Steve Slatin on tue 4 aug 09
That 'science report' on microwaved water
doesn't just not make sense, it's already
been debunked. See Snopes at --
http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave/plants.asp
for further details. =3D20
The most likely cause, IMHO, of the 'result'
was deliberate under or overwatering with the=3D20
microwaved water (or watering with still-hot water)
by a child trying to please her parents
or grandparents -- she must know that they
have extremist beliefs, they are hosted on the
Rense website, right along with the rambling
and mostly incoherent postings about Illuminati
conspiracy, "Zionist Evil Dominates the Planet"
(there's an entire section devoted to that alone).
One can't blame a schoolchild for tweaking the
results of a 'science' experiment. =3D20
One *can* guard against being taken in by checking
to see if the experiment has been reproduced by
disinterested parties.
If microwaved water were so good at killing
plants, we'd all use it to get the weeds out=3D20
from between the concrete sections in our
driveways ... it'd be easier than digging, and
safer and cheaper than using herbicides.
Regards --=3D20
Steve Slatin=3D20
--- On Tue, 8/4/09, jonathan byler wrote:
> Although your meter is probably legit
> and measuring the intensity of
> various electromagnetic fields, the study about the
> microwaved water
> looks anything but scientific.=3DA0 one would need a much
> larger sampling
> in order to get anything resembling useable results from
> such a
> study.=3DA0 and control the experiment by using "purified"
> water in both
> the microwaved and non-microwaved groups.=3DA0 and
> controlling exactly for
> water temperature, amount added, the amount of soil each
> plant had,
> the amount of light they received, whether the container in
> which the
> water was heated leached chemicals when hot, etc.=3DA0 so
> that the ONLY
> difference was that one had the water heated in the
> microwave, the
> other did not.=3DA0 looks like they tried to do that to
> some extent, but I
> highly doubt they measured exact amounts of water, given
> that the
> plant with water boiled on the stove always looked drier in
> all the
> pictures (see lighter colored dirt).=3DA0 overwatering
> alone kills many
> plants.=3DA0 ask me how I know ;)
>=3D20
>=3D20
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Glistering Phaeton wrote:
>=3D20
> > http://rense.com/general70/microwaved.htm
> =3D0A=3D0A=3D0A
James Freeman on wed 5 aug 09
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Anthony Ferguson wrote:
> James, I find it odd and surprising that appears you went to much trouble=
to
> in some or other way try to make the device I used a mockery and my attem=
pt
> and demonstrating fields and the range of a field--by showing what is or
> isn't there to arrive at an awareness that could in fact preserve life or
> one's energy, etc. I am glad you had fun with it.
Tony...
I went to absolutely no trouble. I was curious about your device,
went to the company's website, and their own website made a mockery of
it. The words I used were cut and pasted from the manufacturer's
website.
You are obviously a smart guy, and I have enjoyed our off list
conversations, so I was quite surprised by your post. It's fine to
believe that stuff. Hell, people believe in ghosts, auras, fairies,
healing crystals, invisible men in the sky, Keynesian economics, and
all sorts of other things that have no basis in science. It's all
harmless until you start basing important decisions on such beliefs,
or worse yet, trying to impose them on others (not accusing you of
that). Witness the recent rash of cases of children dying because
their parents chose to pray over them or apply some sort of new age
cure rather than seeking medical help. Extreme examples perhaps, but
the only difference is one of degree. The philosopher Bertrand
Russell said "It matters little what you believe, so long as you do
not entirely believe it."
Here's something to think about: If electromagnetic fields are
harmful in any way whatsoever, then what of the folks who work in
power generating plants? There are very few places on the planet
where you will encounter a stronger field. As these folks are bathed
in such fields constantly, all day every day, one would expect them to
show a higher mortality than the population at large, yet I would
wager that there is no such statistical correlation. How about
electrical linemen? Constant exposure, no increased mortality. How
about folks who work at radio or TV stations? Super-powerful fields,
and there they sit right in the middle of them. How about folks who
use a hearing aid? They have an actual battery stuffed in their ear
all day every day, mere centimeters from their brain, yet suffer no
ill effects. How about the folks with pacemakers? Damn powerful
field actually implanted right in their bodies, yet no ill effects.
How about the folks who work at CERN and other high energy labs? You
won't find a stronger field ANYWHERE on the planet, yet they show no
ill effects. I could go on listing examples ad nauseum.
Here is your argument (whether stated or implied) in a nutshell: 1)
I measured electromagnetic fields emanating from my electrical
appliance. 2) Electromagnetic fields are bad for you. 3)
Therefore, my electrical appliance is bad for you. The problem is
that you have stated your hypothesis as one of you premises. This is
pure tautology; circular reasoning. It is no different than the
creationist argument 1) People, plants, and animals exist. 2) Only
God can create people, plants, and animals. 3) Therefore God exists.
The conclusion is already contained in the premise, so nothing has
been proven, only restated.
My only problem with your post, and the ONLY reason I posted a reply,
is because you made it sound like there was some sort of fact or
science involved. Your post at it's core is really only the statement
that you believe that microwave ovens are bad for you, which is fine,
but the implied authority of the TriMeter XL100 or whatever was meant
to add borrowed credence to what is purely unfounded supposition. It
was this implied scientific basis that I was attempting to diffuse by
using the company's own words.
A really good introductory book, for those curious about why we all
seem to harbor unfounded beliefs, is "Why People Believe Weird Things:
Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time", by
Michael Shermer, with a foreword by Steven Jay Gould.
This is now very, very far from clay, and it seems to be getting
personal, which was never my intention, so I am leaving this thread.
Take care.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/clayart/
Anthony Ferguson on wed 5 aug 09
Jonathan,
Part of reason for including that was for people to try it themselves.
Conduct your own experiments which we are all too often doing when we work
with clay and glazes.
Tony
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:14 PM, jonathan byler wrote:
> Although your meter is probably legit and measuring the intensity of
> various electromagnetic fields, the study about the microwaved water
> looks anything but scientific. one would need a much larger sampling
> in order to get anything resembling useable results from such a
> study. and control the experiment by using "purified" water in both
> the microwaved and non-microwaved groups. and controlling exactly for
> water temperature, amount added, the amount of soil each plant had,
> the amount of light they received, whether the container in which the
> water was heated leached chemicals when hot, etc. so that the ONLY
> difference was that one had the water heated in the microwave, the
> other did not. looks like they tried to do that to some extent, but I
> highly doubt they measured exact amounts of water, given that the
> plant with water boiled on the stove always looked drier in all the
> pictures (see lighter colored dirt). overwatering alone kills many
> plants. ask me how I know ;)
>
>
>
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Glistering Phaeton wrote:
>
> http://rense.com/general70/microwaved.htm
>>
>
--
Cheers,
Tony Ferguson, MA
Artist/Educator
http://www.tonyferguson.net
Workshops & Online Education
Philip Poburka on wed 5 aug 09
The question is not whether 'Electromagnetic Fields' are 'bad'...
The question, as for Electro-Magnetic Fields, is, under what conditions
are the magnitude, duration and repetition of exposures, and of what
particular frequencies, likely to be 'good' or' bad' for an Organism...and,
'good' or 'bad' in what way.
Every Organism generates it's own complex Electro Magnetic Field.
It would be as absurd to too broadly generalize about Electromagnetic Field=
s
being 'good' or 'bad', as it would to assert that 'Energy' or 'Chemicals'
are blanketly 'good' or 'bad'.
Radio Waves, Microwaves, X-Rays, Magnetism, Ionizing Radiation turning the
proximal surrounding Air 'Blue', Gamma Rays, etc., are all a very different
matter from 'Eletromagnetic' Fields, and we should not be confusing these
together in sweeping over-generalizing for or against.
Phil
l v
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Freeman"
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Anthony Ferguson
> wrote:
>> James, I find it odd and surprising that appears you went to much troubl=
e
>> to
>> in some or other way try to make the device I used a mockery and my
>> attempt
>> and demonstrating fields and the range of a field--by showing what is or
>> isn't there to arrive at an awareness that could in fact preserve life o=
r
>> one's energy, etc. I am glad you had fun with it.
<<<<>>>>
| |
|
