Register to reply

Negative ions effect benefit on the body ?

by lnsanity
Tags: body, effect, ions, negative
Share this thread:
lnsanity
#1
Sep30-11, 01:01 PM
P: 32
Negative ions effect benefit on the body ?

I saw many claim on the internet by company selling bracelet, necklace and insole that emit negative ion using volcanic ash,tourmaline or a mixture of many mineral.

They claim negative ion research stating increase energy, deeper sleep, more focus, increased alertness, better balance, improved circulation, faster recovery, enhanced strength, better flexibility, improved response, stabilized blood pressure, reduced fatigue, boosted immune system, reduced stress, arthritis relief, faster muscle repair, aid in relaxation, greater well being.

Can someone point me out to any study on ions effect on the body ? I read that the ministry of health in Japan as officially approve those kind of bracelet for there therapeutic effect and personally I did some balance test and felt a huge difference in my balance and trust me I exercise every day and do balance training every other day so I am kind of very accomplished in that field to be able to distinguish any tricks.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Experts defend operational earthquake forecasting, counter critiques
EU urged to convert TV frequencies to mobile broadband
Sierra Nevada freshwater runoff could drop 26 percent by 2100
Ryan_m_b
#2
Sep30-11, 01:47 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
It's all rubbish. Anything that claims to be such a panacea is definitely crap, moreover ions both positive and negative are a regular feature of bodily biochemistry. As for the Ministry of Health in Japan that's just another depressing example of how politicians will do anything for votes; other examples include astrology being rated a science by the Indian government and the UK National Health Service paying for homeopathic remedies in some places.

If you want to look into this kind of thing just look at what results terms like "Negative Ion Therapy" get from peer-reviewed publication databases like google scholar and pubmed. There's a whole lot of research, literally millions of man-hours regarding ions in biology but nothing that points out the supposedly magic fact that negative ions can cure almost anything.
Evo
#3
Sep30-11, 01:51 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,560
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
It's all rubbish. Anything that claims to be such a panacea is definitely crap, moreover ions both positive and negative are a regular feature of bodily biochemistry. As for the Ministry of Health in Japan that's just another depressing example of how politicians will do anything for votes; other examples include astrology being rated a science by the Indian government and the UK National Health Service paying for homeopathic remedies in some places.

If you want to look into this kind of thing just look at what results terms like "Negative Ion Therapy" get from peer-reviewed publication databases like google scholar and pubmed. There's a whole lot of research, literally millions of man-hours regarding ions in biology but nothing that points out the supposedly magic fact that negative ions can cure almost anything.
Not to mention it's a bracelet or necklace.

Greg Bernhardt
#4
Sep30-11, 01:54 PM
Admin
Greg Bernhardt's Avatar
P: 9,578
Negative ions effect benefit on the body ?

We have a few threads already in the product claims sub forum.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=167338
Ryan_m_b
#5
Sep30-11, 01:56 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Not to mention it's a bracelet or necklace.
Indeed! To add to that ions are simply any charged atom and they have hugely different effects depending on what they are and where in the body they are placed. Cobalt ions for instance activate the hypoxia pathway as do strontium but mercury, sodium or iron definitely wouldn't do the same. Typical depressing snake-oil using technical sounding words to sell absolute rubbish to sick people or people who care for their health. It should be illegal and the penalty should be severe.
Jack21222
#6
Sep30-11, 03:22 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
Indeed! To add to that ions are simply any charged atom and they have hugely different effects depending on what they are and where in the body they are placed. Cobalt ions for instance activate the hypoxia pathway as do strontium but mercury, sodium or iron definitely wouldn't do the same. Typical depressing snake-oil using technical sounding words to sell absolute rubbish to sick people or people who care for their health. It should be illegal and the penalty should be severe.
I've already reported one company to the FTC for false advertising, I recommend others do the same. I don't have too much hope that they'll do anything, but they DID shut down the Q-Ray bracelet scam a few years back.

Here's a link if you want to submit a complaint: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

And for inspiration, here's a link to the FTC smackdown of Q-Ray:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/01/qray.shtm

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has upheld a district court ruling requiring marketers of the “Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet” to give up almost $16 million in net profits as part of a maximum $87 million they must pay in refunds to consumers.
Ryan_m_b
#7
Sep30-11, 03:26 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Wrong country I'm afraid, I'm British. There are bodies to complain to, I just wish that there was a stronger incentive to enforce the law. Where I live there are several Chinese and Herbal medicine shops nearby. They advertise to be able to cure pretty much everything but there's very little law enforcement. Unless someone gets hurt it's left alone.
Jack21222
#8
Sep30-11, 03:38 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
Wrong country I'm afraid, I'm British. There are bodies to complain to, I just wish that there was a stronger incentive to enforce the law. Where I live there are several Chinese and Herbal medicine shops nearby. They advertise to be able to cure pretty much everything but there's very little law enforcement. Unless someone gets hurt it's left alone.
Ah, I'm sorry. And it's a shame you can't even speak up for the actual science behind why the claims are crap, because the British libel laws suck. Just ask Simon Singh.
Ryan_m_b
#9
Sep30-11, 03:47 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Quote Quote by Jack21222 View Post
Ah, I'm sorry. And it's a shame you can't even speak up for the actual science behind why the claims are crap, because the British libel laws suck. Just ask Simon Singh.
Oh no you absolutely can. The law allows anyone to sue but unless they can prove in court that what was said is not true the case will fail, as in the case of Simon Singh (initially the claim of libel was upheld on the technicality that Singh implied that every chiropractor was deliberately dishonest [something he couldn't technically prove and the judge ruled was not phrased as opinion] but this weak ruling was overturned in the Court of Appeal as it rightly would be).

Regarding his case I actually rather enjoyed that, the fact that they sued him meant that every news channel and paper followed the story for weeks. This hugely boosted publicity of the issue way ahead of what Simon Singh would have got without it. It was a great example of the Streisand Effect offline.
riezer
#10
Oct1-11, 03:24 AM
P: 59
What do you fellows think of the following explanations from the forword of the new book "Energy Medicine East and West" with each paragraph written by different scientists. The whole thick book with over a hundred thousand paragraphs describes how this new science works. Sorry for quoting 3 paragraphs but in this times when the ministry of Japan believes in it. It needs the full scrunity of scientists like you. Just read the book for the rest of the explanation. But please comment if you think the following makes sense.

J. Oschman wrote:

It has now been demonstrated that electrons are indeed moving about within
the body. Barefoot contact with the earth, sometimes referred to as ‘earthing’,
allows mobile electrons from the surface of our planet – nature’s own antioxidants [19] – to enter our bodies and migrate to sites of inflammation. The process can often be felt as a warming or tingling in the legs by a person who has not been in contact with the earth for a long time and who then stands barefoot on it. These feelings are caused by the dilation of blood vessels in the legs, and thinning of the blood brought about by the increase in negative charge on the surfaces of the blood cells and vascular walls. This negativity (the ‘zeta potential’) increases as electrons from the earth enter the body through the feet or any other part of the body in contact with the earth (Chevalier, et al submitted for publication, 2010). The process can also be monitored with medical infrared imaging, which reveals areas of inflammation because they are warmer than surrounding tissues. Parts of the body that have been inflamed for a long time, such as muscles or joints, will warm dramatically within minutes of conductive contact with the earth [20]. It is only in recent times that our shoes, with their insulating soles made of plastic or rubber, and our contemporary homes and buildings have disconnected us from the earth. This seemingly harmless or even beneficial change in our lifestyle has had a dramatic impact on the incidence of chronic diseases associated with inflammation.

Earthing has now become the topic of careful study by more than a dozen scientists from the USA and Canada [21], and has recently been confirmed by an entirely independent group in Poland [22]. Chevalier and Mori [23], for example, have found that the bottoms of the feet are especially conductive at the region around the point known in the acupuncture literature as Kidney 1 (yongquan, KI-1), allowing electrons from the earth to pass through the skin there. They are then distributed throughout the human body from this point, which connects to the Kidney and Bladder meridians and thence to all of the other meridians via the luo meridians that traverse the whole body and that spirally wrap the internal organs by coursing through their fascial envelopes [12] (and [9, p 142]). Electrons can thus be conducted from the Kidney meridian to a site of injury or inflammation anywhere in the body.

The electronic properties of the living matrix allow electrons from the earth, or from electron ‘reservoirs’ in the body (the ground substance), to protect healthy tissue from damage by reactive oxygen species (ROS, sometimes referred to as ‘free radicals’) that can occur as a result of normal metabolism, injury, or exposure to toxins or pollutants. When charged with electrons from the earth, the ground substance can thus keep the body in a state of inflammatory preparedness. This is a whole system condition that enables the immune system to respond quickly to injury by secretion of ROS into an injured area while preventing damage to nearby healthy tissues that have not been injured. In this concept, a healthy conductive matrix around a site of injury, and the entire meridian system, have active roles in the healing process by limiting the spread of damage.
Ryan_m_b
#11
Oct1-11, 04:40 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Quote Quote by riezer View Post
What do you fellows think of the following explanations from the forword of the new book "Energy Medicine East and West" with each paragraph written by different scientists. The whole thick book with over a hundred thousand paragraphs describes how this new science works. Sorry for quoting 3 paragraphs but in this times when the ministry of Japan believes in it. It needs the full scrunity of scientists like you. Just read the book for the rest of the explanation. But please comment if you think the following makes sense.

J. Oschman wrote:
I really don't have time to go through all of this but everything in that quote is complete bunk. For example when it mentions that electrons flow freely in the body (of course, we have electrochemical reactions inside us and we've known that for decades), it mentions that catch-all of pseudo-science antioxides and it suggests that contact with the Earth speeds up recovery.

Anyone can write a book and say it's written by scientists. Hell, the discovery institute do that all the time. To be science however it has to be founded on data. It needs peer-reviewed, published data from well designed experimentation.

I would advise reading Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" of just going to his website. He covers and debunks a whole range of issues and talks about the important difference between science and people just writing science sounding words.
riezer
#12
Oct1-11, 05:00 AM
P: 59
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
I really don't have time to go through all of this but everything in that quote is complete bunk. For example when it mentions that electrons flow freely in the body (of course, we have electrochemical reactions inside us and we've known that for decades), it mentions that catch-all of pseudo-science antioxides and it suggests that contact with the Earth speeds up recovery.

Anyone can write a book and say it's written by scientists. Hell, the discovery institute do that all the time. To be science however it has to be founded on data. It needs peer-reviewed, published data from well designed experimentation.

I would advise reading Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" of just going to his website. He covers and debunks a whole range of issues and talks about the important difference between science and people just writing science sounding words.
It has to do with this mysterious thing called Qi. The book attempts to tackle it but the authors admit they still don't know what really is it because it may be 22th century physics so they have to go into all sorts of speculations ranging from some of the authors thinking it is really oxidative respiration to some thinking it may be Bohm quantum potential. Some authors think they are just negative ions and this is the reason for this thread question because some theorize it thus.

You may state the obvious that qi may just be nothing. Well. If you study the literature and have personal hands-on of it. You will realize that it is some kind of conscious energy that is not yet described in our current physics. Qi is related to sentience and consciousness. Qi is related to new field called conscious field and since the dawn of civilization people deal and handle it in all sorts of ways. There is a chapter in the book which speculates qi may be simply an aspect or energy aspect of Bohm Implicate Order. And Etc. Ponder on all this.

"In every culture and in every medical tradition before ours, healing was accomplished by moving energy" - Nobel Prize Laureate Albert Szent-Györgyi
Ryan_m_b
#13
Oct1-11, 05:27 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Quote Quote by riezer View Post
It has to do with this mysterious thing called Qi....
There's a reason pseudo-science has the preffix, it's because it has not one shred of repeatable evidence, conflicts with what we already know and has little internal consistency. Trust me, you would do better to read a book like Bad Science so that in future you can separate pseudo-science from real science.

When confronted with any claim there are two things that should be asked first: What is it and how do you know it exists? If they can definite it consistently and concisely (i.e. not vague terms like "energy" and "consciousness") and provide you with reproducible, objective data that's been published peer-reviewed then great, if not it's most likely rubbish. Especially if they start adding phrases like "this is 22nd century physics" (that doesn't mean anything unless they have a time machine) or "ancient cultures have known about this" (then why can't millions of man hours of dedicated research find any indication of it?) or "science is constricting and dogmatic, you have to open your mind" (rubbish, science is the pursuit of truth through empirical reasoning and can be applied to anything) etc etc etc.

One last thing to ask yourself; When confronted with any medical claim, especially one that claims to cure so many varied conditions, ask why it is that this medicine hasn't been tested, proved, patented, improved and solved. If you can't answer that without resorting to a conspiracy theory that's another indication that what you are dealing with is nonsense.
Jack21222
#14
Oct1-11, 07:08 AM
P: 772
Quote Quote by riezer View Post
"In every culture and in every medical tradition before ours, healing was accomplished by moving energy" - Nobel Prize Laureate Albert Szent-Györgyi
I'd be interested in seeing the rest of that quote. That sounds like something I'd say as a preface... followed up with "But now, we have tools that ACTUALLY work." I've been googling for 10 minutes, and I can't find any context for that quote.

The problem with quote mining is you can take words out of context, and flip them to mean the exact opposite of what the author was saying. And even if the person WAS trying to promote "energy healing," the fact that he won a Nobel prize is meaningless. It doesn't matter who makes a guess in science, the only thing that matters is if that guess conforms to the data.

There is absolutely zero credible evidence about energy healing. None.
riezer
#15
Oct1-11, 07:09 AM
P: 59
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
There's a reason pseudo-science has the preffix, it's because it has not one shred of repeatable evidence, conflicts with what we already know and has little internal consistency. Trust me, you would do better to read a book like Bad Science so that in future you can separate pseudo-science from real science.

When confronted with any claim there are two things that should be asked first: What is it and how do you know it exists? If they can definite it consistently and concisely (i.e. not vague terms like "energy" and "consciousness") and provide you with reproducible, objective data that's been published peer-reviewed then great, if not it's most likely rubbish. Especially if they start adding phrases like "this is 22nd century physics" (that doesn't mean anything unless they have a time machine) or "ancient cultures have known about this" (then why can't millions of man hours of dedicated research find any indication of it?) or "science is constricting and dogmatic, you have to open your mind" (rubbish, science is the pursuit of truth through empirical reasoning and can be applied to anything) etc etc etc.

One last thing to ask yourself; When confronted with any medical claim, especially one that claims to cure so many varied conditions, ask why it is that this medicine hasn't been tested, proved, patented, improved and solved. If you can't answer that without resorting to a conspiracy theory that's another indication that what you are dealing with is nonsense.
To follow forum rules.. I know one must only have discussion where we discuss what their predictions are and what science says.

Ok. So what are the predictions of "qi" and what does science says about it.

Qi predicts that when we feel emotion or have any feelings. We are dealing with "conscious energy".
Here Qi doesn't claim to explain curing cancer or other diseases. It only deals with the qualia of being alive and the corresponding health connections. And Qi claim that when you are full of life and vibrant.. your Qi is optimal which causes the immune system to be optimal and everyone knows that nothing beat the immune system in fighting diseases. The immune system is our most powerful ally

What does science say about Qi.

Well. Science doesn't deal with emotions or feelings or qualia or subjective experience. So it doesn't have anything to say about it, other than saying Qi is pseudo-science.

Science put Qi, Bohm Implicate Order, and other stuff they don't want to deal in the sidelines and trash.

Now experimental support. Does Qi have any experimental support? Many.. but unfortunately not peer reviewed (because no official scientists want to have anything to do with it)... although many underground groups in China, France, Europe, etc. are studying it fully.

This is what is Qi and what are its predictions and what science says about it.
Jack21222
#16
Oct1-11, 07:18 AM
P: 772
Quote Quote by riezer View Post
To follow forum rules.. I know one must only have discussion where we discuss what their predictions are and what science says.

Ok. So what are the predictions of "qi" and what does science says about it.

Qi predicts that when we feel emotion or have any feelings. We are dealing with "conscious energy".
That's not a prediction. It's trivial to predict things after the fact. What future predictions does Qi make? And are the claims falsifiable? (That is to say, is there ANY possible outcome in which you would say "wow, Qi doesn't predict that, maybe Qi is wrong.) If there is no such possible outcome, there's no sense in even talking to you.


What does science say about Qi.

Well. Science doesn't deal with emotions or feelings or qualia or subjective experience.
YES IT DOES. Holy crap, have you never heard of neurobiology before? Or psychology? There are ENTIRE FIELDS of science dedicated to the study of emotions.


So it doesn't have anything to say about it, other than saying Qi is pseudo-science.

Science put Qi, Bohm Implicate Order, and other stuff they don't want to deal in the sidelines and trash.
There's a reason for that. Scientists don't want to deal with that because they offer no mechanism, make no predictions, and have no evidence.

Now experimental support. Does Qi have any experimental support? Many.. but unfortunately not peer reviewed (because no official scientists want to have anything to do with it)... although many underground groups in China, France, Europe, etc. are studying it fully.

This is what is Qi and what are its predictions and what science says about it.
Oh, it's those darn closed-minded scientists and their conspiracy to keep Qi out of the scientific literature. Right.

The nice thing about science is that even if a scientist thinks a hypothesis is completely wrong, if the evidence keeps piling up in its favor, he or she will pretty much have to come around and acknowledge it. Science is FULL of situations where an implausible hypothesis has come to be accepted.

Your hand-wavy mystic stuff doesn't reach that threshold.
Ryan_m_b
#17
Oct1-11, 07:21 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,477
Quote Quote by riezer View Post
To follow forum rules.. I know one must only have discussion where we discuss what their predictions are and what science says.

Ok. So what are the predictions of "qi" and what does science says about it.

Qi predicts that when we feel emotion or have any feelings. We are dealing with "conscious energy".
Here Qi doesn't claim to explain curing cancer or other diseases. It only deals with the qualia of being alive and the corresponding health connections. And Qi claim that when you are full of life and vibrant.. your Qi is optimal which causes the immune system to be optimal and everyone knows that nothing beat the immune system in fighting diseases. The immune system is our most powerful ally

What does science say about Qi.

Well. Science doesn't deal with emotions or feelings or qualia or subjective experience. So it doesn't have anything to say about it, other than saying Qi is pseudo-science.

Science put Qi, Bohm Implicate Order, and other stuff they don't want to deal in the sidelines and trash.

Now experimental support. Does Qi have any experimental support? Many.. but unfortunately not peer reviewed (because no official scientists want to have anything to do with it)... although many underground groups in China, France, Europe, etc. are studying it fully.

This is what is Qi and what are its predictions and what science says about it.
Ok so where is any evidence for this? It's one thing to say that Qi is responsible for X, Y and Z but how do you know? What is the definition of "Qi". At the moment all I've ever been presented with is very vague descriptions that is "energy" or "life force". In reality it just sounds like old fashioned ideas relating to spirits but with new technobabble attached.

Science does deal with emotions, feelings and even qualia. Those are covered by fields like behavioural psychology and cognitive neuroscience, regarding qualia specifically this is what we call in science the hard problem of consciousness and relates to how subjective experience arises. Immunology is obviously a huge field so we have a lot of knowledge there. The reason science has little to say on things like Qi (other than they are bunk) is that they make predictions that when tested are shown to be false. We have a wealth of knowledge regarding the proper functioning of the immune system but not once have we found anything to suggest that some sort of ethereal conscious energy is involved. Don't you think it's strange that out of the millions of man hours of research in the fields of biology and medicine that we've never once found anything that looks like this? But we've always found that chemistry is ultimately responsible?

I don't mean to come off as rude here but have you actually read up on any of this stuff? You're coming across as someone who has only ever read a book on Qi and is regurgitating it. Why don't you go and read a science book on a subject when you hear that Qi is responsible. Instead of believing that Qi exists and is responsible for health why not buy a book on immunology, or a book on nutrition (written by a dietitian not a nutritionist) or a book on psychology, neuroscience and consciousness? You'll find that real life is infinitely more complex and fascinating than "magic does it".
Jack21222
#18
Oct1-11, 07:30 AM
P: 772
riezer:

You might want to read this article by Karl Popper about what a scientific claim is, and then you can tell me how you think Qi qualifies:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/...ification.html

Read the whole thing, but here is an important part:

# It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.

# Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

# Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

# A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

# Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

# Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

# Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")


Register to reply

Related Discussions
How does tourmaline produce negative ions ? General Physics 1
Is Photoelectric effect on ATOMIC ions possible? Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics 14
Effect of dissociation energy on plasma ions behavior Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics 3
Negative oxygen ions reaction with hydrogen Chemistry 12
Negative ions General Discussion 7