to add to this thread, and I am not actively promoting it to anyone.

Yes you are, you made the thread and wrote its title, which includes a claim of improving health. A claim which you have refused to back up with evidence when challenged.


If you want to start a research foundation and find funding to test all of the little intricacies that you're so concerned with, then go right ahead.

I'm not concerned with "little intricacies", but whether this technique you're promoting does anything at all! Apart from the obvious one of swirling water around.


Please stop attempting to bicker. Thanks.

Please stop promoting quackery, and please back up (or retract) the claim made in the title of this thread. Thanks.

[ellipsis]

This is still going? Derailed and CLOSED.