Latest / Common Sense Health / What they don't teach you about water

Transcript

What they don't teach you about water · Common Sense Health

• Stephen: Hello. Now, water is one of those subjects that sounds boring until you look at it properly. And then it suddenly turns into the molecular equivalent of that quiet bloke at the pub who, after three hours of saying nothing, casually mentions he used to be in the SAS. We think we know water because we drink it, we bathe in it, boil vegetables in it, if you still do that sort of thing, and occasionally complain about it falling from the sky. It is just H2O, isn't it? two hydrogens, one oxygen, job done, chemistry, GCSE. Catalon, move along. Except water is not behaving like a simple little liquid that knows its place. It expands when it freezes, ice floats, it reaches its maximum density around four degrees Celsius, it climbs up tiny tubes, it forms clouds and droplets and waves and snowflakes and steam and tears and blood plasma. And in Britain, approximately 87 % of the summer holiday experience involves water. And then there is the slightly awkward fact that while the human body is often described as being about two thirds water by mass, if you count actual molecules, water may account for around 99 % of the molecules in your body. And that is because water molecules are tiny. So in molecular democracy terms, you are not mostly protein, fat, bone, collagen, or the emotional residue of the last tax bill. You are mostly water. Which does raise the question, if you're 99 % of your body is water, perhaps water is doing a bit more than simply sloshing around like a biological paddling pool. And this is where things, I think, get very interesting. Or, depending on your personality type, dangerous. Because... Once you start talking about structured water, charged water, full phase water and water storing energy from light, you are never more than seven seconds away from someone trying to sell you a $500 glass bottle with a crystal glue to the bottom. So let us be careful. Let us neither dismiss the whole topic with a smug wave of the hand nor gallop off into the meadow wearing our hemp trousers and shouting that tap water has low self-esteem. Let us look at the science, the speculation. the weird experiments and the very real possibility that water is far stranger than we were taught. Now the standard school version is beautifully simple. Water has three main phases ice when water molecules organize into a solid structure, liquid water when the molecules are mobile but still strongly interacting and water vapor when they are flying around as a gas, presumably enjoying their freedom. This is the tidy version. It is a version that fits neatly into textbooks, exam questions and educational posters, featuring cheerful cartoon molecules. But real water is actually annoyingly complicated. Liquid water is not simply a random soup of identical H2O molecules bumping into one another like shoppers in a supermarket before Christmas. Water molecules form fleeting networks through hydrogen bonds. These bonds are constantly forming and breaking and rearranging and reforming. Imagine a ballroom dance where everyone changes partners billions of times per second and somehow nobody drops the volant. This is one reason water has such odd properties. The molecules are small, they're polar, electrically uneven and socially clinging. They are not simply individual units. They are constantly interacting. One of the most interesting areas of research suggests that liquid water may not be molecularly uniform. Instead, may behave as if it contains two different local structures that constantly shift into one another. One proposed structure is a high density form, which is more tightly packed and more disordered. The other is a low density form, more open, more ordered and somewhat more spacious at the molecular level. Now, importantly, this does not mean that you can pour a glass of water and see two different liquids separating out like oil and vinegar. This is not water with a top layer and a bottom layer. unless your kitchen is significantly more advanced than mine. It means that at the molecular level, water may contain different local arrangements that are constantly transforming. Now, a recent Nature Physics paper reported molecular level evidence supporting this two state model using large scale simulations and unsupervised machine learning to identify two local structural forms in liquid water. The researchers looked at enormous numbers of molecular configurations and found patterns consistent with dense, disordered water and less dense, more ordered water. That is pretty exciting. We should apply this ⁓ with our usual common sense filter though. This is not the final word basically. Much of this work involves simulations and the most dramatic liquid-liquid transition behaviour is thought to occur in conditions that are awkward to study directly, like such as supercooled water. where it often freezes before scientists can interrogate it properly. Water, it seems, is not only weird, it's also evasive, like a witness in a parliamentary inquiry. And then we enter the more controversial part. Dr. Gerard Pollock, a professor of bioengineering, has argued for years that water has a full phase beyond solid, liquid and vapour. He calls this exclusion zone water or EZ water. The basic observation is this. When water sits next to certain hydrophilic surfaces, which simply means surfaces that like water, particles in the water move away from that surface creating a particle-free zone. Now this particle-free region is called an exclusion zone because it appears to exclude things such as microspheres and solutes and other suspended material. Pollock's laboratory has argued that this water is more ordered, more sort of gel-like. It's negatively charged and distinct from ordinary bulk water. His group proposes that the surrounding water becomes relatively positively charged, creating a form of charge separation, a bit like a tiny battery. Now, at this point, the mainstream chemist at the back of the room has put down his coffee. And rightly so. The strongest version of this full phase idea is not universally accepted in mainstream chemistry. A sensible position here is to separate observation from interpretation. Now, there is a big difference between saying interesting exclusion zones have been observed near hydrophilic surfaces and saying we have fully proven an entirely new phase of water and now your drinking water needs to sunbathe next to a quartz pyramid. You know, the first is scientifically interesting. The second is how you end up at a wellness retreat being charged $27 for a glass of water that has remembered it used to belong to Atlantis. So let us keep our feet on the ground or at least on something less expensive than the ground in Matt. Now Pollux claim is that easy water forms next to hydrophilic surfaces and separates charge. In his model, the easy region becomes relatively negative while the surrounding bulk water becomes relatively positive. Now, this separation creates electrical potential light, especially infrared energy may expand the easy region. Therefore, water in the surfaces may absorb radiant energy and convert it into a charge separation. This is a very bold idea. It's not completely ridiculous in principle either. Biological systems are full of charge separation. Cell membranes depend on electrical gradients. Mitochondria run on proton gradients. nerves, fire ion movements. So ⁓ blood cells and and membranes are not neutral little marbles floating in a bath. ⁓ They are electrochemical So the idea that water near biological surfaces might behave differently from bulk water in a glass is not really outrageous. In fact, it would be more surprising if water behaved identically in every environment. Water inside a cell is not sitting in a pint glass with a paper umbrella in it. It is packed along proteins, membranes, cytoskeletal structures, ions, DNA, RNA and surfaces literally everywhere. It is intimate. crowded and electrically active. In other words, cellular water is less like a swimming pool and more like a rush hour traffic jam in central London with the included hydrogen bonds. Now, one of the strangest water experiments is the floating water bridge. In this experiment, two beakers of water are placed near each other and high voltage is applied. Under the right conditions, a thin bridge of water can form between the beakers and remain suspended across the gap. Some demonstrations report bridges extending several centimetres, around four centimetres is often discussed as an impressive range, and the stability of the bridge depends on factors such as voltage, purity, conductivity, and electrolyte conditions. Studies have looked at how adding electrolytes, such as sodium chloride or sodium hydroxide, changes the behaviour of the bridge, including its flow direction and stability. And it does look deeply wrong. Water is supposed to fall, isn't it? That is one of the core responsibilities of it. Even if water starts ignoring gravity, frankly, you know, what are we doing? There has been debate over exactly what holds the bridge together. Electric fields, surface tension, dielectric forces, fluid flow and molecular ordering have all been discussed. Pollock's interpretation is that structured water or EZ like ordering may help explain the bridge's stiffness. That remains debated, but the experiment itself is real and wonderfully odd. It is the sort of thing that reminds us that water is not simply wet stuff. It is electrically responsive, structurally dynamic and occasionally behaves like it has had enough of our assumptions. Another intriguing observation involves water flowing through hydrophilic tubes. Pollock's group has collaborators that have reported sustained flow through hydrophilic tubes, which are immersed in water. even in no external pressure gradient was applied. In some experience, tiny particles inside the water can be seen moving through these tubes as if something is driving the flow. The proposed explanation is that easy formation along the tube surface separates the charge and the result in electrical and chemical gradients may contribute to the movement. Now, again, we must stay sensible. This does not mean your garden hose is secretly conscious. Nor does it mean the water in your pipes is yearning for personal development, but it does raise an interesting biological question. If water can move through hydrophilic micro tubes under certain conditions and if biological vessels contain water loving surfaces, could similar effects contribute to flow in very tiny spaces? And that brings me to blood. So red blood cells are astonishing. They are usually around seven to eight micrometers across. They are able to regularly squeeze through capillaries that can be narrower than they are. Some capillaries are only around three to four micrometers wide, meaning red blood cells must deform dramatically to pass through them. This is not a minor detail. It is central to life. Red blood cells must bend, fold, elongate and squeeze through tiny vessels while carrying oxygen and carbon dioxide. If they become too rigid, circulation suffers. Red blood cell deformability is therefore essential for microcirculation. The conventional explanation involves cell membrane flexibility, cytoskeletal structure, viscosity, pressure gradients, nitric oxide, ⁓ diameter, plasma properties, and the pumping action of the heart. Well, that is already quite a complex picture, but... ⁓ Pollock and others have speculated that structured water and charge effects may provide another piece of the puzzle, especially in the smallest vessels where ordinary pressure flow assumptions become more complicated. This is where I think the easy water idea becomes particularly interesting. Not proven, not settled, but definitely interesting. If hydrophilic surfaces can create exclusion zones and if those zones generate charge separation, And if similar effects can drive or assist flow through small tubes, then perhaps part of the microcirculation is not simply a matter of the heart pushing blood through miles of plumbing. Perhaps some of the movement at the capillary level is helped by local water surface interactions. That's a remarkable idea. It may help explain how red blood cells manage to deform, squeeze and glide through tiny capillaries with such elegance. The red blood cell is not a rigid coin being rammed through a pipe. It is more like a tiny flexible delivery van that can turn itself into a slipper or post itself through a letterbox and still arrive at the parcel intact. And yes, if the Royal Mail could do this, I would be very impressed. Now we come to the part where everyone gets a bit nervous and that's structured water. Few phrases can empty a skeptic's patience faster and understandably so because the term has been used to sell all sorts of mystical nonsense. You can find people claiming that water can be emotionally traumatized. spiritually upgraded, vortexed into enlightenment, or reprogrammed by being exposed to whale song and a motivational quote. Now this is where many sensible people do start to walk away, but perhaps we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater, especially when the bathwater may have an exclusion zone. Pollock's experiment suggests that light, particularly infrared light, may increase easy formation near hydrophilic surfaces. If that is correct, then the idea that water can be charged by sunlight is not automatically absurd. It depends what we mean. If we mean that sunlight may alter the physical and electrochemical behaviour of water near hydrophilic surfaces by increasing the structured exclusion zone, that is a scientific hypothesis definitely worth discussing. If we mean that leaving a jar of water in the sun makes it spiritually superior and able to heal your childhood trauma, Well, that's just another Tuesday on the Internet. The problem is language. think structured water has become a messy phrase in legitimate scientific context. can refer to water molecules behaving differently near surfaces or near membranes or proteins or interfaces in wellness marketing. It can mean we added a spiral shape to the bottle and tripped the price. So, yes, there may be some validity to the idea that sunlight affects water structure under certain conditions. And this is where we need some joined up thinking. We need to be open minded, but don't leave your brain completely unintended. So one of the biggest mistakes in biology is assuming that water inside the body behaves like water in a glass. does not inside the body. Water is near surfaces everywhere. It's near proteins, like I say, membranes, collagen, DNA, charged molecules, ions, tiny vessels and cellular structures. This matters because water near surfaces may behave differently from water in a bowl. Even mainstream chemistry accepts that interfacial water, water near surfaces, can have unusual properties. debate is not whether water near surfaces behaves differently. The debate is how far that difference extends ⁓ how best to describe it and whether Pollock's fourth phase model is the right framework. And that is much ⁓ of a mature conversation than simply shouting woo or miracle from opposite ends of the Internet. And frankly, we need more mature conversations, preferably ones where nobody is wearing a wizard hat unless it is medically necessary. Now, if water is central to cell function and to blood flow, child separation, protein folding, enzyme activity, and microcirculation, then hydration is not just about drinking a set number of liters per day. This does not mean more water is always better. That is another modern mistake. People have been told to drink water almost competitively as though optimal health is achieved by becoming a human aquarium. But water in biology is about context. Minerals matter. Electrolytes matter. Light exposure matters. Food quality matters. Cellular structure matters. Mitochondrial function matters. the physical side matters. It is entirely that the body's with water is less about how water did you drink, ⁓ and more about what is your water doing once it gets in you? That is a more interesting ⁓ and probably a less marketable one, which is always a good sign, by the way. ⁓ So let separate the levels of confidence. ⁓ strongly accepted that water has unusual properties compared with many other small molecules. It is strongly accepted that water molecules form dynamic hydrogen bond networks. It is accepted that water behaves differently near surfaces and interfaces. It is accepted that red blood cells deform dramatically to pass through narrow capillaries and that capillary flow depends on far more than simple plumbing. Then we have the scientifically interesting, but still developing idea that liquid water may involve two local structural states, high density and low density arrangements that interconvert dynamically. Simulations and molecular analysis are providing support for this two state model of water. No experimentation confirmation is still waiting, especially about water in the hydrophilic surfaces, which can show. zone behaviour. ⁓ we have the more speculative or debated ideas. Exclusion zone water as a fully separate full phase, ⁓ proposed ⁓ structure of EZ water. ⁓ water is a major driver of biological energy. ⁓ water explaining blood flow through capillaries, sunlight charging drinking water in a way that reliably produces meaningful health effects. Now that does not mean these ideas are wrong, by the way. It means they are not settled and that is fine. Science is allowed to have a waiting room. My own take is that water is much more interesting than we've given it credit to. The two state model of liquid water is a serious and fascinating area of research. may help explain why water has so many bizarre properties, including its density behavior and the fact that ice floats rather than sinking like a badly planned cocktail ingredient. The easy water theory is more controversial, but I do not think it should be dismissed out of hand. There are real observations involving exclusion zones, hydrophilic surfaces, charge separation, and flow through tiny tubes. The interpretation is where the argument, I think, begins. And when it comes to biology, I find the red blood cell angle particularly compelling as a conversation starter. Red blood cells squeezing through tiny capillaries are already an engineering marvel. If water, structure, and charge effects can contribute even partly to that process, it would lead another layer to our understanding of microcirculation. Not a replacement for the existing physiology, a possible missing piece. That is usually where the best ideas live. Not in overthrowing everything we know, but in adding a bit that makes the rest of it have more sense. Water is not just the boring, clear stuff that comes out of the tap or you get as mineral water in a glass bottle. It is a strange, electrically responsive, structurally dynamic molecule network that appears to behave differently depending on temperature and pressure, surfaces, light, charge and confinement. It may contain two local liquid structures. It may form exclusion zones near hydrophilic surfaces. It may respond to light in ways that deserve further study. It may even play a more active role. rolling blood flow and cellular function much more than we currently appreciate. Or just to put it another way, the thing that you casually spill on your trousers may be one of the most underappreciated substances in biology. So yes, I'm open to the idea that structured water has some scientific validity. I'm also open to the idea that some people have taken that phrase, dressed it up in a caftan, taught it to do a chant and charged you $80 for a bottle. But You know, both things can be true. The sensible position is not blind belief or a reflexive dismissal. It is curiosity with a seatbelt on. And if water really does turn out to be storing energy, organizing itself near biological surfaces, helping tiny blood cells squeeze through capillaries and behaving like a microscopic battery, then perhaps we owe everybody an apology ⁓ before we boil some and make our tea. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed that. That was my sort of overview of of what's happening in the world of studies regarding water. ⁓ Many of you commented that you'd like me to talk about exclusion zone water and all of that. So that was my take on it for the moment. I'm still looking into it. I will be talking about hydrogen water and other things that you can do. Of course, one of the things most commonly I'm asked about is sparkling water compared to flat or, you know, non-sparkly. Sparking water is OK. I do prefer people to get their minerals from mineral water in a glass bottle if possible and the sparkling water, well, that's carbon dioxide, which is put into the water. So once it's in your body, it has to be processed. And obviously once it's in your body, it becomes carbonic acid. And for some people that can cause bloating and it can create effects such as belching, know, burping, as we say in Britain. So sometimes the sparkling water can be problematic, not for everybody, but for the odd person. So anyway, that's my first big video about water, but I will be following it up with a bit more nuance. Anyway, hope you enjoyed it. If you did, thanks for listening. Don't forget to consider liking, sharing and subscribing. And if you've got to the end and you haven't enjoyed it, you think I'm talking out of my rear end and do drop a comment, but don't be derogatory. Actually put some science in there and some comments that I can respond to and add to the debate. Anyway, thanks a lot. Bye.