Does Water Have A Memory?

[exchemist]

LOL! Says the person who makes mistake after mistake and thinks that objects can't move faster than light relative to each other. I explained to you over and over again why that's not true and you still didn't get it, or more likely did get it but didn't want to admit it because of how stupid it made you feel. You even thought that objects moving faster than light relative to each other from the perspective of a third object somehow lead to a preferred frame of reference and you thought that time dilation and length contraction applies without changing reference frames for F's sake, when the constancy of the speed of light is the cause of tie dilation and length contraction when changing frames.

 

Nobody who makes a mistake that fundamental should expect to be taken seriously on the subject!

 

 

I haven't seen the video but I seriously doubt they were claiming that a river carrying things along in a current in any way supports their claim that water has memory.

Well, you watch it then and let us know what you think about that. If you can find a key segment that you think is worth the rest of us watching, then if it is <5mins I might even do so. Your opinion is worth something to me. 

[current]

Well, you watch it then and let us know what you think about that. If you can find a key segment that you think is worth the rest of us watching, then if it is <5mins I might even do so. Your opinion is worth something to me.

 

The thing is that , you rely on someone else to provide you with information on which you decide is worthy of your , time . You are pathetic exchemtist .

[exchemist]

I don't know much about it but luckily I remembered the EZ water term, a Dr. Pollack came up with it. http://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/5925/ez-water-fraud-or-breakthrough  Looks like it's been hijacked by people trying to claim that his research proves the health benefits of ionised water but he never made that claim.

 

I've just recently heard of it and that's what I was told, with the example of false diagnoses of cancer but I can't find anything to support that. I presume it's just the exact same effect as a placebo but it's given a different name when it's a negative outcome so it shouldn't really be thought of as something different. Can the placebo effect actually cure an objective medical condition or just treat the symptoms?

Thanks for the Pollack reference. Yes I had seen his name (and it was he I had in mind with my remark about bearded charlatans!). This guy runs his own lab at Washington University. His qualification are in Engineering (1961) and Bioengineering (1966). I can see no evidence of any training in biochemistry, chemistry or biology. His idea seems to be Exclusion Zone water, "EZ water", pronounced ee-zee in American, and much favoured as a tag (= easy) in US commerce.

 

But I can't find any papers, or articles, or reviews, about the science, only plugs for his book (and yet more interminable sodding YouTube videos) - and certainly no mention of H3O2. Can you?

Edited March 22, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

A-wal, et al,

 

Actually, I've had a chance to read around this "EZ water" thingie a bit more today. I found it was in fact referenced on the site I linked to earlier, about the various crank theories of water. The writer does not dismiss Pollack but, being a chemist, is sceptical, as am I! 

 

I think I understand what Pollack thinks he is on to. He thinks he has evidence that wetted hydrophilic surfaces (e.g. glass, or cellular proteins) can impose a longer-range order on the adjacent water molecules than is generally recognised. He thinks this order excludes solute molecules from a layer close to the surface, rather as solute molecules are excluded from ice crystals as they form. As you may know, the developing lattice structure in a crystal can achieve greater stability (shorter and stronger bonding) by excluding foreign items that disrupt the regularity of the order - hence why salt depresses the melting point of ice and so forth. 

 

What is bizarre is that he also thinks that IR radiation (O-H stretch frequency I think?) is required for this structure to develop.  And he thinks the arrangement is one in which oxygen and hydrogen are present in a ratio of 2:3, giving the structure a -ve charge - as indeed one would expect from a ratio like that, which is effectively H2O.OH- .  So that's where the "H3O2" claim I found earlier comes from. 

 

He thinks the viscosity of this semi-ordered layer is a lot higher than that of free water (I can imagine it might be) and that, because there are hydrophilic proteins within cells, these features (viscosity, exclusion of solute) can provide an alternative account of the behaviour of certain aspects of living cells.  

 

It is not clear what observational evidence he has, or whether anybody has tried to replicate his findings.

 

Needless to say, this has nothing to do with "memory". However you will not be surprised to hear that garbled versions of this have been pounced on by various snake oil salesmen (e.g. some fellow called Mercola, who I think has actually done time for misrepresentation), sundry homeopaths, cranks and pedlars of water-based health gimmicks. I feel rather sorry for Pollack: this is attention he could well do without, if he is trying to get a serious hearing for his ideas.

 

But I find the bit about IR irradiation, in particular, rather hard to believe. Generally, adding vibrational energy (i.e. heat) tends to disrupt long range structure, as I'm sure most people with some knowledge of the kinetic theory of matter will appreciate. It also seems to me that a layer with the ratio he talks of could only be a couple of molecules thick or the -ve charge would be so great that it would be destabilised by mutual repulsions. H-bonds are not very strong. But I still can't find any independent write up of his research, so I can't resolve my scepticism at this point.

 

He clearly is someone who resorts to playing the victim card: there is a whole section on his website about the iniquitous conservatism of conventional "mainstream" [ugh!] science and the snuffing out of radical ideas. He doesn't quite say "they laughed at Galileo" but one gets the impression he has kicked up a stink about this at the university and the authorities have given him his head for the sake of an easier life - and good credentials for academic freedom I suppose. He also has a disturbing penchant for, yes you've guessed, videos, in place of papers. All this makes me suspicious that he may be a bit like Linus Pauling, who became notoriously eccentric towards the end of his life and espoused crank ideas about vitamin C. (Erwin Schroedinger and Fred Hoyle also became similarly eccentric in later life, and of course Tesla lost his marbles entirely, so it is not without precedent.)   

 

So there we have it. He may just possibly be onto something, but we may have to wait for a decade or so before science is able to pronounce on fairly definitively. Meanwhile I am not holding my breath, for the reasons I have indicated. 

 

Thanks A-wal. It was worth the struggle to dig this out. 

[A-wal]

You need to get an education before you are even worth the trouble of replying to.

How dare I have knowledge and opinions that weren't given to me in classroom? I must have some nerve! I shall take myself outside and punish myself accordingly.

 

So! You still think light travels at 0.5c with respect to something that is moving?

You need to define a frame of reference for that question to even make any kind of sense.

 

More incoherent babble from the uneducated know-it-all.

If you think it was incoherent then you really need to improve your comprehension skills, more than I already thought.

 

You're just pissed off because you're nothing but a pretender who regurgitates back anything that comes from a source that you trust try to give the impression of understanding but without any real grasp of what you're parroting and you got rumbled when you tried it with special relativity by making a mistake at the most basic and fundamental aspect of the model. Deal with it.

 

Just the usual ad hominem and strawman arguments that you always fallback on because you got nothing else. GO AWAY!

 

I do like that tag though, uneducated know it all. :) Can I please have that under my avatar instead of explaining?

 

Well, you watch it then and let us know what you think about that. If you can find a key segment that you think is worth the rest of us watching, then if it is <5mins I might even do so.

Yea it definitely looks like they've got something if you take their results at face value. Without knowing the details it's obviously impossible to say that's it's valid but the way it's described it seems to conclusively show that water is capable of storing certain types of information.

 

They go through two experiments. In the first one DNA molecules are diluted out of the water and the water apparently gives off an electro-magnetic signal that matches the DNA. In the second experiment the send a signal to water that includes the building blocks for DNA and it assembles itself into DNA that's a 98% match to the original. Very cool if there's no shenanigans.

 

They do give a vague hypothesis for a mechanism at 26:26. https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0

 

The other video he linked http://www.lifebuzz.com/water-theory/ touches on something that I've been interested in for a while but haven't mentioned here because despite this being the least dogmatic proper science site I've come across (yes really), judging by what's happened to others here I still think it would lead to insults against me that aren't punished and retaliation from me that's far less rude and aggressive but gets me banned.

 

Thanks for the Pollack reference. Yes I had seen his name (and it was he I had in mind with my remark about bearded charlatans!). This guy runs his own lab at Washington University. His qualification are in Engineering (1961) and Bioengineering (1966). I can see no evidence of any training in biochemistry, chemistry or biology. His idea seems to be Exclusion Zone water, "EZ water", pronounced ee-zee in American, and much favoured as a tag (= easy) in US commerce.

I don't see how his qualifications have any effect on the validity of his evidence.

 

But I can't find any papers, or articles, or reviews, about the science, only plugs for his book (and yet more interminable sodding YouTube videos) - and certainly no mention of H3O2. Can you?

Nope, it doesn't look good. He hasn't released anything scientific to be reviewed. Looks like a scam to sell book copies.

Edited March 22, 2017 by A-wal

[A-wal]

Ah you did find something. I'm betting that his rants against the mainstream are him venting because of genuine unfair treatment. I know I'm looking at it from the outside and so am not really in a position to pass judgement but it definitely seems like like it's far too difficult for any new science to be taken seriously.

 

I wish I knew enough to have a real opinion on his work because I find it interesting but unfortunately that's all I can really say about it. So he doesn't give any explanation at all for how heat has the opposite effect than you'd expect then?

[A-wal]

The thing is that , you rely on someone else to provide you with information on which you decide is worthy of your , time . You are pathetic exchemtist .

Dude you're practically begging to be banned! If you come in with alternative views the mods are FAR less lenient. This is a far more fair minded science forum than most but you still need to be careful. I know it's frustrating when you believe something and aren't taken seriously but you're only going to make it worse if you insult people without just cause. Stay away from you statements. That's pathetic, or you're being pathetic, or better yet that attitude/mentality is pathetic. Get the idea?.

[exchemist]

Ah you did find something. I'm betting that his rants against the mainstream are him venting because of genuine unfair treatment. I know I'm looking at it from the outside and so am not really in a position to pass judgement but it definitely seems like like it's far too difficult for any new science to be taken seriously.

 

I wish I knew enough to have a real opinion on his work because I find it interesting but unfortunately that's all I can really say about it. So he doesn't give any explanation at all for how heat has the opposite effect than you'd expect then?

Well no. All I can find in written form is a rather sympathetic review of an earlier book he wrote, which talks about some of this.

 

If his research is any good, though, I really do not see why it could not have got published in a number of chemistry journals. Surface chemistry is complex stuff, so there's always room for new findings. I don't see why it would have had trouble with peer review - unless of course they asked the sort of question I am asking and got very unconvincing replies. My fear would be that, because of his lack of relevant formal qualification, he may perhaps have not read the literature properly, or may have blundered into some obvious misconception in interpreting his data, or may have indulged in speculations that are not supported by the experimental evidence - something like that. I see you challenge the relevance of his qualifications, but I'm afraid they are relevant. This idea abroad at the moment that "we've had enough of experts" has given us Trump and Britain leaving the EU. In science too it helps if you know what the f*** you are talking about. But I speculate of course.

 

Anyway, I now know enough about this that, if it pops up in future, I will say aha I know what this is about. 

[Turtle]

Critique on the video from 2011:

“Water memory” – a myth that wouldn’t die

Excerpts:

Naturally interested, I rushed to find a source for this awesome news about a phenomenon that could potentially change all our basic understanding of the physico-chemical nature of water and give a big fillip to Benveniste’s “water memory” theory that has been discredited several times over. I looked and looked, I really did. Did I find a journal article, a research paper, a scientific citation?

 

NO. All I found was a YouTube video.

...

[update dated December 11, 2012: A reader pointed this out: The correct name of the institute is The Institute for Static and Dynamics for aerospace constructions of the University of Stuttgart. Here is a website of the project: http://www.weltimtropfen.de; the site is in German (YAY for Google Translate!). Unfortunately, the website has no pertinent information about the experiments and methodologies. There are some nice photos of water droplets, but mere appearance of some photos is not evidence. That is not how science works.]

...

My critical antennae were screaming.

•We were not told how these images were taken: camera? Light microscope? EM? Could the different observations be image artefacts? Of note in this regard, scienceblogger Orac had a very interesting post on how heavy metal contaminants were mistaken for non-existent structures called nanocrystalloids by a group of pro-homeopathy scientists intents on proving the existence of “water memory”.

•We don’t know if the images were taken simultaneously or differently. For example, was the same slide used for 16 droplets shown on screen? If the slides were different, how were the variables on slide surface (grease/grime/effect of cleaning solution et cetera) controlled for?

•Since the water was pushed out through the needle, how was the volume of the droplet controlled for? It is not unexpected that different students would push the plunger with slightly different force and end up with different volumes on the slide.

•Did each student put the droplets simultaneously or was there a time gap between each set? How was the effect of this time gap controlled for, particularly since the main thesis of the experiment is based on the different appearance of water drops made by different students? The easiest control would have been to get a student to put water drops at two different times, after taking water from the same source.

...

Of course not. Silly me. But the next assertion was even more stupendous – that the Rhine carries all the information from the stuff dropping into it, and the Dutch, located at the mouth of the Rhine, drink all that information. Hoozzah! The Dutch have their very own information superhighway in their gut.

Those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it. :rolleyes:

[exchemist]

Dude you're practically begging to be banned! If you come in with alternative views the mods are FAR less lenient. This is a far more fair minded science forum than most but you still need to be careful. I know it's frustrating when you believe something and aren't taken seriously but you're only going to make it worse if you insult people without just cause. Stay away from you statements. That's pathetic, or you're being pathetic, or better yet that attitude/mentality is pathetic. Get the idea?.

I think he'll be off soon. His ban month long ban on sciforums expires in a couple of days. I don't mind him there, because there is an Ignore function, which I use quite liberally to screen out the cranks and nitwits. Some cranks are actually a blessing, as they force the rest of us to dust off our science, research things and do some real science teaching. But others not so much.   

[Turtle]

I think he'll be off soon. His ban month long ban on sciforums expires in a couple of days. I don't mind him there, because there is an Ignore function, which I use quite liberally to screen out the cranks and nitwits. Some cranks are actually a blessing, as they force the rest of us to dust off our science, research things and do some real science teaching. But others not so much.   

 

I don't think any cranks and/or their trolls are blessings on forums, rather they all are a scourge deserving of the severest possible adjudication. In civil society much of what cranks/cons purvey is criminal and subject to prosecution for fraud or similar crimes. The staff here are more of your opinion, a fact I find disconcerting and to a considerable degree, responsible for the demise of this once active science based space. I assure you that the folks truly interested in science are sick & tired of seeing the ad nauseum bullshit on this site and have by-and-large voted with their feet. This mollycoddling is without merit.

 

Dusting off science ought to be a function in pursuit of advancing science, not a function of debunking misinformation, stupidity, and assorted bad intent. :evil:

Edited March 22, 2017 by Turtle

[exchemist]

I don't think any cranks and/or their trolls are blessings on forums, rather they all are a scourge deserving of the severest possible adjudication. In civil society much of what cranks/cons purvey is criminal and subject to prosecution for fraud or similar crimes. The staff here are more of your opinion, a fact I find disconcerting and to a considerable degree, responsible for the demise of this once active science based space. I assure you that the folks truly interested in science are sick & tired of seeing the ad nauseum bullshit on this site and have by-and-large voted with their feet. This mollycoddling is without merit.

 

Dusting off science ought to be a function in pursuit of advancing science, not a function of debunking misinformation, stupidity, and assorted bad intent. :evil:

I used to think like you but my experience has been that forums with a sprinkling of cranks are actually a lot more lively than those without. 

 

As for the reasons why science forums lose vitality I think there are other forces at work, notably perhaps the rise of the more modern generation of social media (Faecebook, Twatter and the like).

[A-wal]

Well no. All I can find in written form is a rather sympathetic review of an earlier book he wrote, which talks about some of this.

 

If his research is any good, though, I really do not see why it could not have got published in a number of chemistry journals. Surface chemistry is complex stuff, so there's always room for new findings. I don't see why it would have had trouble with peer review - unless of course they asked the sort of question I am asking and got very unconvincing replies. My fear would be that, because of his lack of relevant formal qualification, he may perhaps have not read the literature properly, or may have blundered into some obvious misconception in interpreting his data, or may have indulged in speculations that are not supported by the experimental evidence - something like that. I see you challenge the relevance of his qualifications, but I'm afraid they are relevant. This idea abroad at the moment that "we've had enough of experts" has given us Trump and Britain leaving the EU. In science too it helps if you know what the f*** you are talking about. But I speculate of course.

I see what you're saying and obviously you need to know what you're doing but his qualifications are only relevant in so far as it affects the likelihood of coming up with something useful, not in the sense that effects the validity of his results. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that qualifications can actually invalidate the results of an otherwise valid scientific experiment, or even that it should in principle play any part in whether or not findings should be accepted or ignored.

 

Critique on the video from 2011:

“Water memory” – a myth that wouldn’t die

Excerpts:

 

Those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it. :rolleyes:

After watching the video and the credentials of the scientists involved (yes qualifications give genuine credibility if you've only got somebody's word to go on) I can say with confidence that they have either actually found something genuine that hasn't been accepted for purely unscientific reasons or they're making fraudulent claims. The nature of the experiments they showed would seem to rule out human error or exaggeration of data to get a positive result.

 

I don't think any cranks and/or their trolls are blessings on forums, rather they all are a scourge deserving of the severest possible adjudication. In civil society much of what cranks/cons purvey is criminal and subject to prosecution for fraud or similar crimes. The staff here are more of your opinion, a fact I find disconcerting and to a considerable degree, responsible for the demise of this once active science based space. I assure you that the folks truly interested in science are sick & tired of seeing the ad nauseum bullshit on this site and have by-and-large voted with their feet. This mollycoddling is without merit.

 

Dusting off science ought to be a function in pursuit of advancing science, not a function of debunking misinformation, stupidity, and assorted bad intent. :evil:

The only real mollycoddling evident in my time here has been towards the favoured members who don't question or rock the boat. They are allowed to be as rude and disrespectful as they like with impunity (maybe they get warnings but I doubt it) while those that argue their point (something that should be encouraged if it's done in the right way and with a willingness to actually learn) are quickly banned without question for relatively minor offenses. If people have have been put off the site for the reasons you gave then I would suggest that the site is much better off without them.

Edited March 22, 2017 by A-wal

[Turtle]

I used to think like you but my experience has been that forums with a sprinkling of cranks are actually a lot more lively than those without. 

 

As for the reasons why science forums lose vitality I think there are other forces at work, notably perhaps the rise of the more modern generation of social media (Faecebook, Twatter and the like).

 

I agree the social media has likely sucked some vitality from the forums. Who ya gonna call?

 

I suppose some parsing of 'cranks' is merited, however in the case of this water memory bullshit, it has been debunked for years and Current has not made the remotest effort to give any legitimate arguments or sources. Telling folks to 'watch the video' does not cut the mustard and is patently against forum rules. Yet, here we are still shlocking through the continued barrage of crapulence. I say enough.

 

If the forum is dead without cranks and trolls, then bury it and move on.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Turtle

[Turtle]

 

The only real mollycoddling evident in my time here has been towards the favoured members who don't question or rock the boat. They are allowed to be as rude and disrespectful as they like with impunity (maybe they get warnings but I doubt it) while those that argue their point (something that should be encouraged if it's done in the right way and with a willingness to actually learn) are quickly banned without question for relatively minor offenses. If people have have been put off the site for the reasons you gave then I would suggest that the site is much better off without them.

 

Your short presence here is inadequate to make a qualified judgment of my assertions. By the time you came, this place was already on life support.  And you're no one to talk about insults, as your postings illustrate that it is a major tool in your box. Thanks for nothing. :thumbs_do

Edited March 22, 2017 by Turtle

[exchemist]

I see what you're saying and obviously you need to know what you're doing but his qualifications are only relevant in so far as it affects the likelihood of coming up with something useful, not in the sense that effects the validity of his results. I hope you're not seriously suggesting that qualifications can actually invalidate the results of an otherwise valid scientific experiment, or even that it should in principle play any part in whether or not findings should be accepted or ignored.

 

 

I think if you re-read what I wrote it should be obvious what I am suggesting and what I am not suggesting. I made it very plain that expertise in a field is usually important, in order to have a good chance of doing a decent professional job. That is true of plumbers, lawyers and pilots, and there is no reason to think it any less true of scientific research. That's all.

 

I am amazed that you find this apparently controversial. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet of some sort.

Edited March 22, 2017 by exchemist

[exchemist]

I agree the social media has likely sucked some vitality from the forums. Who ya gonna call?

 

I suppose some parsing of 'cranks' is merited, however in the case of this water memory bullshit, it has been debunked for years and Current has not made the remotest effort to give any legitimate arguments or sources. Telling folks to 'watch the video' does not cut the mustard and is patently against forum rules. Yet, here we are still shlocking through the continued barrage of crapulence. I say enough.

 

If the forum is dead without cranks and trolls, then bury it and move on.

Oh I do agree current is a waste of space. But he's not even a crank. He's just a troll - as you pointed out some time ago.