Hidden Messages in Water

I got an email from Enio asking me: I would like to know your opinion about Masaru Emoto's "Crystal Water Photos".

First, some background. Masaru Emoto's book The Hidden Messages in Water is currently #66 in sales rank on Amazon. That means A LOT of people are buying it. Here's the blurb from the cover that pretty much explains what Masaru Emoto and his crystal water photos are all about:

The Hidden Messages in Water is an eye-opening theory showing how water is deeply connected to people's individual and collective consciousness. Drawing from his own research, scientific researcher, healer, and popular lecturer Dr. Masaru Emoto describes the ability of water to absorb, hold, and even retransmit human feelings and emotions. Using high-speed photography, he found that crystals formed in frozen water reveal changes when specific, concentrated thoughts are directed toward it. Music, visual images, words written on paper, and photographs also have an impact on the crystal structure. Emoto theorizes that since water has the ability to receive a wide range of frequencies, it can also reflect the universe in this manner. He found that water from clear springs and water exposed to loving words shows brilliant, complex, and colorful snowflake patterns, while polluted water and water exposed to negative thoughts forms incomplete, asymmetrical patterns with dull colors. Emoto believes that since people are 70 percent water, and the Earth is 70 percent water, we can heal our planet and ourselves by consciously expressing love and goodwill.

What do I think of this theory? Well, at the risk of giving off a lot of negative energy that's going to make a whole bunch of water crystals get all bent out of shape, I think it's complete baloney. But then, I'm not very 'open minded' about things like this. So I would think that.
(but I have to add: since when has the earth been 70 percent water? Do they mean the surface of the earth? That might make sense. But the earth itself ain't 70 percent water)

Photos Science

Posted on Tue Apr 05, 2005



Comments

Lovely thoughts, Adrian. Here's the problem: the world isn't the way we would LIKE it to be. The world is the way the world IS, whether we like it or not.

Wishing doesn't make things so. Most things are testable. Either they pass or fail. The thing to do is test this silly "intelligent water" thing. It will either pass or fail--and I'm betting on the latter.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Jun 15, 2006  at  01:32 AM
hmm

I would like to see it tested too. Im sure you are betting on the latter for the very obvious reason that its all just to implausible. And sure it is. But can I ask - do you say any kind of grace or blessing over your food? For what we are about to recieve etc etc? I presume you dont. Has science ever tested the effects of saying grace either on the food or on our own physiology? What would your bets be about the outcome of such testing? No effect? Then of course there are the tested unexplained phenomena like the fact that after trialling meditation sit ins to reduce crime in areas of LA the LAPD sponsored the TM group to keep doing it so obvious were the results. A notable decrease in the order of 25% violent crime corresponding to the meditation sessions. If you have further info on that or can debunk it I am objectively interested.

Viva la rigour de science!
but down with myopia masquerading as reason!

all the best
A.
Posted by adrian  on  Thu Jun 15, 2006  at  02:14 AM
Enough. You are chasing your tail. Please become educated in these areas before spewing more errata. The meditation study has been thoroughly debunked in relation to those crime rates.

This is case in point of how these things keep getting perpetuated in the US. Details on the debunking please see the James Randi website at randi.org or check out this report.

http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/?m=200509
Posted by Sandy  on  Thu Jun 15, 2006  at  07:16 AM
Adrian, recently the results of a study on the efficacy of prayer were released. The outcome was that prayer had NO measurable effect. Yes, the faithful have made and will continue to make excuses, but that's the bottom line: it WAS tested and it failed.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Jun 15, 2006  at  02:22 PM
"Enough. You are chasing your tail. Please become educated in these areas before spewing more errata. The meditation study has been thoroughly debunked in relation to those crime rates."

Sorry about the errata spewing. I would like to be as educated as you Sandy. Im not sure however which part of my tail I am chasing. Perhaps you could argue by points instead of by flinging poo.

I couldnt find the info at the site you linked. I probably could have looked harder but could you ever so graciously direct me to a specific treatment of the TM study please. I did however look around and I came across an entirely conventional looking scientific appraisal of a TM experiment that was done in Washington state. It finds that crime rates did drop significantly even when controlling for temperature and other variables.

here it is,
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/soci/1999/00000047/00000002/00198917?


Cranky, are the results and a description of the study you mention on prayer available online?


Regards

Adrian
Posted by adrian  on  Fri Jun 16, 2006  at  12:32 AM
Adrian

I think that CMG was probably referring to the Study of Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer; you can read more about it in this BBC article or in this Time article.

This is far from being the only study to have found no results in rigorous trials of intercessionary prayer: Mayo et al, Matthews et al<a>, and the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16023511&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum">MANTRA study, for example, all found that when the subject does not know he or she is being prayed for there is no evident effect to intercessionary prayer. There is some evidence that knowing you are being prayed for can help, as noted in one of the abstracts I've linked to and in this study, indicative of a placebo effect (not that there's anything wrong with placebos). Interestingly, the STEP study found that those who believed they were praying more actually suffered more complication, though, so maybe how you respond to prayer is not so simple:)

Your link to the Washington study was dead, but a search on that site for 'meditation crime' turned up the abstract. It does look interesting: I'll try to find out more.

Outeast
Posted by outeast  on  Fri Jun 16, 2006  at  01:13 AM
Here is a working link to the article you found:
<a >Link shortened by moderator</a>

It is not peer reviewed.

The study is addressed specifically in the previous report link on my last post.

I encourage you to read some of the weekly commentaries at http://www.randi.org - Here is a link:
http://randi.org/jr/archive.html

Especially enlightening would be the forums where entries for the one million dollar paranormal prize are summarily dismantled. Here is a link:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

Here is in reference to James Randi and the study:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm16.html


Some years ago a prayer study was said to prove the power of intercessory prayer. It was hailed all over the web as finally showing proof. It was a coverup, the study actually showed the opposite. Here is an article on that:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,982245,00.html

The most recent prayer study, which took 10 years to complete. It was a long wait for these results. The most comprehensive study of it's kind:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338be4900000&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Mr. Shermer addresses the 2006 prayer study:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43

And this is an excellent essay and quick read by Mr. Shermer:
Twenty five fallacies that lead us to believe weird things:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm
Posted by Sandy  on  Fri Jun 16, 2006  at  01:18 AM
Adrian (pt II)

The study you pointed out appears to have been heavily criticized for selective use of data - for example, although there may have been a decline in violent crime there was apparently a spike in murders during that period, a point which the report authors failed to mention. (Disclaimer: since I'm not going to fork out 30 bucks to read the paper I can't do a proper factcheck myself and am having to rely on secondary sources such as this. Additionally, although there was a rise in murders in 2003 this trend continues into 2004... I'm not suggesting the TM study had anything to do with it!!)

I am not a statistician. However, if - as claimed - the meditation caused an 18% fall in violent crime over the course of 2 months, this should have been observable as a notable fall in crime over the year: that is, that year should have been a noticeable outlier in violent crime trend lines. A quick glance at the official data suggests this is simply not the case. Violent crime was lower that year than the year before, true (with 514.6 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, as opposed to 534.5 the year before). However, violent crime continued to fall over the next seven years (and maybe longer), reaching just 369.7 in 2000 - suggesting that any statistical correlation with the TM study was almost certainly coincidental.

If there are any statistician out there, maybe you could look at the figures and see if I'm right?

WARNING: What the bleep do we know can seriously damage your cognitive faculties.

Outeast.
Posted by outeast  on  Fri Jun 16, 2006  at  01:59 AM
IGNORE SECOND PART OF ABOVE POST.

Curse google! No, that's not fair: curse my own carelessness. I searched for 'crime rates in Washington DC' and the site I linked to above was the top link; however, they are figures for Washington state, making my point invalid.

Well, almost. Wikipedia has stats on murders in Washington DC which show 1993 as having the third-highest murder rate the city has ever known. Figures here certainly show a steady fall in aggravated assault from 1993-1999, a fluctuating fall in robbery, etc etc. However, I can't find the figures for before 1993. It may be that my case holds even though my stats were wrong:) At any rate, statistical analysis on figures throughout the decade should test the claims of the TM report.

Apologies for my fuckup!
Posted by outeast  on  Fri Jun 16, 2006  at  03:10 AM
Adrian said:

"Cranky, are the results and a description of the study you mention on prayer available online?"

I believe so. I know for sure that James Randi has referred to it and I think if you go to randi.org and do a search for it ("prayer study" perhaps?), you should be able to find his reference to it.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Jun 16, 2006  at  02:13 PM
I bet you disbelievers also say God is hoax. Huh? Athiests? That's what I thought. Nothing is real unless that isn't in front of your face well...except the news. That's probably the gospel too to your type. I bet you voted for Bush and believe some middle eastern religious fanatic single-handedly ordered the attack on the twin towers too. That's okay. You believe in that fairy tale and Americas most famous hoax and I'll believe that Dr. Emoto is right about water.
Posted by Gina Judd  on  Wed Sep 06, 2006  at  05:34 PM
Gina Judd said:

"I bet you disbelievers also say God is hoax. Huh? Athiests? That's what I thought. Nothing is real unless that isn't in front of your face well...except the news."

Gina, you aren't making any sense here. First off, yeah, I guess I'm an atheist...or at least an agnostic leaning toward atheism. So what? How does that in any way invalidate my belief that Emoto is full of crap?

"That's probably the gospel too to your type. I bet you voted for Bush and believe some middle eastern religious fanatic single-handedly ordered the attack on the twin towers too."

If you're betting on me believing that, you've lost your bet. I didn't vote for Bush and as for the attack on the World Trade Center buildings, I'd say the jury is still out about who ordered it. Again, what bearing would what a person believes about the WTC attack have on "intelligent water?"

"That's okay. You believe in that fairy tale and Americas most famous hoax and I'll believe that Dr. Emoto is right about water."

Again, your logic is flawed. How does someone else believing in what you think is false give you license to believe in what THEY think is false? Two wrongs don't make a right, after all.

Emoto's "theory" requires proof just as you would require of anyone who says that a handful of people planned and carried out the attack on the WTC. Pointing out what you think are the false beliefs of others on unrelated matters is NOT relevant to the concept of "intelligent water."

If you have any FACTS that prove Emoto's theories, we'd all be happy to hear about them.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Sep 06, 2006  at  06:47 PM
yep, quite some are blinded by the belief that the universe is purely material ;-p
Posted by flo  on  Thu Sep 07, 2006  at  01:12 AM
I quite agree. It's the shocking Fascism of the Fact - such a terrible thing to be thus chained to belief in what is real when the fantastical is so much easier and more fun!

I love this thread!
Posted by outeast  on  Thu Sep 07, 2006  at  02:13 AM
Just found the following abstract from
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/10/effects-of-distant-intention-on-water.html

I was sceptical too but this is interesting. I would have been happier if the good Doctor had not been involved.Anyone got any other evidence of attempt to replication?


Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Effects of distant intention on water crystals
Some people, when faced with claims like Dr. Emoto's "intention affects the formation of water cystals," immediately dismiss it as nonsense. Others uncritically accept the claim because it sounds nice. My first reaction is to try to replicate the claim to see it for myself. I conducted such a test with Dr. Emoto, where he and his staff were kept blind as to which bottles of water had been treated. The paper reporting the experiment has just come out. Here's the abstract:

DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION

The hypothesis that water
Posted by Michael Harker  on  Thu Jan 11, 2007  at  04:16 PM
Ok gang,

I am trying to find some real thoughtful, scientific rebuttal to the theories put forward in "Messages from water". But however all I find here are childish, naff attempts at jokes on the subject. So besides the close minded people who have insulted the pursuit of new understanding about Quantum mechanics can someone please give me some intelligent evidence based rebuttal because I actually want to learn about the subject.

Remember guys the first people who thought the world was round were ridiculed and persecuted. So its ok to disagree just try to do it with some intelligence and class.
Posted by Sam  on  Tue Mar 06, 2007  at  04:51 AM
Sam, it's up to Emoto to prove what he says is true. Just because a human is mostly water doesn't mean there are hidden quantum messages in water. Just because the earth's surface (not the earth's composition, as stated above) is mostly water doesn't mean anything either.

The fact is, there have been no successful studies showing the affects of 'positive' or 'negative' water, or of anyone who could tell the difference between the two.

Frankly, have you read his explanations? They don't make sense. He speaks of people's collective consciousness, yet we know of no such thing. He speaks of thinking positive thoughts to heal the planet and ourselves, yet doesn't explain how making water 'positive' would accomplish this. For that matter, what wounds would we be healing? Pollution? Deforestation? If every human on the planet suddenly dropped dead the planet would quickly take care of itself, without anybody around thinking good thoughts at the water. Water routinely became polluted and clean again for a billion years before people came along, why are we so special?

I'm well aware of how necessary it is to be open minded, but you have to filter things out based on evidence, sound reasoning, and our knowledge of how the universe operates. Nothing in physics can explain Emoto's claims, not even the much repeated (and abused) quantum mechanics. Until Emoto comes up with an internally consistant and rational explanation for the perceived affect we have to assume he's making it up.

Finally, I don't recall anyone ridiculing people who claimed the world was round. Science has known for over two millenia that the earth was a sphere, so I'm wondering where you got that idea from. Did you mean Galileo? Because nobody laughed at him either, they just tried to suppress him. And for every person science did laugh at who turned out to be right (there were a few), I can easily provide 10 examples where the person was wrong. So if anything your analogy shows that Emoto shouldn't be believed. At least not until he proves his case.
Posted by Charybdis  on  Tue Mar 06, 2007  at  09:49 AM
I am wondering why he thinks the pretty crystals indicate the water is somehow better. Sure, I like pretty things. I think a birthday cake is 'prettier' than a garden salad, does that mean the cake is better for me?
Posted by lithos51  on  Mon Jun 04, 2007  at  11:22 AM
The reason I disbelieve in the Emoto's claims is because they're based on what seem to me to be aesthetic valuations, rather than on any moral or scientific claim.

The visual association builds on generally human valuations about beautiful and ugly, ordered and disordered, etc. Recognize these valuations, and Emoto's claims explain more about human interaction with the world, than they do about the fundamental nature of the universe.

Moreover, the so-called polluted water is physically and, it seems here, conceptually unappealing to humans. What are considered pollutants to human tissue and bodily function may benefit human life through chemical applications. There are host of ways to reinterpret 'polluted' that seem to favour human life, so polluted water is in itself needs much clarification, rather than the aesthetic association that Emoto imposes.
Posted by TdB  on  Mon Feb 23, 2009  at  10:12 AM
honestly I think it's possible.
and perhaps he's a science teacher, but he's a spiritual person. those things sort of go hand in hand if you think about it.
what more is science than a series of explanations to help us better understand the mystical world around us that we couldn't before?

i believe its possible for thoughts to affect water. and maybe not a piece of paper tied to the bottle but just the instance of thought it took to tape it there... you have to read it right?

and personally. I would try it myself. if i knew how. I actually ran across this website looking to ask him to conduct more studies.

and to you: Cranky Media Guy...
every organism on this earth has feeling, consciouness and thought process. we must all be able to commnicate with eachother and feel vibrations around us. We all have an electrical current running through our bodies that can tell the currents in others around us, and act accordingly to the magnetic pushes and pulls of the earth. these same energetic pathways have been used for at least 2000 years in acupuncture.
organisms need these abilities to survive and adapt. whose to say that water is not the same way?
Posted by ginger  on  Sat Aug 22, 2009  at  01:37 PM
and as for Charybdis...

I don't know why or want to know why you don't understand his explanations. if the water is healthy, our minds are healthy. sure... maybe the water is just prettier, but it's not the same difference between cake and salad. it's the difference between a lie and truth. they are of the same category but affect us in completely different ways.
if we find out this is true, what kind of possibilities can be uncovered. if this is true, who is going to demand that we recieve only the best water.. better yet. we can all make sure we have the best water. not with just positive thoughts. but with spiritual intentions. I mean it's water for christs sake. learning this is true should turn anyone to spirituality of some kind. that's like... the ultimate connection and communication with nature.

and with her speaking back.

and whoever it was that is skeptical about whether or not the water is truly healthier for you because the crystals are pretty or ugly.. it's not a matter of pretty because nothing but humans understand what pretty is. but we all (everything universally) understand perfect balance. we see that something is shining brighter than before and is perfectly balanced we note that it must have reason. but for it to be warped or malshaped... there must be something un natural about it. a divorce from nature, so to speak.
Posted by gingerlee  on  Sat Aug 22, 2009  at  01:51 PM
because nature is of course.. balanced.


you guys should watch these movies.

Esoteric Agenda
and Kymatica.
Posted by gingerlee again  on  Sat Aug 22, 2009  at  01:53 PM
Ginger said:

"and to you: Cranky Media Guy...
every organism on this earth has feeling, consciouness and thought process."

Really? EVERY ORGANISM? That would include rocks, for example. You believe that rocks have a thought process?

"We all have an electrical current running through our bodies that can tell the currents in others around us, and act accordingly to the magnetic pushes and pulls of the earth."

Oh, really? Can you provide any proof of that? Just because something is fun or conforting to believe in, that does NOT mean that it is true.

"these same energetic pathways have been used for at least 2000 years in acupuncture."

Are you aware that when acupuncture needles have been put in the "wrong" places in actual scientific testing, the results were exactly the same as when they are put in the "right" places? That would tend to demonstrate that any benefit from acupuncture comes from the placebo effect.

"organisms need these abilities to survive and adapt. whose to say that water is not the same way?"

Well, who is to say that monkeys don't fly when no one is looking and when there are no cameras around? Saying "Who is to say [fill in the blank]" is not at all the same as PROVING that that particular thing actually happens. That's why SCIENCE tests things while PSEUDO-SCIENCE just makes a claim and expects people to believe in it.

I'm sure you sincerely believe the things you say, but your sincere belief is not a substitute for PROOF. For centuries, people sincerely believed the Earth was flat. It wasn't. They were just wrong.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Sun Aug 23, 2009  at  01:48 AM
wtf!! you guys sound like a bunch of closed minded
and extremely sad individuals that aren't willing to accept the true power of love and appreciation..its obvious that you have vary sad lives..
Posted by blissful  on  Mon Nov 16, 2009  at  09:35 AM
I wonder if the originator of this post has read the book? The pictures and photos are meaningless, read the book, understand the concept, and open your frozen mind.
Posted by Stephen Z. Fresh  on  Tue Feb 23, 2010  at  01:28 PM
Go to YouTube and look at the rice experiments.
They have been repeated over and over by lots of people and posted their videos.
I use the water.
My pets prefer it over regular tap water.
Can't brainwash pets.
I guess the skeptics are skeptical about Jesus Christ too.
The Jews called him a fraud too.
Prove that he is not.
prove that Dr. Emotto is a fraud too if you can.
By the way the word fraud is a new word isn't it.
Dont see it anywhere in any scripture or ancient writing of any kind.
Posted by eddi freddi  on  Thu Jun 17, 2010  at  10:52 AM
"Go to YouTube and look at the rice experiments.
They have been repeated over and over by lots of people and posted their videos."

As we all know, everything on YouTube (or the Internet in general) is exactly as it appears to be.

"I use the water."

So?

"My pets prefer it over regular tap water.
Can't brainwash pets."

So? I had a dog who liked to lick his genitals. I guess you'd say I should follow his example. After all, you can't brainwash pets.

"I guess the skeptics are skeptical about Jesus Christ too.
The Jews called him a fraud too.
Prove that he is not."

Ah, so we've dragged anti-Semitism into this irrelevantly, eh? You know, "they" also called Enron a fraud. I guess using your "logic," it must have been perfectly legit.

"prove that Dr. Emotto is a fraud too if you can."

See, here is how life works. If YOU make an extraordinary claim, then the burden of proof is on YOU.

"By the way the word fraud is a new word isn't it.
Dont see it anywhere in any scripture or ancient writing of any kind."

At the risk of sounding rude, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? To take you literally, no, the word "fraud" would NOT appear in ancient writings. Neither would the words "dog," "tree," "house," etc. I hope you can see why this would be the case.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Jun 17, 2010  at  01:23 PM
I am quite sure it's a false clame to suggest Jezus was the first fraud, so I don't suggest he was nor can proof it.

Okok no no jokes.

But I had to, after this fool suggesting to proof Emote was wrong, while believing what he sees at Youtube.
If God would exist he might forgive you, as you have been fooled when young to believe 'everything written'.
Posted by Harry  on  Thu Jun 17, 2010  at  03:32 PM
as far as I am concerned nobody, now and in history needs to be a fraud.
Not because of walking on water or bringing water to higher energy levels in some form .. and at least people believing in these miracles. This is quite something.

Sending love to water does not hurt anybody. I consider to support people who send love to water.
It is lovely compared to sending oil into water and other nasty things many humans are indirectly responsibly for. Via stocks, mortgages, driving et cetera.
Yeah I am too indirectly responsible, for sending shit (hate?) into water.
I don't like it and want to change some things. But I rather hope we can all change - we can accept our different believes in prophets and water, 'even' respect it, as we want our neightbour to at the very least accept+ our own religion and believes, from God to Santa.

I hope its not just little groups, following unproved spiritual very touching movements of miracles, moving attention to love, but giant power companies like Shell and BP should move to sending love to water.

😉 and !!! :-D love and peace
Posted by Harry  on  Thu Jun 17, 2010  at  04:14 PM
Harry said:

"I am quite sure it's a false clame to suggest Jezus was the first fraud, so I don't suggest he was nor can proof it.

Okok no no jokes.

But I had to, after this fool suggesting to proof Emote was wrong, while believing what he sees at Youtube."

Harry, I was employing SARCASM when I said that everything on YouTube is true. I thought that was obvious from the context.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Jun 18, 2010  at  01:14 AM
I think people are missing the point. It's not about science or water - it's about bettering yourself. The true message or Mr. Emoto's books is positivity and making a positive difference in your own life and the lives of those around you.

The fact that people mock someone for having that viewpoint speaks volumes!!
Posted by K  on  Thu Sep 23, 2010  at  06:12 AM
K, we're not mocking Emoto for having a positive attitude. We're criticizing him for making ridiculous claims about the alleged powers of water.

A person CAN extol a positive attitude without making scientifically unsupportable claims about H20.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Sep 24, 2010  at  01:20 AM
Water is one the the greatest conductors of energy,is it not?Then why couldnt water conduct human emotional energy?Science has no way to measure it therefore it does not'exist"!In the 1890 we could not measure high energy particle and waves so whats does that tell you?
Posted by P  on  Tue Jul 31, 2012  at  09:29 AM
Comments: Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.