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

there was a brief segment in the movie "what the !@#$%& do we know" about emoto. boy was i disappointed when i went to see that movie and i realized that many of the people in it were fruitcakes. jz knight?? are you serious?

then there was the guy who had this odd mannerism of having to pause while he was talking in order to swallow his saliva. very odd.

i thought it had potential but it ended up being about that deaf girl dancing at a wedding.

it was like deer hunter, when you're saying "is this wedding scene ever going to end?"
Posted by flender penderton  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  12:30 AM
I wondered why there was a link to "What the ..." on this guy's website.

The whole changing ice crystals by the power of thought and capturing it with high speed cameras? Hmmm...what's stopping him from taking a photo of an ice crystal with a regular camera? It's not as if he's trying to photograph the actual change, is he?
Posted by Smerk  in  to mischief  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  12:38 AM
From Dr. Strangelove

Ripper: Mandrake?
Mandrake: Yes, Jack?
Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?
Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have.
Ripper: Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?
Mandrake: Well, I-I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
Ripper: On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Mandrake: Oh, eh, yes. I, uhm, can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
Ripper: Water, that's what I'm getting at, water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven-tenths of this earth's surface is water. Why, do you realize that seventy percent of you is water?
Mandrake: Uh, uh, Good Lord!
Ripper: And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily fluids.
Mandrake: Yes. (he begins to chuckle nervously)
Ripper: Are you beginning to understand?
Mandrake: Yes. (more laughter)
Ripper: Mandrake. Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol?
Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation. Fluoridation of water?
Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes.
Ripper: Well, do you know what it is?
Mandrake: No, no I don't know what it is, no.
Ripper: Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?
Posted by ProjectMayhem  in  Madison, WI  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  12:50 AM
Gosh - Coca-Cola went through all that trouble trying to turn tap water into wine (or at least 'Dasani') using 'reverse osmosis'; Penta spent millions on developing (or at least marketing) its 'ultra-purified, restructured "micro-water"'... and IN ALL THAT TIME they never worked out that it's not pseudoscience that sells water - it's mysticism!

Maybe McDonald's can step into the market niche - McDonald's Happy Water:)
Posted by Paul in Prague  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  12:56 AM
They already do here! Well, maybe not Happy water, but Macca's do sell bottled water - part of their "healthy" menu...

Otherwise, ask for a coke, and you get a cup full of ice, with a drop of coke in it... 😊
Posted by Smerk  in  to mischief  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  01:07 AM
I'm sure they do, Smerk - but do they have lots of people sitting round the vats at the processing plant thinking happy thoughts at it first?
Posted by Paul in Prague  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  01:08 AM
I dread to think what they do while sitting round the vats at the processing plant... :gulp:
Posted by Smerk  in  to mischief  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  01:16 AM
I can just picture thirty guys sitting around "thinking happy thoughts". Aaaaugh!

Paul and Smerk, ya just caused part of my brain to stop functioning.

Like I can afford to lose much more...

:lol:
Posted by Rod  in  the land of smarties.  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  01:33 AM
Just in case anyone here thinks that this fruitcake's theories hold any water (pun intended), you should know that he also thinks that all you have to do to "change" water is stick a piece of tape on which is written a word like "happy" or "sad" on the side of the glass it's in and PRESTO! Words have "vibrations"...or something. Yes, seriously.

Go to randi.org if you want to know more about this utter nonsense. Use Goofball's name as a keyword; that ought to get you some thought-provoking stuff.

Remember this idiocy the next time someone starts to talk about the "sophistication" of today's populace.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  02:11 AM
I too, Alex, belive this is a load of crap, but a very easy way to feed on money of rich people with nothing better to do with their lives. "Words written on paper?" come on now.
Posted by X  in  McKinney, TX  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  07:49 AM
Honestly, I thought society was supposed to be moving forward. It seems like we have reverted to the dark ages. But wait? Was water happy back then? Or was it ugly looking with bad thoughts?
Posted by Nettie  in  Perth, Western Australia  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  08:22 AM
Yes, Water was much happier in The Dark Ages... as a matter of fact, if you listen closely to the "Greatest Hits of The Spanish Inquisition" album, you can occasionally hear Water giggling and laughing in the background. Happier, but perverse
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  08:42 AM
I haven't played that one for a while since the 'Magna Carter in C-' has been on my fav list. I must remember to pull it out and have a listen soon.
Posted by Nettie  in  Perth, Western Australia  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  09:09 AM
He could prove his "theory" the same way most theories are proven. By being able to repeat his "findings" and by it being repeatable by other testers. So if anyone thinks, or writes (whatever), the word happy and then photographs the water crystal... all the "happy" crystals should look the same right? As we all know, this won't happen. But it might be a good way to de-bunk this crap and get this nonsense removed from circulation.
Posted by Mark-N-Isa  in  Midwest USA  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  03:36 PM
It's well-known that water thinks and feels.
That's why it's unethical to drink water. :down:
Posted by Big Gary C  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  04:23 PM
Sometimes cutting edge new information can be hard to believe (especially for the common masses, let them eat Genetically Modified Cake and Kraft products) and weakly dismissed without any further research. Now this is not all very scientific (what to expect in a country that bottoms list of education among industrialized of the world). as a Science Teacher with many geeky years spent as a Chemistry and Biology, this possibly merits more than this obviously high intelligence heckling. Back in the day, sure the world was flat and the center of the universe and yes there was Santa Claus, we are in a new age today. In this new age, a post modern renaissance in which of whole of human knowledge doubles in less than a year floods an unsuspecting and not ready world. Could you in your infinite wisdom have possibly missed something? Certainly this water is cheaper than other methods. Trying it ones self is the best way to find the truth. Distilled water is the best start.

Quote of the Month

my parents used to say to me, ''Tom, finish your dinner -- people in China are starving.'' But after sailing to the edges of the world for a year, I am now telling my own daughters, ''Girls, finish your homework -- people in China and India are starving for your jobs.''
Posted by the Skeptic  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  04:43 PM
If you're happy and you're water, give good vibes (3X)... If you're happy and you're water, send Hairy a quarter, if you're happy and you're water give good vibes... Everybody:
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  04:53 PM
Sorry- Only repeat the first line twice... can't hold my happy water. Mistakes were made. I blame the CIA
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Wed Apr 06, 2005  at  04:56 PM
The Skeptic said:

"Sometimes cutting edge new information can be hard to believe (especially for the common masses, let them eat Genetically Modified Cake and Kraft products) and weakly dismissed without any further research."

Am I to understand, Skeptic, that you BELIEVE that this nonsense is possible? You say that you are a science teacher, yes? And you think that water, a chemical compound with no sensory capabilities, can respond to words written on a piece of tape attached to the side of the glass it's in???

There's just no use in fighting it anymore. We're all doomed as a species.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Thu Apr 07, 2005  at  02:12 AM
I made bubbles in my bath last night, and when they surfaced, they told me what I had for lunch yesterday. I think it's real.
Posted by booch  on  Thu Apr 07, 2005  at  10:36 AM
Thats gross
Posted by X  in  McKinney, TX  on  Thu Apr 07, 2005  at  10:41 AM
Here's some more about "Talking Water." Jesus, people are stupid!

http://www.mybiopro.com/VoicesInHarmonyEvent.aspx?ID=awengrove
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Apr 12, 2005  at  05:37 PM
i didn't expect the spanish inquisition.
Posted by flordo bofkonkuldin  on  Tue Apr 12, 2005  at  10:23 PM
"I didn't expect the spanish inquisition." Noone does...
Posted by Hairy Houdini  on  Tue Apr 12, 2005  at  10:41 PM
The comments about this book are more hooey than the book itself. The pictures are there for you to see. (Have any of you actually looked at it)?
There was not one thoughtful factual rebuttal in all the comments I read, just repitition of predetermined beliefs. This site promotes a sad commentary on intelligent criticism...
Posted by Kyger  on  Thu Apr 21, 2005  at  02:55 PM
Kyger said:

"The comments about this book are more hooey than the book itself. The pictures are there for you to see. (Have any of you actually looked at it)?"

I'm sorry, how do PICTURES prove that water can respond to emotions or do anything other than be wet? Please explain.

"There was not one thoughtful factual rebuttal in all the comments I read, just repitition of predetermined beliefs. This site promotes a sad commentary on intelligent criticism..."

Those "predetermined beliefs" are called SCIENCE. We believe in it/them because they are the best system by which humans can understand the world around us that anyone has yet devised. If you have a better one, please tell us about it so that mankind can benefit.

You DO understand, don't you, that WE don't have to prove anything? It's up to the author or a supporter of the author's premise to demonstrate that the theory of "intelligent water" or whatever it's called is anything other than bizarre irrational nonsense.

If you can prove that water can indeed respond to emotions under controlled conditions, the James Randi Educational Foundation has a million-dollar prize waiting for you. I direct you to their site, randi.org, for the details. Good luck.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Fri Apr 22, 2005  at  01:18 AM
Would you believe it if I told you ministers were preaching from the pulpit that Mr. Emoto's work is proven science and that we can purify water with our minds?

I am totally serious. http://www.randi.org/jr/052005la.html#4

I have talked with two ministers at the Church of Religious Science about preaching pseudo-science and I am told that the truth is "my reality"?

One of the ministers was my own minister at my RS church I attended for 17 years. Unbelievable.

Can anyone say: Galileo?
Posted by Conrad Askland  on  Mon May 23, 2005  at  08:11 PM
Conrad Askland said:

"Would you believe it if I told you ministers were preaching from the pulpit that Mr. Emoto's work is proven science and that we can purify water with our minds?"

Yes, unfortunately, I WOULD believe it. There is no definable line between "religion" and "superstition." Those ministers are straddling any line anyone could point out. They're nuts.

"I have talked with two ministers at the Church of Religious Science about preaching pseudo-science and I am told that the truth is "my reality"?"

Yup, in the same sense that gravity is just "your reality." Tell these goofs to jump off a high building. After all, crashing to Earth is just "their reality."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue May 24, 2005  at  03:44 AM
you know how he said that unpolluted water (pure?) creates colourful and beautiful crystals, and the polluted water creates dull, ugly crystals. well my theory is that the more pure the water the less non-water particles there are to a) muck up the ideal water crystal lattice and b) create different colours by not allowing the clear water particles to refract light as the pure water would. no pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure. of course pure water is gpoing to bond better to itself thus creating perfect water crystals, if there's pollutants in there then they'll 'get in the way' how technical, but i bet i'm right.
Posted by Toodlepip  on  Tue Oct 25, 2005  at  08:26 PM
woops, typo, i mean: pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure
Posted by toodlepip  on  Tue Oct 25, 2005  at  08:29 PM
Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Because if it makes them happier, and live a better life, then so be it. Don't burst people's bubble.
Now if thoughts impact water crystallization formations or not, it is a significant claim. It should put to test by the scientific method, and taken seroiusly.
Because its not like anyone knows where matter and space came from anyway, at least not in this time in history.
My personal opinion I don't know if Dr. Emoto is speaking the truth. If he were, then if I were a god I will be laughing down at your ass thinking on how blantantly ignorant some people can be. Muahahaha
Posted by JasDub  on  Mon Dec 12, 2005  at  11:07 PM
"woops, typo, i mean: pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure"

Interesting. But that doesn't explain how thoughts or words can affect formation, considering that this Emoto is telling the truth. And does anyone know of other reputable people/schools that confirm his studies?
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by JasDub  on  Mon Dec 12, 2005  at  11:10 PM
JasDub said:

"Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Because if it makes them happier, and live a better life, then so be it. Don't burst people's bubble."

Sorry, no can do. It's "magical thinking," I believe that, at least in part, led to the current war in Iraq. As in, "We're in line with what God wants so we cannot lose."

Irrational thinking can lead to death, especially when it's practiced by "leaders."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Dec 13, 2005  at  12:47 AM
I agree, irrational thinking can lead to death. But first of all water formation do have crystals. If you read what I stated earlier, I said Emoto's claim needs to be proved by other scientists over and over again under tight provisions, before we can disregard his stuff as "magical thinking." Yes, his research is extreme and in "la la land," but he's providing his proof and its our turn to prove it otherwise or not. BTW, if anyone knows of independ studies that confirm this or not please email me or reply.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by JasDub  on  Tue Dec 13, 2005  at  03:00 PM
You are entirely missing the whole point. He has not proved anything. His work has never been submitted for peer review. James Randi has offered Emoto the one million dollar paranormal prize just to prove what he says he's already doing.

It is NOT our obligation to disprove him, he has never proved it in the first place, but yet deceptively has presented it so it seems that it IS proven.

That is the problem with pseudoscience, it disguises itself as science, but it is not. You are falling prey to the deception and propogating pseudoscience with those comments.
Posted by Ernest  on  Tue Dec 13, 2005  at  03:22 PM
JasDub said:

"Yes, his research is extreme and in "la la land," but he's providing his proof and its our turn to prove it otherwise or not."

What "proof" has he provided? For the record, just claiming that something has happened does not constitute "proof."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Tue Dec 13, 2005  at  05:15 PM
The human-like God from the Bible; that's something utterly weird to believe in, in my opinion. 'Wise' man like the president of the united stated believe things I would call backwards. Well, some wise man believe that.
But about the water christals i'm not so sure.

According to quantum mechanics reality does get only 'shape' once you look/feel/think--> observe something. Positive / Negative feelings/thoughts when putting a paper with a certain text on a bottle of water should have impact on the reality of the water when you look at it later.

I'm sceptic; this doctor might make extra money using photoshop on his pictures, but thought/concentration/feelings do effect other water-bags that browse this planet in quantum-probabilities' wierd-ways I "believe" ;-p
Posted by Flo  on  Sat Dec 24, 2005  at  05:53 AM
can somebody with the tools needed please take some photos of the water that is from:
-tap
-microwave
-bottle loved
-bottle hated
and then crystalised in some different ways please.

😛
Posted by Floris  on  Sat Dec 24, 2005  at  05:55 AM
Dang. I saw this site in my Google search hits and was hoping there would be something here devoting some time to debunk the book with facts to the contrary.

Instead of fact, it seems all that's on this site is bitter dogmatic predetermined oppinion. Nothing but a bunch of "As-if!" postings.

Oh, well.
Posted by joedogjoe  on  Sun Jan 22, 2006  at  11:02 PM
joedogjoe said:

"Dang. I saw this site in my Google search hits and was hoping there would be something here devoting some time to debunk the book with facts to the contrary."

You're asking us to prove a negative. How about asking the author of this nonsense to prove what he claims under proper scientific testing? Given the nature of his claims, that should be easy, no?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy  on  Mon Jan 23, 2006  at  02:22 PM
> How about asking the author of this nonsense to prove what he claims under proper scientific testing?

I have his book and this described some kind of not-2-proper scientific testing.. ..I don't expect to get better testing from the inventor himself more than I expect proof of god from the pope.

No nobody disproved this guy he... ...maybe he is right. Reading his book did give me some feeling he is on a right track...

I did see the move 'What the bleeb do we know' recently; also about this special water.. ..and about quantum mechanics and thoughts changing quantum-possibility-fields:p
Posted by Floris  on  Tue Jan 24, 2006  at  02:41 AM
"You're asking us to prove a negative."

you are not being asked to do anything... not even believe. the challenge is to provide evidence that what is being claimed is a false positive.

this claim is not entirely unlike the claim that plants are affected by their environment. it could be that the photography used and the type of water (polluted and spring) were factors. it would be interesting if someone were to do similar experiments. but, as with all comparative experiments, there are going to be different results. nothing is entirely conclusive. more results from scientific experiments will likely only provide you with more reason to argue and disbelieve. just don't be directing your crystal-distorting thoughts and energy my way. lol
Posted by fromthelittlem  on  Tue Feb 07, 2006  at  08:17 AM
seenit for myself, very easy to prove. just grow 2 plants, shout abuse at 1 , and praise and.thank the other . great and rapid success over twelve weeks with marijuana plants.
go, now do it
Posted by smokebush  on  Tue Feb 21, 2006  at  05:47 AM
"You're asking us to prove a negative."

Hi, who is or are "us" by the way?

And proving a negative is not so hard, like disproving "all things fall up" by one 'negative'; something falling down...


I stil like thus water theory, but seen nog provind or disproving at all...
Posted by FLo  on  Tue Feb 21, 2006  at  06:07 AM
It's not actually asking anyone to prove a negative - it's shifting the burden of proof. Of course someone could design an experiment to test Emoto's hypotheses (at least if they were clearly formulated - I'm not sure if that is the case); the question is why anyone should make the substantial investments it would take to test something for which there is no evidence? As has been observed, Emoto's claims would require pretty much everything we know about chemistry to be wrong. That's OK, I guess - it would be great to have some new major scientific paradigm shift.

However, there are lots of reasons to suppose that our assumptions about chemistry are right - for a start, if theywasn't then we wouldn't have the technology to be having this discussion! - and there is nothing but a single crank's unreplicated and highly improbable assertions to support that thesis that our knowledge of chemistry is mistaken.

When someone makes a claim that goes against all extant knowledge it is reasonable to expect that person to prove the claim; it is not reasonable to demand, instead, that it be treated as credible in the absence of any substantive evidence. Apart from everything else, nonsensical hypotheses can be formulated at a rate of thousands per second (prove me wrong!) while testing them takes a long time and a lot of money...

This having been said, should those who regard Emoto as credible wish to fund a programme of research, I am sure that responsible scientists could be found to do the work... who knows, you could win a million:)
Posted by outeast  on  Tue Feb 21, 2006  at  06:32 AM
> However, there are lots of reasons to suppose that our assumptions about chemistry are right.

Why? Because a lott of things work? Because cars can drive? I don't think this is logic..

In my opinion quantum mechanics shows our whole atom-model is wrong; just a model that worked to invent all kind of technology...

>Emoto's claims would require pretty much everything we know about chemistry to be wrong

Uhm, isn't it also without his claims quite sure we know only a few % of what could be known about chemistry and are we not quite suire most is 'wrong'... ...might be correct according to the proven-wrong atom-model; but still wrong if you have to choose between right and wrong; we know almost nothing I think!!!

(allthough it's quite human to think we know much.. ..see classical mistakes in this).
Posted by flo  on  Tue Feb 21, 2006  at  09:06 AM
Scientific practices are rather more dependent on the accuracy of theories of molecular chemistry than you appear to assume - take the genetic work done in the field of molecular biology, for example. If the 'atom-model' had been 'proven wrong', as you allege, we should certainly not be able to do what we can! Quantum mechanics in no way undermines the 'atom-model', incidentally; where do you get your physics from - Deepak Chopra?
Posted by outeast  on  Wed Feb 22, 2006  at  08:24 AM
Thank you for that last post. It reassures me that science is alive and well, and hasn't been totally taken over by new age snake oil salesman.....From the posts before I was starting to have my doubts.
Posted by God  on  Wed Feb 22, 2006  at  11:20 PM
::blushes::

Gee, thanks God!
Posted by outeast  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  12:51 AM
>If the 'atom-model' had been 'proven wrong', as you allege, we should certainly not be able to do what we can!

It's just a model my dear. What we do does not prove the 'atom-model' to be correct. It's just a model that is proven to be incomplete and therefor in a way 'proven wrong'.

What you say is like saying that because we don't understand gravity exact, things would stop falling down or something...😛
Posted by Flo  on  Thu Feb 23, 2006  at  03:32 AM
Comments: Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.