Some Thoughts on the Science…
This past weekend we had an exhibit at a small tradeshow. Like always, some people were genuinely intrigued by Grander Technology and what it has to offer them, and others, upon hearing some description about the technology, responded as if the very notion of this technology’s existence was an assault on reason- perhaps, in fact, an assault on them…
Facial colors changed. Distance was kept. Pupils narrowed, and eye contact diminished. And then…
“Is this technology based on a scientific view of the world??? Or something else…?”
I find this question difficult to field for a number of reasons. One of the biggest is that science is something I enjoy and respect very much, and the question presupposes that I am inarguably on the wrong side of it. But on the wrong side of what? What does this person mean? What is a “scientific view of the world”? Do all those who espouse a scientific viewpoint think the same clearly obvious things?
I’ll take the last rhetorical question first and give it the resounding “No!” it deserves. The scientific community is anything but monotonic, monolithic, monocultural, or mono anything. In fact, it is beautifully human- meaning messy, muddy, smart, stubborn, political, passionate, ambitious, concerned, over-compensating, insecure, ingenious, sometimes angry, and often inspiring. Scientists disagree about the implications and meaning of quantum theory, about the role of the genome, about gravity, about time, about complexity and chaos, about the origins of life, about geological processes, about consciousness, and yes, about what science is…
I think what pains me the most about the above quotation is that it belittles the greatness of science, and then brandishes this shrunken version of science as if its existence makes plain an obvious truth that Grander Technology is an affront to reason.
Great science seeks out the Unknown, and is undaunted by its ambiguity, scope, or size. In fact, the bigger the better. It wants a deep, inky, gaping unknown so that it can climb to great heights before plunging into its hidden core. It recognizes the pitfalls of judgment and righteousness, and prefers to question and test and think. And think some more. And wonder. And test and think again.
Great science is belittled when the word “science” is used to preemptively bound the field of what is possible- without consideration of evidence, without testing, without thinking. Great science arises in response to novel observations, in the effort to study and understand them, not as an effort to preclude them a priori. Without the admission of unexpected phenomena we would not today acknowledge the existence of cells, bacteria, steam engines, quasars, proteins, galaxies, microwaves, electricity, comets, electrons, penicillin, DNA, or fire.
Johann Grander’s work opens the doorway to some previously unknown territory, but that is precisely what makes it scientific- in the purest sense of the word. He began with simple materials, and he worked with his own questions and labor and time, and he discovered an effect. It is an effect that a child can sense, but it is difficult to explain with current scientific theories.
That it is difficult to explain does not make it unscientific, however. We cannot explain gravity, but we feel it at work everyday. How can a science that is still trying to understand gravity, the emergence of life, and the flow of time decide which unknowns are properly scientific and which are not?
Great science is a discipline. It requires tremendous effort to observe without bias, to encounter the unknown and engage it openly without prejudgment, to be willing to question even one’s own ideas and conclusions. Great science has not yet judged the work of Johann Grander, and it will not until it observes it carefully, thinks about its experiences, asks new questions of it, and observes some more. Great science is not perturbed by novelties, nor closed to Nature’s opinions on a subject, nor anxious to be complete…
© 2010, Michael Mark
Water is a Cosmic Substance!
The title of this post, one of the oft-quoted sentiments of inventor Johann Grander, highlights the profound connectivity we see at work throughout the natural world. Water, and thus Life, are not merely terrestrial phenomena; they are connected with and somehow influenced by forces and energies arriving from the cosmos. The great Russian scientist Vladimir Vernadsky noted the cosmic influence upon the Earth, and defined the biosphere in which we live as the zone in which energy from the cosmos is received and transformed. Without this continuous transformation of cosmic influx, Life as we know it would cease to exist.
Reducing the cosmo-terrestrial interaction to an energy balance, however, belies the fundamental importance of connectedness to which Johann Grander points. Water is not a cosmic substance because it is warmed by the sun, but because its inner character is somehow influenced by seemingly distant entities in the cosmos: the moon, the sun, even planets and more distant stars. Is this possible? Reasonable? Universal??? From whose perspective?
When trying to understand new things, I find it is helpful to explore connections between similar ideas, and also to look at examples occurring in Nature at varying levels of scale and complexity. One interesting thread leads to the work of another Russian scientist, Alexander Chizhevsky, who studied the influence of solar cycles upon human events. Chizhevsky is not well-known in the West, but he did some pretty interesting work studying corellations between sun spot cycles and human events, finding relationships between the two. Here is a great quote of his from the Cycles Research Institute web-site:
“Life is a phenomenon. Its production is due to the influence of the dynamics of the cosmos on a passive subject. It lives due to dynamics, each oscillation of organic pulsation is coordinated with the cosmic heart in a grandiose whole of nebulas, stars, the sun and the planet.”
Chizhevsky’s thoughts are the result of extensive research, but when you read this quote you are left with the sense that maybe its not all that complicated… Maybe cosmic connectivity is natural and obvious, but somehow proscribed from the “modern” worldview. I provide these leading statements because that is precisely what the genius musicologist Peter Huebner has to say about the subject:
These days, when I look at young people throughout the world – be it on the streets or in a café, or even at school or university – I am amazed to realize they are not aware that they are cosmic beings. …[N]one of them can understand that they have been designed in a cosmic manner by nature.
Perhaps the idea that water possesses an inner connection to the cosmos is not as strange as it initially appears. Perhaps the idea that water, and ourselves, and the emergence of Life on this planet are dis-connected from the cosmos is the truly awkward idea- tenable today merely by the force of collective agreement. The founder of Anthroposophy, Rudolph Steiner, is not immune from this viewpoint himself:
Yet there is a profound truth, namely this: When man loses the heavens, he loses himself. By far the most important elements of man’s being belong to the universe beyond the Earth and if he loses sight of this universe he loses sight of his own true being. He wanders over the Earth without knowing what kind of being he really is… Man has lost himself; he has no longer any insight into his true nature.
Again in our time we must strive for a fully conscious realisation of man’s place in the Cosmos. The form and shape of his physical body are given by the Cosmos. The upper part of his structure is a product of the Cosmos; the lower part a product of the Earth. The Earth covers those constellations which have a definite connection with his activities in life. Not until man’s connection with the whole Cosmos is thus recognised and acknowledged will it be possible to understand the mysteries of the human form and its relation to earthly activities.
Go Rudolph. This is an excerpt from a series of lectures that Steiner gave in 1921 on the subject of mankind’s relationship to the cosmos.
I would not like to leave you with the impression that science is immune from this issue of cosmic connectivity, however. One great example is Mach’s Principle. Ernst Mach was an Austrian physicist who made great contributions to optics, aerodynamics and hydrodynamics, cosmology and philosophy. (Think of supersonic jets traveling at “Mach 2″. I’m as befuddled as the next person, however, as to how this modern idiom relates to shaving devices containing a non-trivial quantity of razor blades.)
Mach was trying to explain the phenomenon of inertia- the resistance of mass to acceleration. Why should it take any force at all to get a large stone moving when there is nothing whatsoever in its way? Somehow all that mass resists change… (Mach didn’t like the idea that Nature is simply stubborn.) Mach’s Principle is the idea that gravitational connections to all the matter in the Universe create this resistance to motion. Mach is attributed with saying, “When the subway jerks, it’s the fixed stars that throw you down.”
The idea I’ve meandered towards proposing today is this: perhaps the onus of proof should be on those who resist cosmic connectivity… Not just with respect to water, but with respect to the entire system of Nature. Water is not isolated. We are not isolated. This planet is not isolated. There is a connectivity that exists across a vastness we can scarcely comprehend, and perhaps it permeates and influences everything we see, touch, and know…
Connectivity is a bridge, and information flows through it…
© 2010, Michael Mark
The Full Water Cycle – And a Poem
Many of us were taught the following version of the water cycle: water evaporates, is lifted into the sky, condenses into clouds, and eventually falls back to the Earth as rain. In this way, water is purified and renewed. Fueled by the sun’s radiant energy, this process continues unceasing. Nothing in this account is untrue, but according to Austrian naturalist Viktor Schauberger, the account is incomplete.
The Full Water Cycle includes a second half, as water that falls to the earth sinks deep into the ground, travels hidden pathways through soil and rock, and eventually emerges as healthy springwater- enlivened, mineralized, and balanced. The Full Water Cycle suggests water is unable to fully give of itself until it has completed its mythic journey through Darkness. I like that thought. Water is as much art as science, intuition as reason, poetry as prose. Therefore, today I suggest we honor the other half, and eschew the prose for the poetic.
Migrations
Invisible rays arc through the sky,
traversing vast quadrants, catapulted by a distant sun.
Blue-violet tracers flower in their wake,
hot against the neon black sponge of a tropospheric night.
A point of water dances,
twirls in a tightening, accelerating spiral vibration,
hurls invisible light through the heavens
and crystallizes into a tiny frozen droplet:
a Newborn-
suspended, nascent,
filling with the whispers of Space.
Waiting…
Infused with potential,
the living seed tumbles earthwards-
tips forward, narrowing, rifling downwards,
melting into a blurry streak that
charges with molten electricity as sparks of air rush past.
Bursting open, the drop of water
splashes into the soil, bubbles,
gulps in a draught of air,
sinks, and cools as it
descends from Light into Darkness.
Joining with others, it winds through
rocken capillaries, suffused with the faint
echoes of Earth’s vibrations.
Stones emanate myriad frequencies of Silence.
An underground Work begins that
cannot be accomplished in the sky.
Instructions are given.
Subterranean tracks appear.
Water migrates towards purpose.
Rays of the Earth whistle past.
A mile overhead, grass blades.
Wind. A human.
Cooling-
the water expands, and grows, rising.
It ripens, gurgles,
scrambles through a cleft,
up a narrow chute, and is thrown across a threshold
back into the Light.
The Water rolls, brakes, curls, spits
-a blinding ray of Sun-
spills over a crag and
drops into a wide pool. A breathing,
rippled wavelet.
One drop. A Pool.
* * * * *
Sunlight fades, and dusk falls.
A doe steps from the cover of trees and
approaches tentatively-
alert, tense and alive, instinctively
drawn to secrets at work in the pool,
epiphanies recovered from the depths.
Crickets oscillate. Air shimmers, vibrates.
Time and vision collapse.
She drinks this simple substance.
Water is subsumed by electric, living tissue-
whirls to the beat of an animal heart,
awakens, yearns to imbue and to be imbued.
Drawn ineluctably inwards, accelerating in place,
it begins to chant, to whisper,
recounting the story of its journey.
Reliving starlight and stone.
Remembering plummeting descents.
Dreaming the tumbling levitation of Emergence.
A million drops of water, storytellers all,
are doing the Same. All Together.
These stories, ceaseless, interwoven,
infuse flesh with rhythm, motion,
and purpose.
This is simple magic- what we call Life.
It has no up or down. No beginning.
No time.
© 2010, Michael Mark
Water Anomalies – the Conventional and the Anomalous
Water is full of surprises, no matter how you slice it. Depending on who you choose to be your personally appointed spokesperson for the scientific community, you will find that water possesses somewhere between 10^1 and 10^2 anomalies. And these will only be the Conventional Anomalies- unexpected properties of water our sciences would not have predicted, but which, after the fact, are fully explainable. Additionally, you have your basic Anomalous Anomalies, which are properties or aspects of water not yet explained, or even fully understood. In the coming years, these may (or may not) enter fully into scientific parlance.
A Sample Platter of Conventional Anomalies
Dr. Martin Chaplin, Professor Emeritus of London South Bank University, runs a tight ship of a water web-site. It is one of the premier resources on the web for water-related information, and contains a great summary of water anomalies (as of this writing sixty-seven) with their known scientific explanations. Here are a few of the many:
One. In Dr. Chaplin’s list of water’s Material Anomalies, his first entry states that, “No aqueous solution is ideal.” This is indeed anomalous as my experience is that some types of aqueous solutions, raspberry lemonade being one, are actually quite good. I think I am quibbling over a technicality, however, as he goes on to write that, “The term ‘ideal’ indicates adherence to a particular equation; it does not indicate any more basic truth.” Clearly Dr. Chaplin is no stranger to the Raspberry Lemonade Argument…
Returning to the essential point, when you put things into water both those things and the water itself react very differently to one another than the same solute and an ideal fluid would. In other words, aqueous solutions don’t behave like we thought they should. An ideal fluid is an imaginary fluid with particular properties that is easier for scientists to study than the eccentric, slightly off-kilter fluids that festoon the real world. Studying the simplified conceptual model often provides clues to how real world fluids will behave, but there is some inaccuracy because it is a model. That is expected. Water and aqueous solutions in general, however, are noncomformists par excellence.
Two. Let’s move on already. Dr. Chaplin’s Material Anomaly Number Four: “The mean kinetic energy of water’s hydrogen atoms increases at low temperature.” This is indeed unexpected since most things slow down and become less energetic when they are cooled. Dr. Chaplin notes that this behavior suggests that at very cold temperatures, protons in water structures find a newfound sense of freedom as they are able to hop back and forth between adjacent oxygen molecules with increased facility. Actually, that’s not at all what he says, so you should probably read for yourself. The thing to look for is how the dashed lines and solid lines change places in the two figures, indicating that the types of bonds between those molecules have changed. Personally, I’m not convinced this is an anomaly at all. Just look at it anthropomorphically… They are probably simply shivering with cold, and/or racing about in a quantum coherent effort to keep warm…
Three. Dr. Chaplin’s Physical Anomaly #1: “Water has unusually high viscosity.” In plain English, viscosity is resistance to flowing. Molasses has a high viscosity- you can only pour it in slow motion- and supercooled helium on the other hand, has zero viscosity (as this video of helium in a superfluid state explains). Water, being made of oxygen and hydrogen, is lucky enough to be a liquid instead of a vapor at room temperature, nevermind an overly viscous one. Thick water is indeed unexpected, but the reason is that each water molecule is a tiny dipole, with a net plus-minus electric charge. The pluses “stick” to the minuses to form three-dimensional bonding patterns, and it is this electronic skeleton which provides higher than average resistance to flow.
This smattering of points is merely the tip of the iceberg, but sufficient to show that water is not nearly as simple as we once thought.
Now For Some Anomalous Anomalies of Water
You will not find these anomalies on Dr. Chaplin’s site, and not without reason. Dr. Chaplin’s site is focused upon phenomena that have crossed the Threshold of Scientific Credibility, meaning that the phenomena are measurable, repeatable and typically confirmed by multiple researchers- e.g. generally fit for study in a scientific manner. Several of these items below are at very early stages of anomalous-ness, meaning it is not entirely clear what is being seen and/or what the phenomena signify, nevermind how they might be explained.
One. Water may be a carrier of holographic information. In the video What We Know is a Drop, (Part 1, beginning around Minute 5), Dr. Bernd Kröplin of Stuttgart University shows an interesting result from an experiment he performed using a novel droplet analysis technique. The images below are taken from this film at the link given above. The interesting point is that, beginning with the very same water and performing the experiment at the very same time, different people produce droplets that reveal unique patterns from one another, but all of the droplets made by the same person at a given time are very similar to one another. This is shown in the picture below, where results from four different experimenters are shown.
Image captured from the film What We Know is a Drop
The word holographic comes to mind because it is as if the water drops placed by a particular person became somehow a carrier of information unique to that person.
Two. Evidence suggests water is a non-equilibrium system, meaning it is more like an organism than a rock with respect to its thermodynamic structure. At least its halfway across that invisible gap. It possesses reserves of free or available energy and is able to mobilize this as part of its highly ordered dynamic function. The notion that water could possess a complex internal structure and display cyclical internal energetic processes is quite anomalous to anyone who previously pictured water as simply an inert, random fluid. Dr. Vladimir Voeikov has written about water’s energetic processes in multiple publications. Here are two of them:
Voeikov, Vladimir. “The Possible Role of Active Oxygen in the Memory of Water”. Homeopathy. 2007, 96: 196-201.
Voeikov, Vladimir and Del Giudice, Emilio. “Water Respiration – the Basis of the Living State”. Water. 2009, 1: 52-75.
Three. As if that isn’t enough. The Water Bridge Phenomenon is an equally worth subject of curiosity. This image below is also taken from the film What We Know is a Drop, (Part 2 at the link above). Good viewing.
Image taken from film What We Know is a Drop
If I knew more about this phenomenon, I would share it! Each beaker has an electrode in it, but the water itself is of ultra high purity and thus is not a conductor of electricity. Exactly how and why the water is able to literally leap up out of the two beakers and form a standing “bridge” of water is not yet understood.
Water remains, in the final accounting, a mystery within the Mystery.
© 2010, Michael Mark
Thoughts on Sustainable Water Infrastructure
Sustainability is big. Water is even bigger. Together, this pairing gets my vote for the peanut butter and chocolate combo of our century. We face tremendous challenges=opportunities in each of these areas, and you need look no farther if you’re seeking to apply holistic trouble-shooting skills to real world problems.
Some jumping-off points:
- Considering context seems a reasonable goal. Las Vegas is a shining example of not doing so, with projects on the boards worth billions of dollars to make up for a looming water shortfall as people continue to flock to the desert HighLife. But there’s more to context than locating populations in water-rich areas. Forests, for example, are water generators, filters, and reservoirs- how we treat them and manage them will impact both availability and quality of water supplies for years into the future.
- Water re-use strategies make a lot of sense. What we experience as a lack of fresh water is a disparity between the location of the fresh water and the location of the people. Continually bringing new water into regions facing scarcity doesn’t seem like a tenable solution, however. Something about pumping lakes, rivers and aquifers dry doesn’t paint our species into the Intelligent Corner. Why pipe in a continuous supply of new water while getting rid of “wastewater” as fast as it can be made, when a large percentage of local water needs could be met by cleaning and recirculating water that is already there? Orange County is on top of this one with its adroitly entitled Groundwater Replenishment Program.
- Educate, educate, educate. Did I not say we’d tackle this holistically? Citizens of large water-deficient cities like Los Angeles and San Diego have pushed back against water recycling programs like the aforementioned. I can empathize. Call it “toilet-to-tap” and what self-respecting denizen of the modern era wouldn’t? Some facts one could brandish to spark an open-minded dialogue on the subject include a) treatment of wastewater for reclamation is about half as expensive as seawater, the obvious alternative; b) salt, chemical, and bacteria-bearing seawater is not necessarily a cleaner feedstock than the stormwater and wastewater available for reclamation; and c) as noted previously, pumping rivers, lakes, and aquifers dry should be an increasingly difficult policy for reasonable people to endorse. Using less is the Un-Glamorous Solution, of course.
- Make water treatment beautiful. This is one of my favorites, and I personally do not disagree with “laundering” that reclaimed water through a living ecosystem before reintroducing it to the water system. This leads us to the creation of functional parks- beautiful, living spaces which hold water and process it through diverse ecological systems which serve as both a buffer between toilet and tap, and a storage. Water introduced into such parks would have already been treated to fairly high standards, and when reclaimed for use would be treated like any other natural lake or river source. Water storages can also act as a thermal reservoirs, reduce heat island effects, provide habitat for fish and birds, encourage community ice-skating, and reflect moonlight in dazzling ways that local artists will appreciate. Beauty is important and healing, and access to water is profoundly human.
- Make water itself the priority. In other words, make water stewardship the name of the game. By ensuring that water is honored, respected, and supported at every level, we guarantee our own success. This ultimately means recovering “relationship” and connection to water, and by extension, to the natural world and one another. This is the catalyst that puts a bit of magic into the whole process. It is the synergy of mixing the chocolate with the peanut butter. Seek to understand water- the way it flows, lives, and breathes- and make that an integral part of water in communities. Who would want water from somewhere else, when the local water has become someone we know, a trusted friend, a counselor?
Looking forward to the water infrastructure planning that is the intersection of engineers, ecologists, artists and designers, architects, and story tellers…
© 2009, Michael Mark
Grander Technology on the Farm
An organism is like a constellation of connected, coupled, regenerative processes. It’s like a symphony, a network, a hologram, a computer, a library, and a never-ending, microscopic Big Dig meets the Hoover Dam construction project permeated by the Immune System’s ever vigilant seek-the-Interloper-and-destroy-It programme. The interconnectedness of forms and functions within an organism is a timeless wonder of the natural world. It does, however, make troubleshooting somewhat complicated.
Unlike factories, which rely on the simplest machinery possible to accomplish a trivially small set of functions, farms utilize large arrays of the above described complexifying processes we call organisms. They transform earth, sun, and water into miraculous, un-inventable products like legumes, purple-colored vegetables, hay, and kiefer. When factories break, they are relatively straightforward to repair, (which is not to say it is ever easy in practice). Organisms, on the other hand, don’t really break per se, but they can fail to produce optimal yields in any number of confounding ways. And this is where it gets complicated.
Farmers don’t want surviving, they want thriving.
Herculean efforts have been made to reduce this problem of sub-optimal production to its molecular underpinnings. Add or subtract the right amount of a particular vitamin, ion, mineral, fat, enzyme, gene, or cofactor, and the organism should work. It should. You would think, anyway. The prevention of scurvy with Vitamin C connotes the merits of this strategy, and firmly esconces it into our solution database.
As powerful as this strategy is, however, it can only carry us so far. I offer, for now, two (2) reasons why- one highly theoretical in nature and one more Naturally practical.
First, if you examine this approach carefully, you will see it is based upon the model of the factory. If you want to build a widget containing six hundred and seventy two parts or components, you need every single one of those parts and pieces each and every time you build that widget. No exceptions. If your factory is deficient in just one part, you have a capitalist’s nightmare on your hands. Having the right mix of parts on the shelf is thus critical. Since an organism is very different from a machine in a number of clever and significant ways, however, the mental model of machine assembly will be decisively limited in its explanatory and trouble-shooting powers beyond a certain point.
For instance, an organism is also an extensive communication network and information-processing system. If internal communications are disrupted or poor decisions made in the face of environmental challenges, the farmer will be dissatisfied.
Also, organisms can get tired, and, frankly, often must be kept warm for best results. Their physical properties may also be confoundingly related to their emotional states.
Secondly and practically, all of the aforementioned biomolecular components are activated within, and possibly by, water- which as you may have noticed is sorely missing from the Proper Stocking of Biomaterials Game Plan. (Water doesn’t work like a machine, either, by the way.) Water wears many hats within the organism, and the reader is encouraged to peruse this blog for additional information about water’s perspicacities.
Immunity presents us with an ideal talking point around these topics. Here is a great page from the Government of Alberta, Canada, discussing the relationship between immunity, nutrition, and stress in cows. This page highlights the fact that nutritional needs evolve as organisms re-prioritize their metabolic outputs. (Machines don’t do that.) There’s also this enigma called stress…
The economically important clinical signs, lesions, and death loss in shipping fever usually can be attributed to bacterial pneumonia due to Pasteurella haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, or Haemophilus somnus. These bacteria are common in the nasopharyngeal area of healthy cattle. Lungs of normal healthy cattle can resist challenge from surprisingly large numbers of bacteria. But when the animal is stressed, has a respiratory viral infection, coccidiosis, or is otherwise immunosuppressed, relatively small numbers of bacteria can result in pneumonia.
(Note: Readers who enjoyed this quote also liked this blog entry.)
The quote above is an indirect way of saying the situation is complicated. The bacteria that cause disease are present in both healthy and unhealthy cows, but other factors like ”stress” result in the evolution of the diseased state. Now, hold that thought, and let’s look at the specific problem of hoof warts, or digital papillomatosis, (PDF). This growing problem in dairy cows is caused by bacteria, and thus represents a challenge to their immune systems. It is also highly contagious, and can spread throughout a barn once it gets going. As noted in the links, treatment is a “pick your poison” situation- there is no one simple, clean, repeatable solution.
Certainly proper nutrition will help to keep a cow “strong” and less predisposed to have a problem. But what about drinking better water?
We worked with a dairy farmer in Washington State who had a problem with hoof warts. Roughly 8-10 cows required treatments every 2 weeks, but after paying attention to the water the number dropped down to about 1 cow every 8 weeks. This “paying attention to the water” business involved installation of a Grander Technology system, as well as a review of the chemical and biological factors of the source water.
The main goals when working with water are to ensure that a) the water is not a carrier of microbiological stress such as pathogenic bacteria, viruses, or fungi; b) the water is not a carrier of chemical stresses; c) the mineral content and ion balance of the water has been reviewed in the context of the composition of the feed or fertilization systems themselves; and d) ensure the water’s internal energetic and structural properties are optimized to support living processes.
We accomplish the latter with Grander Technology, and it is key to the success of the overall troubleshooting process. It is like a catalyst that brings out the best in the organism and in all other solutions offered. We wouldn’t need to do this if organisms were simply machines, but they are not. They are self-regenerating, non-equilibrium systems of dynamic processes maintained coincident with motile reserves of chemical and energetic potentials. They are coordinated by vast flows of energy, chemical potential, and information. And all of that is carried around in a water bath- an organized water system that activates, potentiates, absorbs, donates, rearranges, and structures.
As physicist Eshel Ben Jacob has said, “We have to rethink the way we treat our water… the fact that we are so un-careful about the treatment of water can cause the water that we have to become non-suitable, or stressful to organic systems.”
The goal when working with organisms is always to reduce stress so they can perform optimally. Water may indeed be a carrier of stress, or, in the optimal condition, a profound resource used by the organism to overcome stress.
© 2009, Michael Mark
