Fostertom,

Yes, but what of grey water use

P.S. after my extensive reading and watching my wife endure treatment for cancer I would never allow radio or chemotherapy to be used on me.

Let's test. Sheldrake. Bohm. In-his-prime Lovelock. What's the reaction - are these 'crap'? If so, then I'm in good company.

Posted By: JSHarristhe issue is over making definitive statements about homoeopathy, "resonance", "intentionality" etc that are not definitive (i.e. they have not been shown to be the cause of an observed effect)

I've said often enough that I'm just hypothesising - longing for respected peers to (temporarily) enter into a 'what-if' on its own terms, explore what it might mean, quite likely say something that will change my mind (often does, in this 'university of the air'). Is it something in my style that looks like definitiveness? True, the 'what-ifs' are not just random stirrers, but have weight as things that, to me, offer explanation across a correlation of my and others' personal experiences and things read etc.

Posted By: JSHarrisNo one is likely to argue against the principle that belief and faith are powerful methods of producing curative or positive (or in the case of voodoo, negative) effects. It's the use of pretend pseudo-scientific explanations for cause that tends to wind rational people up.

But when Science won't touch such subjects with a bargepole, except (despite admission that real, powerful effects are at work) with strong Intention to disprove or demean them, what to do?

It's OK for Science to say it can't handle such stuff (leave it to others) but not OK to proceed from that, to saying that only stuff that Science can handle is real, the rest is offensive rubbish.

And I don't accept that Science can't look into anything at all that actually happens in the universe - it's just a latter-day rigidity that refuses. The Natural Philosophers in their Victorian heyday of boundless curiosity must be spinning in their graves. They had no trouble reconciling Science and Christianity, for example - how can modern Scientists be Christians (as some are) whilst denying anything else 'spooky'?

And as a mere A-level physicist I am allowed to use any language I choose, and hope that proper scientists may respectfully help me improve my understanding and terminology.

Posted By: JSHarrisWhat's wrong with just accepting that faith and belief are powerful methods of affecting health and well-being on their own? Why dress them up with stuff that's misleading?

Why not try to understand scientifically what's happening? Why this apartheid?

OK fair enough - but someone else made a homeopathy 'joke' and I couldn't resist.

I find it hard to believe that bath water is really so full of dangerous toxins. I guess that if chemically stable, and soluble, no prob, as it will be diluted and washed through by rain (but not in a polytunnel). Other chemicals e.g. detergents might do strange reactions in the soil, and might not be soluble, so might build up.

Our veg garden is where it is, on a bit of what used to be virgin field, because they'd conveniently broken the ground to renew the soakaway pipes from the old brick so-called septic tank, which I doubt does much organic decomposition, never needs emptying, so must be passing everything (grey and 'black' water) down thro our vegs' root-zone. Yum yum.