Can The Structure Of Water Be "Altered" So It Is More (or less)
Beneficial To Health?
Get the facts, or the facts will get you. And when you get them, get them right,
or they will get you wrong.
(Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732)
Altered Water Claims:
greater energy and vitality
increased hydration
enhanced oxygen delivery
better overall health
decreased stress levels
a more positive attitude
boosted metabolism
detoxification of the body
fewer negative emotions
normalize, maintain body pH
enhanced antioxidant activity
pain reduction
better more relaxed sleep
memory enhancement
greater strength
heightened endurance
a stronger immune system
protection from early aging
increased mobility improve cellular electrical properties
softer smoother skin
increased absorption of nutrients 114o bond angle kills pathogens
water crystal structure changes in response to words erase the negative imprinting
in waters
I
prepared the discussion below
in response to questions visitors ask about the truth of claims made by manufacturers and
distributors of altered or enhanced water products---or devices
that allegedly enhance water.
Promotions for these enhanced water products claim that the physical properties and/or energy characteristics of water molecules
can be altered by some process to produce a
wide range of general health benefits. Claims are also made
that the structure/energy of water produced by distillation and reverse osmosis
is actually harmful to health and that 'acidic' water is
harmful or 'alkaline/ionized' water is beneficial to health.
The Bottom Line:
Can "enhanced" water products influence health?
Short answer:
No - - - and
Yes. No:I have found absolutely NO reliable,
published, reproducible, scientific evidence after years
of searching the medical literature:
a)
that any of the so-called "enhanced-water" treatment
processes can restructure, energize or otherwise alter water to cause any health effects that are
different from regular, untreated water in well-designed blinded studies.
b)
that distillation or reverse osmosis creates
water harmful to health.
c)
that supports any theories to explain the alleged
physical, energy, and chemical characteristics of 'altered' water products or
the processes alleged to produce them.
d)
that
describes or demonstrates how any of the 'altered'
water products might work in the body to produce the alleged
benefits.
e)
that alkaline or ionized water helps the body
regulate pH.
More here
f)
that
homeopathic remedies are any more effective than
placebos.
Altered Water Processes:
magnetized water
clustered water
energized water
structured water Nikken Pi Mag water
photonic water activation
vibrationally charged water
hydrogenated water
vortex water
homeopathic treatments
pro/con/skit/skeptic/more
ionized water
alkaline water
interactive water with intention
Beotron energy
oxygenated water
M-Activation Technology imploding vortex noble gas infusions nano energizing
frequency
Micowater
hexa structured water Penta Water
Willard catalyzed water John Ellis energized distilled water
Masaru Emoto: water crystals
and Yes: People may indeed
experience perceived benefits after they drink enhanced/altered
products like Nikken Pi Mag, Willard catalyzed, alkaline,
oxygenated, John Ellis, Penta, or countless other 'flavors'
of altered water. The well documented
placebo effect is powerful
enough that people's expectations and beliefs about how a product will
work can actually cause the expected experience. The placebo's
evil twin the
nocebo
effect
is probably responsible for any negative effects experienced
from drinking water produced by distillation or reverse osmosis.
This article discusses the placebo effect and proposes a
BEET score to rate the effectiveness of products that are
able to trigger the placebo effect
(placebo
references). Penn and Teller's
Placebo Effect
episode
further illustrates
how suggestion and an uncritical willingness to believe
can explain not only people's perceptions about bottled water but their acceptance
of claims from downright fraudulent companies. The reality is
that the alleged health effects for altered water
products can not be distinguished from untreated water in
well designed, blinded studies.
Where does that leave the consumer??
Often at the mercy of the altered/enhanced water merchant. Just one
illustration of the dilemma: Every shred of available scientific
evidence supports the conclusion that the oxygen dissolved in bottles of "oxygenated water"
would only benefit
fish and other aquatic creatures. Yet perfectly intelligent people, who are
not scientifically informed, report that they feel more energetic after
paying for and drinking a $1.95 bottle of oxygenated water.
Companies market oxygenated water and
similar products, consumers purchase and use them, some people report a
benefit and continue to purchase the product, their
testimonials are used to
lure more customers, and the cycle continues. A very interesting and
informative Reality TV Series could be developed to scientifically test the claims of
a wide range of consumer products on volunteers and "publish" the results
on National TV. Unfortunately, that will never happen because the TV
stations depend on advertising revenues from products with marketing claims
that would be very susceptible to exposure as misleading at best and often
downright fraudulent.
Your mind is perfectly capable of creating the same health benefits you
would experience when drinking any of the enhanced or altered water products
just by thinking about what you want to experience. It seems though, that
for most people a 'prop' of some kind is necessary to jump-start the placebo effect and create the
necessary expectation and beliefs that lead to a perceived health benefit.
The altered/enhanced water products can provide effective but very expensive
'props'. Their marketing materials skillfully use techniques proven to
bolster belief and expectation; like a compelling story,
credible-sounding (or at least impressive) descriptions of function and
benefits, endorsement by individuals with impressive sounding
credentials, testimonials from satisfied customers,
etc.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained
in water.
Loran Eisley, The Immense Journey, 1957
My suggestion: If you are convinced that any of the altered
water products are effective, you can save your money by focusing your
thoughts on a glass of regular water. Water is a truly extraordinary and
magical substance - all life depends on it. So, take an ordinary glass of water
and tap into that "magic"—meditate
for awhile on the benefits you would like for it to create: drink the water: then experience
exactly the same benefits as the altered water product would have produced. If you need a 'prop' to
trigger your mind's ability to create the health benefits attributed to
altered/enhanced water products, check out the Water Mandala site. Free Water Mandalas are offered with the
claim that exposure of water (or other beverage) to a special mandala image
will produce water with exactly the same physical and energy
characteristics and will produce exactly the same health benefits as a wide range
of altered or enhanced water products. An
experimental design is also provided
with details on how to compare the effects of the mandala-treated water with an
enhanced/altered water product to minimize bias.
Other pages on this site that related to this topic include :
Evaluating Altered Water Claims and
How to Identify Water Scams. You might want to read pages 1 - 11 of the book,
On Being a Scientist
(free to read online)
for an important description
of the characteristics that define good, ethical science. Those who develop and
market enhanced/altered water products almost never demonstrate these
characteristics.
This book provides an interesting introduction to the history of "snake oil"
products.
In the expanded discussion of this topic below, the original questions are
preserved along with the answers, because they provide a window into how the average consumer perceives these enhanced/altered water products.
Question 1 Answer
1
Randy,
I enjoyed your website about water.
I am looking for the best home water system and have run across a couple of
interesting things.
First, I've heard that reverse osmosis renders water "dead" and can
leach calcium from the consumer's bones. There is a system that uses technology
used in Japan for 30 years that uses a magnetic field and Far Red light
spectrum. I've tried a small cup of this water and it was amazing. The product
is from Nikken (I think).
I've been trying to research water systems for about 3 or 4 months now and
wondered if you've heard about this and have any thoughts about negative
aspects. It seems that if water molecules are broken down into microclusters --
through magnets or electricity, the body is better able to utilize the water.
I've tried the Royal Body Care microcluster liquid, and that seemed to help a
bit with hydration. I've tried the Penta Water also, but the water is run
through reverse osmosis - twice.
I'd appreciate any insight.
Margaret
Answer 1
Hi
Margaret
I am glad you enjoyed my website.
Your questions actually fall into three
categories:
1) the alleged positive alteration or enhancement of water structure
&/or energy
(apart from standard purification methods) that results in beneficial health
effects.
2) the alleged negative alteration of water by certain
treatment methods (usually distillation, reverse osmosis or municipal water
treatment - sometimes even
filtration), and the alleged negative health effects due to the
altering of the water's structure or 'energy'.
3) the 'alleged leaching' of minerals out of the body by
highly purified water (usually by Reverse Osmosis, Deionization or Distillation
(RDD)). A corollary to that argument is that drinking RDD water is bad because
the 'good minerals' critical to health (usually Calcium and Magnesium) are
removed. I cover this in another discussion about the health effects of
drinking distilled water.
I guess the easiest way to approach the topic
of alleged health benefits of altered water is to ask - What criteria
would you, personally, accept as validation of the claims for a
particular product? Criteria
a) Your own experience with the product. Criteria
b) The word of someone you know who experienced the product. Criteria c) A celebrity endorsement or the word of a sales person. Criteria
d) A discussion on a website or in a book that lists the experiences of many
people who used that product - Would it make a difference if the person making
the claims has some higher degree (PhD, MD, DC, etc.) after his/her name? Criteria e) A peer reviewed paper* in a medical or scientific journal that has looked at the
blinded or
double blinded** effects of the product on a large number of people and compared the measured
effects to those from a control group of people who used
a similar, but presumably inactive, mimic of the product being tested (a
placebo). A cross-over component can also be added where the treatment is
switched during the study (again the subjects and perhaps the experimenters
unaware of the switch). Back to top
* A peer reviewed paper means that a group of other experts in the field have
examined the paper and agreed that proper methodology has been used and that
valid conclusions have been reported.
**
A Blinded study means that the people in the
experiment (the subjects) do NOT know whether they have been using the test
product or the
placebo. This is a critical element of a successful experiment, when possible,
because it minimizes the very real 'placebo effect' (the observation that if a
person thinks they are taking or doing something that "is supposed to be
good for them" that beneficial effect is actually measured - even though they have
taken an inactive material or done something that should not have an
effect). In a blinded study the experimenters do know which treatment the
subjects were given.
A Double Blinded
study means that neither the scientists administering the
experiment nor
the the subjects know whether they have been using the test
product or the
placebo. A double blind study minimizes the possibility that the study results
could be biased by the knowledge of the experimenters or the
analysis team regarding which treatment the subjects were given.
Scientists typically do an experiment because they want to
demonstrate that their theory (about a treatment for a specific
disease, for example) is correct. They are frequently very
passionate about their theory and have invested a lot of time and
money in developing the theory and designing the study. They
want it to work.... and they are human! Consequently if those
in charge of the experiment know which treatment is given to which
subjects, there is the possibility that their desires for a specific
outcome could influence the way data was collected, analyzed, and
ultimately reported.
Back to top
This site provides a detailed procedure you can use to compare the effectiveness of
products while minimizing bias.
A summary of the process to test claims for 'altered or enhanced' water using (Criteria e) would involve giving one group
of subjects 'altered' water over a period of time and giving the control group
the same amount of purified but not 'altered' water (without either the subjects
or the experimenters knowing who is getting what). All product claims (more energy,
better hydration, etc.) would be carefully measured and recorded
for each group.
After several weeks, the water would be switched (without the
subjects or experimenters knowing when) and measurements would continue. After the
experiment was completed, the results would be tabulated and
a preliminary analysis made of the measured outcomes. Finally, the
results would be unblinded and fully analyzed (blinding during the preliminary analysis phase minimizes any unconscious
bias on the part of the statistician). If there were real, beneficial health effects of the 'altered' water,
the data would ONLY show real, positive differences in the results recorded when the
subjects drank the 'altered' water.
To the best of my knowledge, there has never
been a peer reviewed paper published in ANY medical or scientific journal that
conclusively
validates ANY of the physical or health claims made by the proponents of ANY of
the various types of 'altered' water. (Although an occasional supportive
paper have been published, the conclusions have not been supported by subsequent
studies - see below).
Altered/enhanced water companies usually support their
claims with variations of
criteria (a), (b), (c), or (d). These are examples of Anecdotal
Evidence or Testimonials. You are basically taking someone's word that a product is
effective (or relying on your own experience).
Anecdotal evidence
is not necessarily false or bad (in fact that is probably how most valid scientific theories got started), but
with anecdotal evidence there is no way to determine whether the experienced
effect was caused by the product, by chance, or because of an expectation of what the product
should
do - the placebo effect described below.
When
health claims are made for expensive products with nothing but anecdotal evidence to
support the claims, I am extremely skeptical. There is absolutely no enforced regulation of ANY of the
claims made by these 'altered' water companies beyond those imposed on
"normal" bottled water. The companies are usually very careful to
state that "They do not make any claims that the product treats or cures a
specific disease condition", If
they made such claims,
they would be regulated by the FDA and
would be required to provide scientific proof of the
claims.
The companies typically follow that
disclaimer, however, by stating "look what it has done for all these
people" - and then let the anecdotal health claims "speak for
themselves"
There are papers published in alternative
health journals that seem to support health
claims of some 'altered' water products. These
journals are biased toward non-traditional treatment methods. That is not
a bad thing, necessarily, but one important characteristic of good science is that the
results of a study can be reproduced by anyone at any time whether they are skeptical of
the outcome or biased toward it—that
is why blinding is so important. Blinding minimizes bias in either direction.
The mainstream scientific and medical communities
pretty much ignore experimental evidence found in papers in alternative health
journals. That is not the case if the claims are published in a mainstream
scientific or medical journal. The scientific community will typically
respond very quickly with a careful dissection of the study methods, results,
analyses, and conclusions and then attempt to duplicate the study.
Mainstream scientific journals (which are skeptical toward 'altered' water claims) publish
very few papers that seem to validate altered water product claims.
No published altered water claims have been validated by later studies, to my
knowledge.
One of the more notorious examples a mainstream journal that published a paper
supporting
'altered' water claims is a 1988 paper in Nature that appeared to support the
homeopathic claim that water can retain a memory of substances that were once
dissolved in it. E. Dayenas et. al. "Human basophil degranulization triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE". Nature 333: 816–818.
The response
from the scientific community was immediate, and many efforts to duplicate the
study have failed.
The episode is described here.
Two arguments are typically used to explain why
research from developers and promoters of altered water products is not found in
mainstream scientific and medical journals: 1) Mainstream scientists do not understand our work and are biased
against our findings. The scientific community is closed, unwilling to
consider new ideas, and our work will never be published regardless of how good
it is. 2) Clinical trials are very expensive. Many alternative products
with great potential are developed by small companies that do not have the
resources to conduct a study that will demonstrate the effectiveness of an
alternative product to the satisfaction of the scientific community.
Neither excuse is convincing: 1) Science thrives on new ideas and theories. A discovery that the
structure of water could be altered in some way to provide positive health
effects and no negative side effects would be a huge discovery - front page,
Nobel-worthy
news. The only catch is that any researcher in any country (not just in
Japan) must be able to duplicate the methods and obtain the same results - and
that has never been done. 2) The alternative health community apparently has never heard of venture
capital. A small, carefully designed blinded trial using a few dozen people that could
demonstrate a significant positive effect of an altered/enhanced water product
(and provide an understandable explanation of how it worked) would
have investors lining up to fund a large study. The James Randi foundation has
offered several enhanced water companies, including Penta Water,
one million dollars if they could demonstrate that their product worked as
advertised. The companies were free to create their own experimental
design and establish ANY outcome results and testing methods
they chose - they only had to demonstrate that their product produced a
significantly different outcome from the control group in a truly blinded
study---there have been no takers on the challenge...
The financial rewards to a company that
developed a proven, safe, inexpensive enhanced water product that met all
criteria for scientific acceptance and provided a significant health benefit
(that was different than the benefit of drinking untreated water) would be enormous.
The
truth is, companies that manufacture and market 'altered' water products are not interested in
performing experiments that will withstand skeptical scrutiny—most probably
because they can't, but why bother even trying when people
purchase their product anyway and report benefits.
Scientists believe the claims of altered/enhanced
water products to be non-issues - not worth bothering with,
and are usually not willing to invest the time and money required to test the claims
(the exception, as noted above, is when a paper
supporting alternative water claims is published in a mainstream journal).
Companies marketing the 'altered' water frequently
state that scientific evidence is available to back their claims. Be
skeptical and try to actually locate and read the paper that supports the claim.
If there is no link provided, ask the company for a copy of the paper, and
(if you ever receive it) take it to a local science
teacher to get another opinion.
There is an additional complication in trying to
assess the effectiveness of certain products that claim to produce
health benefits, the Placebo Effect. The placebo
effect is the observation that a person's expectation of how a product
will work can sometimes cause the expected
result even if the actual treatment was never administered. For
example, a sugar pill given as a pain reliever to someone with arthritis
might cause a reduction of pain in some individuals.
It ironic that the scientific and
medical communities understand and study the placebo effect but usually
treat it as a nuisance that complicates "real" scientific experiments to
develop "real drugs" that are proven more effective than the placebo -
but often come with serious side effects.
The alternative health
community, on the other hand, embraces (and exploits) the fact that the mind, with a
little guidance to stimulate belief and expectation, is often able to produce
real relief for many health conditions. Unfortunately, belief and
expectation, no matter how positive, do not always heal, and a delay in
seeking medical therapy with proven, effective medical treatments can
lead to serious health problems.
There are several interesting debates in the scientific community
regarding the ethics of
doctor prescribed placebos
(also)
and of the
use of placebos in clinical trials
(also)
when effective non-placebo alternatives are available.
You mentioned that you have had positive
experiences with several of these 'altered' waters. Is it possible that your positive experiences
could have been
'colored' by your expectations of what the water would/should do? If you have access to
some of these water types, you can do some double blinded experimenting on your
own (neither you nor the person giving you the water samples would know which water
you were drinking - and thus 'what to expect' from the water).
If you get
together a small group of interested people, you might at least be able to test
the idea (or hypothesis) that a person can tell by 'how they feel' if they are
drinking 'altered' water or 'normal' water - the taste of the water would have to
be very similar though.
This page provided a good outline of how to test and compare the effects of
different products
without introducing bias.
In answer to the claims
that reverse osmosis (or distillation) renders water "dead"
- I would generally use the same arguments as above. I have not heard of any
'vital force' being attributed to water (by scientists, anyway). Pure water will
have a molecular structure of H2O and will be utilized equally well
by the body regardless of treatment methods use whether
traditional purification technologies are used (filtration, distillation, RO, etc.) or
pseudo-scientific treatments as described in the references below. I
discuss the topic of water treated with distillation and reverse osmosis
on this page.
Back to top
I hope this helps. If you have any further questions, let me know..
Response and Question 2: Answer
2
Randy,
Wow, thank you for taking your time to answer my questions so thoroughly. You have given me more to think about. I'm looking for water that can hydrate, as I feel dehydrated. In Kentucky, I was able to get Highbridge Water and actually visited the source and the bottling facility located in a cave. It was run through reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light and seemed to hydrate pretty well. The
Penta Water hydrates a bit better, but is currently cost prohibitive to drink daily.
I had no expectations when I drank water from the Nikken System and was skeptical. I was given 3 samples of different waters, and the
Nikken water seemed like what my body was craving. I will follow your advise and see if I can obtain some scientific research on it.
For such an essential thing that we need to sustain life, the best drinking water is so elusive.
I've learned over the years that just because something is put on a shelf in a store or on the market that it's not necessarily safe.
Thank you for your continued pursuit of the answers and for sharing your knowledge so freely.
Margaret
Answer 2:
Hi
Margaret
I take the time to answer people who have
questions in part because I am troubled by the rampant miss-information
campaigns I see, not only on the internet, but in stores and in all the media. A good
proportion of the marketing campaigns seem to be designed exclusively to separate people
from their money.
If you constantly feel dehydrated despite
drinking plenty of water, there may be some physical problem causing the feeling
rather than the type of water you are drinking. I am not a physician, so I won't
even hazard a guess, but I thought I'd bring that up as a possibility to
consider.
Again, I encourage you to try some blinded
tests over several day's of drinking various types of water to see if you can
really tell the difference in the way the water hydrates your body in the
absence of ANY clues as to which type of water you are drinking. It may be
difficult to set up a truly blinded test though because, depending on the type or
treatment and the materials left in (or removed from) the water samples -
calcium, air, other trace minerals, etc. - the taste alone can provide clues to
the
type of water you are drinking.
Even the faintest hint of a suggestion about
what to expect can subtly influence the mind to interpret subsequent events a
particular way.
For example, in your experience with Nikken
Pi Mag water, did
the sales representative walk in, immediately offer you three
identical-looking glasses of water to drink (with absolutely no comments
or explanations about what the samples were or what you might
experience), and then ask you to record your impressions about each
glass of water - again with no prompting about what you were drinking or
what kinds of impressions to be thinking about?
That would be the ONLY way to reduce the possibility
(probability) that the sales
presentation influenced the outcome of the "test" - but then sales
people are usually VERY interested in influencing the outcome of a
demonstration! I suspect the stage was carefully set by the sales
person so you knew exactly what each glass contained and what you were supposed
to experience.
The response (unconscious usually) of the mind to
the 'power of suggestion' can not be over-emphasized - that's why some sales
people are so effective, and why experimental studies are so difficult to set up
- the experimenters, the subjects, and even the analysis team can be subtly and
unconsciously influenced by the minds' expectations. An important part of the
scientific review process I mentioned in my previous letter is to try to
discover if expectations about the outcome of a study had any influence on how the
scientists set up the study and recorded, analyzed, or interpreted the data. As one of the articles below mentions, "even the course of an
illness" can be affected by the mind's ability to modify the body's response to
an event (again, the placebo effect).
In the case of the "test" where you sampled Nikken
Pi Mag water,
any of the
situations outlined below would be
more than enough to predispose your mind to accept a particular sample as
"better than" the others.
In the discussion below, situations 1 and/or 2 '
would set the stage' for the mind to be thinking about the great things that
will happen when the Nikken water is sampled.
1) If the Nikken representative was pleasant, confident, and seemed to be
extremely knowledgeable about his/her product and the way the body absorbs and
metabolizes water.
2) If there was ANY DISCUSSION before you actually sampled the water about the
treatment process, the benefits of the treated water and/or what was "supposed
to happen" when the Nikken water was sampled.
Then, with a positive expectation, any knowledge
about the identity of a sample (situations 3 and/or 4), no matter how slight,
can allow a difference in the samples to be "detected".
3) If you saw the water samples prepared.
4) If there were ANY comments or hints made during the sampling, like "now,
don't you feel great after that sample". It probably wouldn't be that blatant,
but even subtle body language or an "expectant look" can give a hint as to the
expected response to a sample. That's why double blinded experiments, where
neither the experimenter nor the subject knows which treatment is given, are so
important.
Anyway, I wanted to reiterate my current thoughts and concerns on the subject of
'altered' water. To the best of my knowledge (and the water chemists I have
contacted), as far as the body is concerned, water is water! You will want to
drink pure, safe water, but I have not yet encountered ANY information (that I
would accept as scientifically valid) that would convince me that there is any
way to modify water so that it is either absorbed into the bloodstream from the
intestines or into the cells themselves more efficiently than untreated water
(or that it can move nutrients or waste products through the body any better). ANY WATER
should hydrate your body and provide transport for nutrients, gases, and waste
products perfectly well!
Two facts that make it unlikely for the clustered water
products you mention to have
any effect on the body:
1)
Even if there were some way to create
special clusters (or other alterations) of water molecules, it is most unlikely that these
carefully balanced "structures" would survive intact during the several
hour journey through the acid contents of the stomach into the intestines where the water
molecules are
absorbed. I included a couple of references below that explain the
stomach
environment and the absorption process of water into the
intestine. I go into some detail about this idea in my discussion
on distilled water.
2)Water
absorption in the intestine is driven by osmosis - a passive process that
depends (as far as is known) only on the concentrations of dissolved materials
(or solutes) on either side of a membrane (the cells in the intestine and in the
rest of the body). Basically, water molecules move from areas of low solute
concentration into areas of high solute concentration. Cells in the intestine
can increase the concentration of solutes within their membrane (by 'pumping'
sodium in, for example), and the water follows by osmosis. According to current theories of water
transport into cells, special proteins form small
channels in the membrane
that are just large enough for single water molecules to fit through.
Promotional materials that claim their water product has a modified water
cluster size do not even attempt to describe how those special clusters can
improve the way water molecules enter cells or how the behave in the body to
influence health.
The
special clusters would have to disassemble to move out of the intestines, reassemble within the bloodstream
for transport throughout the body, and disassemble again to move into other cells.
The accepted model
of water transport
provides no mechanism to explain how water
clusters or other forms of 'altered' water could possibly benefit to the body -
even if the clusters could be created, stabilized, and controlled.
It is not possible for developers, producers, and marketers of altered/enhanced
water products to integrate their fanciful theories and claims with conventional
scientific theories, so they employ testimonials to support their claims and
depend on the fact that the placebo effect will produce enough positive
experiences to keep their products selling.
If you are interested in exploring the
"science" of these 'altered' waters, try to find someone at one of the companies
who is willing and able to provide a detailed explanation of:
1) How the water's special structure is stabilized so it survives an hour or so
in the stomach -
a highly acidic environment containing digestive enzymes and other molecules and
ions.
2) A mechanism that describes specifically how the altered structure of the
water interacts with cell membranes to facilitate transport across the
intestinal cell walls and into the bloodstream. Does the 'structure' cross
the intestinal wall intact or reassemble in the bloodstream?
3) Once in the blood stream, exactly how is the special structure of the water
maintained?
4) Exactly how does the special structure of the water cause the claimed
benefits - what are specific effects of the altered water molecules on the
metabolic processes?
5) Results from double-blind trials of their product, preferably peer reviewed,
to ensure impartiality and published in a reputable journal, but I would settle for a good description of the
experimental method employed.
If you are able to get an explanation that
addresses any of the questions above (or similar questions that you devise), I
would be EXTREMELY INTERESTED in receiving a copy of the communication and the
person's name and e-mail address.
I do not claim to know everything about this
subject, but I do know enough to be extremely skeptical about certain claims without
very good evidence to back up those claims. There is an important saying in the
scientific community "Extraordinary
Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof".
Claims made by manufacturers and marketers of
'altered' water can be said to be "Extraordinary" because they fall outside the
scope of mainstream scientific theories and conventional understanding of how the world
"works".
Consequently, in order for the mainstream
scientific and medical communities to accept any of the altered water claims as
valid,
those who produce and promote the products must: a) provide very convincing evidence that the products work in blinded
trials - and demonstrate that the results can be reproduced. b) provide convincing theories that explain the physics and chemistry
behind the processes used to produce the products. There has not even been any
evidence provided by producers of altered water products that they would be able
to correctly and consistently select their their product from a sample of
ordinary water in a blinded test. c) describe exactly how the products work in the body to produce the alleged
benefits.
So far, none of the the developers and/or promoters of any product you mentioned
nor any of the other products on the market for which similar claims are made
has been able to address any one of the three criteria above to the satisfaction
of the mainstream scientific and medical communities.
Homeopathic remedies are an excellent example of a well established altered
water product that does not meet any of the criteria necessary for acceptance by
the mainstream science and medical communities. Specifically: a) There are no examples of repeatable, well designed and executed
blinded trials which demonstrate that homeopathic remedies work any better than
placebos. b) There has never been a testable theory presented that would explain
how a substance that is diluted beyond the point where any of the original
molecules are present could have any influence on the structure of water (or on
a homeopathic pill from which the water has been removed). "Water memory" has
been suggested, but no explanation of how that might work has been proposed. c) There have been no theories offered to explain how a homeopathic
preparation might act in the body to cause reported health benefits.
Hope this additional information helps
Best wishes for your quest into pure, healthful
water
Several relevant references:
Aqua Scams The purpose of this site is to examine the scientific validity of the
explanations given by the proponents of "alternative" water treatment
devices or, in the case of "clustered water", of a fictional
alternative form of water that is purported to be a restorer of youth and vigor.
My motivation for doing this is entirely non-vested and very simple: after
thirty-four years of teaching general, physical, and environmental Chemistry, it
disturbs me to see my favorite science presented incorrectly (and often mangled
into pseudoscience) in the promotion of processes or devices offered to the
public. Also take a look at his Clustered
Water discussion and general comments on water.
Kangen Water:
Change Your Water, Change Your Life: A scientific look at one of the
latest multilevel marketing fads: healing water machines, devices costing
thousands of dollars claiming to ionize or alkalize your tap water, and
claiming a dazzling range of health and medical benefits. Sold under such
names as Kangen, Jupiter Science, KYK, and literally hundreds of others,
these machines do either nothing or almost nothing (beyond basic water
filtration), and none of what they may actually do has any plausible
beneficial purpose.
A somewhat less skeptical treatment of "altered water"
topics - also a good source of water information: Water structure and behavior:
"A number of explanations of the complex behavior of water have been published,
many quite recently. In this site, I have brought together a self-consistent
selection of these ideas, which I hope will encourage both the understanding of
water and further work."
This book pretty much sums
up the points made above about conducting scientific research and
publishing results in an honest, open manner that invites scrutiny
of the methods, analysis, results, and conclusions. Those
who develop and market altered water products typically make no
attempt to follow even the basic principles outlined in the first 11
pages of this book.
"The
scientific research enterprise is built on a foundation of trust. Scientists
trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the
results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the
world accurately and without bias. But this trust will endure only if the
scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the
values associated with ethical scientific conduct..."
Read More
A good summary of the book can be found in the
Introduction and
Treatment of Data chapters.
The references below (and the claims quoted) are listed for information only, and definitely DO
NOT represent my endorsement of (or belief in the value of) the products! - RJ
I'll mention one specific type of 'altered water' here because I actually listened
to an early promotional tape in the late 90s that consisted of an interview with the 'creator' of
the water. In my opinion, the interview was a very clever mix of truth,
nonsense, and truth used in the wrong way (that is, true statements used
improperly to support a particular point).
2009 Update - Penta Water has toned down its
marketing rhetoric over the past few years. Current marketing claims
on the home page no
longer seem to reference the original alleged characteristic that gave the
product its name, small clusters of 5 water molecules that the company
originally claimed were more easily absorbed by the body. as of
11/2011 Claims of a
30% smaller cluster size can, however still be found on the
bottled water website
as well as claims that, "It has also been observed that Penta has a higher boiling point and
higher viscosity than normal water." 2009 claims on the company website:
Penta Water is ultra
purified, energized water that not only fully hydrates, but may also help
increase antioxidant activity in your body.
During the last
decade, The Penta Water Company has received numerous reports from consumers
regarding the positive effects of drinking Penta. These various comments
include references to feelings of more energy, a greater sense of
well-being, and even improved appearance of skin. "Penta Water is first cleaned using a state of
the art purification system to remove all impurities. No other bottled water
is as pure! The water then goes through the patented Penta process which
spins the water at high speed and pressure for 11 hours, and as a result
increases antioxidant activity."
A current (2009) page on the
bottled water website describes a different process
"Penta is
the only bottled water that uses physics, not chemicals, to restructure its
water. The water is cycled through the Penta Process until a specific set
point of thermal energy is released for approximately 7-8 hours.
2009 product claims
on the bottled water website include:
"Proof that Penta is restructured water: Penta has been shown through highly
technical scientific testing (Raman spectroscopy) to have 30 percent smaller
molecular water clusters. It has also been observed that Penta has a higher
boiling point and higher viscosity than normal water. Penta's unique
structure is also patented and has been verified in a published,
peer-reviewed study conducted by scientists at Moscow's General Physics
Institute.
Research has shown that Penta water's unique properties provide the
following benefits:
* In-vitro studies show an increase in cell survivability by 266%.
* In-vitro studies show that Penta water dissolves calcium oxalate
monohydrate (the main substance in 85% of kidney stones) three times faster
than normal water.
* In-vitro studies on human cells reveal that lab distilled water DNA
chromosomal mutation rates were 271% greater than Penta water.
In addition, countless Penta drinkers have told us that, by effectively
hydrating, they look and feel more youthful, energetic and all around
better.
Here's another type of clustered water - a concentrate,
no less. Just add concentrated water to a glass of water...
"Science" according to
Zunami™ bottled water:
In the human body, there are two basic types of water (biowater):
Bound water and Clustered Water. Clustered Water(tm) is able to move freely
through the cell walls(a) and is necessary to transport nutrients, remove waste,
and maintain proper communication between the cells. Bound
water, on the other hand, is water that becomes physically bound to other
molecular structures and is unable to move freely through the cell walls(b). When we are young, our bodies contain a high level of this remarkable water and very little bound water.*
However, as we age, bound water becomes more predominant and free water levels decrease, hindering the effectiveness of literally thousands of metabolic functions and causing significant structural changes in our body’s tissues.
Zunami™ is highly purified water that has been raised to a high level of electromagnetic power through a proprietary process, the result is Hexa Structured Water™. No preservatives or additives are used in this process.
It is this restructuring that makes these products so effective in accelerated hydration through enhanced mobility.
The process begins with extremely pure distilled water and, while it is exposed to special lasers and extremely strong magnetic fields to create stable water "clusters". Most water is in organizations or clumps of 60 or more water molecules (H2O). The process is designed to
structure the water molecules into clusters that are very mobile, therefore entering the cell system very rapidly(a) and replenishing inter-cellular water.
{A real bargain at only $40 for 4 gallons - RJ} Never mind the company has the biology completely backwards. In truth: a) Water clusters can not move freely through the cell wall -
water moves
through cell membranes as single molecules.
b) The text above makes "bound water" seem like a problem.
However,
water that is bound to proteins
and other macro molecules in the cell is necessary for them to function
properly.
I can not find anything on the sites below that describes how the magnetic or
far-infrared technologies of Nikken's water system actually works. From what I
can tell, it is mostly a carbon block filter - and a very expensive one at that
(over $900 with shipping), with expensive replacement filters. I could not
discover the pore size, but from the contaminants removed, I would expect it
would be 1 micron or smaller. My ideas about the additional 'altering' of the water
by the other elements of the filter would fall into the discussion above..
The references below are listed for information only, and definitely DO
NOT represent my endorsement of (or belief in the value of) this product! - RJ
PiMag Water
System: PiMag water also offers more. Decades ago, scientists discovered that the water in a remote area of Japan produced amazing results on the surrounding plants. They named it pi water. Nikken has succeeded in replicating the environment that created pi water in nature, and these discoveries are incorporated in PiMag products. You will taste and feel the difference!
2009 update: Nikken, like Penta Water, has toned down the rhetoric
on its corporate site over the past few years and now provides very few details on the
processes involved in producing PiMag water.
One way to determine the actual performance of a product is to look at the
independent certification. NSF
certification of the Nikken water system.
Type Nikken into the 'MANUFACTURER' search box and clicked on 'Search by
Manufacturer'.
The results in 2009 for the Pi-Mag 13151
and Pi-Mag 13155 cartridges were:
Standard 42 - Aesthetic Effects
Chlorine Reduction, Class I
Nominal Particulate Reduction, Class I
Taste and Odor Reduction
Standard 53 - Health Effects
Cyst Reduction
Lead Reduction
MTBE Reduction
Turbidity Reductionion
VOC Reduction
Compare that with the NSF certification for the Solid Block Activated Carbon
filter I recommend: It's a high-end and fairly expensive filtration system
at $400 - yet less than 1/2 the cost of the Nikken filter.
The certified list of contaminants removed by the standard
CB6AD filter cartridge is:
For Standard 042 - aesthetic
Chlorine Reduction, Class I
Particulate Reduction, Class I Chloramine Reduction
Taste and Odor Reduction
For Standard 053 - contaminants of health concern
Asbestos Reduction
Chlordane Reduction
Cyst Reduction
Lead Reduction
Mercury Reduction
MTBE Reduction
PCB Reduction
Toxaphene Reduction
Turbidity Reduction
VOC Reduction (volatile organic chemical)
Reduction - you will see a long list of specific VOCs
My Day with the Homeopaths - Part I
- by Steven Novella
Yesterday I took part in a panel discussion titled, A Debate: Homeopathy - Quackery Or A Key To The Future of Medicine? hosted by the University of Connecticut Medical Center. You might think that the title is a bit of a false dichotomy, but in this case it is accurate, for the two sides of this debate occupied far ends of the belief spectrum with a wide gulf between us.
After my presentation on the extreme scientific implausibility of homeopathy, materials scientist Rustum Roy presented his completely unconvincing case for its plausibility. His strategy was to argue that the only significant scientific objection to homeopathy (other than the blind bias, prejudice, “homeophobia” - his term, and materialistic assumptions of scientists) is that homeopathic water does not contain any molecules of active ingredient. However, he argues, the key to material function is not composition but structure, so we should be looking at the structure of water and not what is in it... My Day with the Homeopaths - Part II
- by Steven Novella
Donald Marcus from Baylor did an excellent job of presenting a review of the clinical evidence for homeopathy, accurately conveying that the evidence is largely negative. Iris Bell, a protege of Andrew Weil from the University of Arizona, had the job of distorting and cherry picking the clinical evidence to make is seem as if it supports homeopathy. Her strategy was typical, standard fare for CAM proponents.
First, she argued that we should accept clinical observations as reliable evidence. These are open-label or uncontrolled case reports, essentially the clinical experience of homeopaths. This is all a fancy way of saying anecdotal evidence, which over a century of scientific medicine has taught us is completely unreliable. I think anecdotes are worse than unreliable - they tend to lead us to conclusions we wish to be true rather than those that are true, and they can cause a false sense of confidence in the unwary.
One of the more notorious examples a mainstream
journal that published a paper
supporting
'altered' water claims is a 1988 paper in Nature that appeared to support the
homeopathic claim that water can retain a memory of substances that were
once dissolved in it. E. Dayenas et. al. "Human basophil degranulization triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE". Nature. 1988 Jun 30;333(6176):816-8.
The latter can be demonstrated at dilutions of anti-IgE that range from 1 x 10(2) to 1 x 10(120); over that range, there are successive peaks of degranulation from 40 to 60% of the basophils, despite the calculated absence of any anti-IgE molecules at the highest dilutions. Since dilutions need to be accompanied by vigorous shaking for the effects to be observed, transmission of the biological information could be related to the molecular organization of water.
The response
from the scientific community was immediate, and many subsequent efforts to duplicate the
study have failed.
The episode is described here,
here, and
here.
The Placebo EffectDoctors in one
study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored,
inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore
off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce
dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a
bronchiodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after
wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of
ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the
machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo
in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed
intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope ("The
Placebo Prescription" by Margaret Talbot, New York Times Magazine, January
9, 2000).
Forty years ago, a young Seattle cardiologist named Leonard Cobb conducted a
unique trial of a procedure then commonly used for angina, in which doctors made
small incisions in the chest and tied knots in two arteries to try to increase
blood flow to the heart. It was a popular technique -- 90 percent of patients
reported that it helped -- but when Cobb compared it with placebo surgery in
which he made incisions but did not tie off the arteries, the sham operations
proved just as successful. The procedure, known as internal mammary ligation,
was soon abandoned ("The Placebo Prescription" by Margaret Talbot, New
York Times Magazine, January 9, 2000). {Excellent description, discussion, and examples - RJ}
Placebo
effects - Background: The benefits of therapeutic interventions in
clinical practice are often enhanced by placebo effects. Placebo effects can be
defined as the positive physiological or psychological changes associated with
the use of inert medications, sham procedures, or therapeutic symbols within a
healthcare encounter. Placebos can also be active substances or real procedures
that produce unexpected beneficial effects. For example, antibiotics may be
considered placebos when prescribed for viral respiratory illnesses that are not
expected to respond to antibiotic action. Placebo effects may also be viewed as
a subset of a larger group of mind-brain-body effects such as the
psycho-physiological effects of religious beliefs and devotional practices,
meditation, faith-based healing, hypnosis, and the effects of cultural and
social economic systems on the prevalence and severity of specific diseases.
These effects have been scientifically documented by an increasing body of
research. Mind-brain-body effects, including placebo effects, are not fully
appreciated in contemporary medicine. {continues with an interesting description
of the effect}
How People Are Fooled by Ideomotor Action - Ideomotor Action:
The "influence of suggestion in modifying and directing muscular movement, independently of volition"
- an interesting phenomenon
related to the placebo effect. This article describes experiments that
show how a person's beliefs and expectations affect how their muscles
behave.
More here -
Without Volition: The Presence and Purpose of Ideomotor Movement - Ideomotor action is referred to as "mischief-making" because its unrecognized presence is actually the reason movement occurs in activities such as dowsing, the play with the Ouija board and "facilitated communication." In fact, any activity in which movement is thought to be caused by forces that transcend our senses or are described as metaphysical in nature should be suspected to begin with movement that we don't consciously plan. The word volition is especially important to this concept. Defined as "the power of choosing; the act of making a choice or decision; willful," volition is subtly different than simple reflexive activity thought not to include the higher centers of the brain. And, like a simple reflex, ideomotor movement occurs instinctively, though it is often far more complex and always without volition. This is the primary reason those doing it do not commonly take responsibility for its manifestation or consequence. We suppose ourselves to be consciously in control of our movement for the most part, and it is difficult to convince people otherwise under ordinary circumstances.
The Mysterious Placebo
- One of the most significant but widely misunderstood phenomena is the placebo
effect. Research shows that the placebo effect can be greater and is far more
ubiquitous than commonly thought.
More articles about the Placebo from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
(CSI). The CSI mission is to promote scientific inquiry, critical
investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and
extraordinary claims.
From
Placebo to Homeopathy: The Fear of the Irrational The placebo effect is a
perfect illustration of scientific exorcism of a disturbing fact (W.A. Brown,
Scientific American, Jan. 1998, pages 68-73). Although its existence has been
established beyond doubt, all efforts are directed not toward studying its
mechanisms, but to subtracting its interference. (subscription required)
Scientific Framework of the Placebo Effect, by
Gershom Zajicek, The Cancer Journal - Vol10:5
The placebo effect is "any dummy medical treatment; originally, a medicinal preparation having no specific pharmacological activity against the patient's illness. . .". This definition summarizes the attitude of modern medicine to a placebo: a useless and undesired side-effect of treatment. Which is unfortunate, since a placebo promotes healing. It may relieve pain, e.g., headache, and even modify the course of an illness. However, medicine regards it as a sham treatment, tainted with deception. Placebo is Latin for "I shall please", and was used in the past to please the patient. Even as late as 1950, catalogs for physicians carried long arrays of pills labeled "Placebo". All this has now vanished and placebo as such is not used.
Absorption of Water and Electrolytes: The small intestine must absorb massive quantities of water. A normal person or animal of similar size takes in roughly 1 to 2 liters of dietary fluid every day. On top of that, another 6 to 7 liters of fluid is received by the small intestine daily as secretions from salivary glands, stomach, pancreas, liver and the small intestine itself.
Water
and nutrient absorption:
An important function of both small intestine and colon is the absorption of
water and electrolytes. Approximately 2000 ml of food and drink is ingested
daily, and the volume of gastrointestinal secretions (salivary, gastric, biliary,
pancreatic and intestinal) is about 8,000 ml daily; therefore, approximately 10
liters of fluid enters the intestine each day. Of the 8 liters secreted, about
1-1.5 liters enter as saliva, 2-3 liters are secreted by the stomach, about 2
liters enter as bile and pancreatic secretion (about 1 liter each), and about 2
liters are secreted by the small intestine. (Please note that these
figures are approximate, not absolute. Volumes may vary, depending on
experimental method and conditions.) Of the 10 liters which enters the gut each
day, only about 1 liter passes into the colon, about 90% having been absorbed
across the small intestinal epithelium. Only about 150 ml is lost in the feces
daily, with the remainder being absorbed by the colon. It should be obvious that
any derangement in intestinal fluid absorption would profoundly influence the
balance of fluid and electrolytes in the body, and that the normal functioning
of the intestines plays a significant role in regulating water and electrolyte
balance. The net absorption or net secretion of water in
the intestine is the result of bidirectional movements of water from mucosa to
serosa (m-->s flux or absorption) and from serosa to mucosa (s-->m flux or
secretion). In the human intestine, these unidirectional fluxes exceed net
movement 2-3 fold. The rate and direction of net fluid movement depend on
tonicity of the meal, and move toward the achievement of isotonicity {equal
concentration of water on both sides of a membrane - RJ}.
The intestinal mucosal surface consists of a bimolecular lipid membrane, which
(presumably) contains small pores or channels. Water and water-soluble
substances can hypothetically enter the cell through these pores only, while
lipid-soluble substrates can directly cross the lipid cell membrane. Specialized
protein pores, referred to as aquaporins (AQP) have been identified in many
tissues, including colon epithelium; water channel isoforms in small intestinal
epithelium remain to be discovered. Intestinal absorption of water is a passive
process and requires movement of solutes. Water accompanies solute and moves
across the intestinal mucosa in response to osmotic gradients. The rate of water
uptake in any region of the intestine is a function of solute absorption in this
region. All areas of the intestines (including small bowel and colon) absorb
water, the relative amounts absorbed depending on the presence of solutes
{things dissolved in water, sodium, calcium, sugar, etc. - RJ}, and the
types of solutes present. In the jejunum, the active
transport of sugars and amino acids causes passive movement of salt and water,
which accounts for most of the water uptake in this area. In the ileum, most
water movement is accounted for by active sodium transport. As described in
Johnson (Gastrointestinal Physiology), coupled water and sodium transport
involves a specialized mechanism that pumps sodium into the lateral spaces,
resulting in relatively high osmotic pressure in that region. Water then enters
the lateral space from the cell (transcellular flux) and--perhaps--the lumen (paracellular
flux), reducing the osmotic pressure but increasing the hydrostatic pressure.
Fluid is then forced out of the lateral space into the interstitial space. The
net effect is that isotonic fluid is transported from the lumen into the
extracellular fluid. This hypothesis of fluid absorption is illustrated in
Figure 12-5, on page 137 of the Johnson resource.
Aquaporins
- the perfect water filters of the cell
Aquaporins are water channel proteins; they are located in the otherwise water
impermeable cell membrane of many plants and animals. There they prevent
bursting of the cells, e.g., due to changes of the exterior salt concentration
(osmotic regulation). In humans, aquaporins regulate the water flux in the
kidney, red blood cells, the eye lens, and the brain, to name just a few.....
*** The structure showed that the protein forms a channel in the membrane that
is 2 nanometers (billionth meter) long and 0.3 nanometers wide, just large
enough for water molecules to fit through, such that permeation of larger
molecules is prevented.*** {This site has some neat diagrams! One reason that
clustered water is unlikely to have an effect on the cell's intake of water - H2O
molecules appear to cross the cell membrane singly, not as clusters - RJ}
Aquaporins are proteins embedded in the cell membrane that regulate the flow of water. They are "the plumbing system for cells."
Aquaporins are integral membrane proteins from a larger family of major
intrinsic proteins (MIP) that form pores in the membrane of biological
cells.
Aquaporins:
Water Channels - Water crosses cell membranes by two routes: by diffusion through
the lipid bilayer and through water channels called aquaporins. Functional
characterization of the first aquaporin was reported in 1992, but water channels
were suspected to exist well before that time, because the osmotic permiability
of some types of epithelial cells was much too large to be accounted for by
simple diffusion through the plasma membrane. A single human aquaporin-1 channel
facilitates water transport at a rate of roughly 3 billion water molecules per
second. Such transport appears to be bidirectional, in accordance with the
prevailing osmotic gradient.
The Art of Water Transport in Aquaporins
- Aquaporins are membrane water channels that play critical roles in controlling the water contents of cells. These channels are widely distributed in all kingdoms of life, including bacteria, plants, and mammals. More than ten different aquaporins have been found in human body, and several diseases, such as congenital cataracts and nephrogenic diabetes insipidus, are connected to the impaired function of these channels.
I guess the easiest way to approach the topic
of alleged health benefits of altered water is to ask - What criteria
would you, personally, accept as validation of the claims for a
particular product?