Dean Radin, PhD; Gail Hayssen; Masaru Emoto, BA; Takashige Kizu, BA
The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions toward water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (P = .001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.
The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions toward water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (P = .001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.
This pilot study was designed to test the most plausible conventional explanation for the crystal formation claim: the presence of subjective biases. To eliminate these biases, the person taking photos of the crystals (T.K.) and the aesthetic raters of those crystals were both blind to the treatment versus control conditions. The results were consistent with the hypothesis that water treated with pleasant intentions would result in more pleasing crystal shapes. If this effect was not due to obvious subjective biases, then what else might have accounted for the results?
There are at least three unconventional alternatives that might explain the observed effects. One is that the intentional source was not the audience in Tokyo but rather D.R. and G.H. This possibility cannot be excluded, but, although these investigators were open to the hypothesis, neither held strong expectations about the experimental outcome. A second possibility is that the water was not altered at all, but rather the bottles were randomly assigned by D.R. and G.H. to the two conditions that would later result in a fortuitous differential effect or that T.K. fortuitously decided to take photos that would ultimately result in the observed outcome or both. Such anomalous assignment effects, formalized as “Decision Augmentation Theory,” require the ability to unconsciously sense and act upon future possibilities, ie, a form of precognition. A third possibility is that the intentions of future observers (including readers of this article) retroactively influenced the water. Although this explanation may seem outrageous, there is experimental evidence suggesting that such time-reversed effects may exist.
In conclusion, the present pilot results are consistent with a number of previous studies suggesting that intention may be able to influence the structure of water. Future replications should concentrate on eliminating all conceivable conventional artifacts, and protocols should be employed that can help discriminate among the various unconventional explanations.
Read more...
There are at least three unconventional alternatives that might explain the observed effects. One is that the intentional source was not the audience in Tokyo but rather D.R. and G.H. This possibility cannot be excluded, but, although these investigators were open to the hypothesis, neither held strong expectations about the experimental outcome. A second possibility is that the water was not altered at all, but rather the bottles were randomly assigned by D.R. and G.H. to the two conditions that would later result in a fortuitous differential effect or that T.K. fortuitously decided to take photos that would ultimately result in the observed outcome or both. Such anomalous assignment effects, formalized as “Decision Augmentation Theory,” require the ability to unconsciously sense and act upon future possibilities, ie, a form of precognition. A third possibility is that the intentions of future observers (including readers of this article) retroactively influenced the water. Although this explanation may seem outrageous, there is experimental evidence suggesting that such time-reversed effects may exist.
In conclusion, the present pilot results are consistent with a number of previous studies suggesting that intention may be able to influence the structure of water. Future replications should concentrate on eliminating all conceivable conventional artifacts, and protocols should be employed that can help discriminate among the various unconventional explanations.
.png)
