Slashdot Mirror


Drought Inspires a Boom In Pseudoscience, From Rain Machines To 'Water Witches'

merbs (2708203) writes Across drought-stricken California, farmers are desperate for water. Now, many of them are calling dowsers. These "water witches," draped in dubious pseudoscience or self-assembled mythologies—or both—typically use divining rods and some sort of practiced intuition to "find" water. The professional variety do so for a fee. And business is booming. They're just part of a storied tradition of pseudoscientific hucksters exploiting our thirst for water, with everything from cloudbusters to rainmachines to New Age rituals.

266 comments

  1. 1st post by deadweight · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dowsers? They need THIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

    1. Re:1st post by Stardner · · Score: 0

      Any recommendations for dousing for rational solutions?

    2. Re:1st post by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      On /.? Are you new?

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    3. Re:1st post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Raise the price of water until people use something else? Oh wait, that's the capitalist solution.

    4. Re: 1st post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until people user something else like what? Brawndo?

    5. Re: 1st post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least that has electrolytes, unlike water (like the kind you get out of your toilet).

    6. Re: 1st post by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      I know you guys are circle jerking.

      But: Drip irrigation. Change to less water intensive crops. Desalination. etc etc

      You may now resume your leftist love fest.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:1st post by istartedi · · Score: 1

      That might actually be useful if 1. The person being searched believes it works. 2. The person doing the searching knows how to read the expressions and gestures of the person being searched.

      I'm given to understand that the highly effective Israeli airport security uses that kind of technique, although AFAIK props aren't involved. They ask you a question and it's not so much the answer they're looking for as it is the way you answer.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    8. Re:1st post by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Amazing the TSA doesn't have 100 of these in every airport.

    9. Re: 1st post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Needs capital. Not enough capital available in the banks. Troubles ahead. Selling the farm.

    10. Re:1st post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why do you deserve more money for it and what will these other people do with less money to pay for food, shelter, medical attention ... and other things. Capitalism, it has a solution for everything; move over jungle, new kid in town.

    11. Re:1st post by gl4ss · · Score: 0

      the famed israeli airport security is more along the lines "are you a white jew or a white tourist?" and putting you on further questioning/searches if you are not.

      and the fake devices don't work if 3) the person operating it believes it to work and goes by the beeps. with the claimed operating ranges of the devices for explosives and the operator carrying explosives(bullets) himself it's a bit dubious though how stupid you need to be to believe them to work.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re: 1st post by davester666 · · Score: 2

      Drip Irrigation
      -costs too much to install
      Change to less water intensive crops
      -don't make as much profit
      Desalination
      -desalination plant costs too much

      We need to make the maximum amount of money NOW, before it's too late.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    13. Re:1st post by sjames · · Score: 1

      They would, but nothing says respect my authoriti like a groping and a rapey scan.

    14. Re:1st post by drewsup · · Score: 1

      Say what you want,..
        I watched my stepfather douse a 3 acre plot when our well ran dry, not only did he map the underground routes the water took, he found the best spot to dig, and was able to determine how deep it was within 6 inches, and that well NEVER ran dry, even in the dry-est of summers, as an engineer, I still marvel at this feat.

    15. Re:1st post by flyneye · · Score: 0

      It is a rational enough solution that the military used it successfully in Vietnam to find Charlies tunnels.
      I've actually seen a dowser work, actually seen spots found to drill water, oil and gas wells that paid off!
      Everything is a pseudoscience until some geek FINDS the rationality in it.
      From what I have seen, dowsing involves getting your brain to an alpha state, a relaxed mode and letting what amounts to intuition guide you. Whether the dowser then utilizes an L-shaped rod, a pendulum, a stick, a sausage or whatever is of no matter, as it is only a visual indicator of their "intuition", actuated by their hand.
      Apparently, some abilify themselves to dowse, some just don't get it, and it takes some practice. I suggest tossing a handful of coins around the lawn to practice finding, or identifying your water and sewer lines. I'm not terribly good beyond these excercises, but it has come in handy finding folks their lines so they don't dig into them to plant trees in their yard.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    16. Re:1st post by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      anecdotes aren't evidence. i'd prefer to see some evidence

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    17. Re:1st post by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      I had a forehead smacking moment last year when I mentioned this jokingly last year while camping at a friend's event. I said "They were basically selling dowsing rods for explosives" and one of my friend's pipes in, with all seriousness: "Oh that is fine, dowsing works!".....sigh.....

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    18. Re:1st post by sillybilly · · Score: 2

      A great replacement for water is DM (dihydrogen-monoxide).
      Unfortunately it costs a little bit more than water, but it's more efficient so it's worth the extra cost.

    19. Re:1st post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First-hand accounts are not anecdotes. I believe we call them observations.

    20. Re: 1st post by sillybilly · · Score: 2

      Desalination is great if you got a pond of saltwater ready right next your property, but unfortunately for most people it would require shipping, or infrastructure, or commercial utilities getting into it. Even if commercial utilities can get it done at a low price, they have no reason not to make a profit and rape everyone in the ass with whatever the price the market is willing to bear. The only downward force on the price is your ability to say no to their price, and either live without water or get your water some other way. The get your water some other way is the only option, which in a desert pretty much sucks, unlike, say northeast USA, when you simply dig a hole in the ground, and voila, you just hit the groundwater table. Or just put up rain collector systems. They don't get enough rain in the desert.
      If push comes to shove and you absolutely need to get water lest you die of thirst, the atmophere is never 0% water. Relative humidity seldom drops under 30%, even rarely under 15%. So even at 1% relative humidity, there is water in the air surrounding you, not much but at least a drop, in a desert. At this humidity it will not form a cloud and start a rain, but it's still possible to extract, as long as you are economical about your temperature recouperation. Basically, you need a device similar to liquid air manufacturing, except instead of liquid air you make liquid water, by cooling massive quantities of air. So the plumbing and heat exchange surfaces have to be greater by orders of magnitude (maybe 100,000 times?) than a liquid air machine, but as long as you got sunshine power through solar cells, or wind power through windmills, and you can't sell the electric for money, that you could use to buy water, so it goes to waste anyway, and you're dying of thirst, then the answer is a huge long path of cooling the intake air, adding some extra cold, collecting the drew drops from the extra cold machine surface, and recuperating the cold in such air by countercurrent contacting via a very thin wall aluminum or copper or even iron (I'm lazy to look up the strength to thermal conductivity ratio right now, steel might win) with the next fresh load of incoming air. In a spiral setup you might get a long contacting length with very little area, like on top of a table, and your final cooling device might be a conventional air conditioner or refrigerator or freezer, plus you need a fan or pump to drive the air through your conduits. As far as robust refrigerators are concerned, I'd like to recommend the no-moving parts Einstein-Szilard refrigerator, all you gotta do is give it heat, like a focused sunlight on one side, and it gives you cold, on the other side. RV suppliers have some similar coolers that work from a propane flame heat, but in the desert you get lots of free sunshine heat, with a light concentrator, that you can beam onto a pitch black surface, and that still glows and wastes a lot of the light, so some kind of honey-bee like holes or cavities on the surface (picture a golf ball surface, now imagine the holes much denser, and each like 1/2 inch deep). that "suck in the light" and bounce it around internally for a few reflections, might be worth it.

    21. Re:1st post by emotionus · · Score: 1

      I hear that has caused suffocation in children.

    22. Re:1st post by boristdog · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yeah, I'm not a big believer in dowsing, but...I have seen it in action. In fact, back in 1993 I was shown how to do it by an old guy who was a friend of my grandfathers. And I did it. Of course, all I was able to do was find water pipes under people's yards, I don't know if it works any deeper. But dang I can find water pipes like a motherfucker now.

    23. Re:1st post by williamhb · · Score: 1

      That might actually be useful if 1. The person being searched believes it works. 2. The person doing the searching knows how to read the expressions and gestures of the person being searched.

      I imagine it's useful to the policeman without either -- the suspect just has to believe they're using it (not that it's effective). In tense areas, people being searched can be very suspicious of why they were chosen to be searched -- whether they were targeted because of their ethnicity, etc. "It's just this device picked up a trace of something; it's probably nothing..." is possibly a very useful answer to the policeman, even if the device itself is garbage. Surely they'd rather the people they searched left cursing the useless device than left cursing the policeman.

      Not a particularly noble reason for them to want it, though.

    24. Re:1st post by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Raise the price of water until people use something else? Oh wait, that's the capitalist solution.

      No, that's the command-and-control socialist solution, the "rationer's rationalization" solution.

      The capitalist solution would involve getting rid of red tape stopping capitalism from responding to satisfy a need. It's sad places like California have to generate needless emergencies just to temporarily get the government out of the way.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    25. Re: 1st post by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's an energy issue. With a magical energy source, you could set up massive but cheap industrial distilleries and just boil billions of gallons of seawater a day.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    26. Re:1st post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ain't nothing stopping you from digging yourself a reservoir and selling water from it, except the fact that it takes money to make a reservoir and time to fill it with rainwater, and right now your competitors are undercutting you by taking cheap tap water and putting it in a bottle with a fancy logo and selling it for a profit.

    27. Re: 1st post by rhyous · · Score: 1

      If only there was a very dry place about two states east that had little humidity and a giant lake of salt water. And if only that place had nearby mountains and rivers to capture the "lake affect" participation and transport the water from participation in that area flowed to California.

      If only that were the case, then California could build a pipeline/pump system (mostly a one time upfront cost) to fill that lake with ocean water and let natural evaporation and rain desalinize the water. Then the lakes and rivers will just have more water all the way to California.

      But of course, that is just wishful thinking, right!

    28. Re:1st post by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Find a good dowser, you know, successful. Ask nicely if you can watch him work. Keep track of the fruits of his labor, you know, if the well produces or not. Seems simple enough, worked for me.
      I guess you could try http://dowsers.org/ , There is a Google map there ,so you can find a chapter near you.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    29. Re:1st post by flyneye · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a irascible old doctor, was it?

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    30. Re: 1st post by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      If you fill the lake and let it evaporate, you lose the water.

      However, your idea, with a different spin on it, is a great one! Using highly hygroscopic salts, whose relative humidity beats the surrounding air's. Calcium chloride is a standard desiccant, but it's not strong enough for some applications. Same with dehydrated, white or colorless copper sulfate that turns blue from absorption of moisture from air, so you know how you're doing just by looking at it. Sulfuric acid is another substance, but it might have too high a vapor pressure and slowly evaporate too, unlike the previous substances mentioned. Of course almost nothing beats phosphorus pentoxide, however it's that much more complicated recuperating the water from the phosphoric acid that forms and regenerating the pentoxide, you pretty much have to wreck it to raw phosphorous, hydrogen and oxygen, and recombine from there, a very energy intensive process. All the previous ones - calcium chloride, copper sulfate, sulfuric acid, etc. all they need is a heating to boil off the water to regenerate the fresh amorphous substance. If there were some very high boiling but very hygroscopic organic solvent that captures water first, and then from solvent these crystals capture the moisture, there might be a faster reaction rate. Also such a solvent by itself could be used as a water capture at room temperature, then heated by solar heat to distill off the water, in a more efficient way than solid salts, because with liquids it's easy to pump around a process, and also to form spray droplets with huge contact surface area and fast reaction rate, or used in simple cooling-water-tower-like setups. In fact if there is a industrial process that requires a cooling water tower, except the process has to be run in a desert and there is no water for cooling available, but you could use a low volatility/high boiling point liquid, you could let it absorb water, go through the industrial process to pick up heat, then solar heat it real hot to give off the water, then add some extra stages in the water cooling tower setup to cool from the higher temperature. The problem is that a water cooling tower uses cooling from evaporation of makeup water added to the stream, from the droplets in the cooling tower, and lacking water or similar things to evaporate-waste, you're limited to mere conduction/convection type heat exchange. But you don't really have too many options in a desert for a cooling tower if you lack water, but a high boiling liquid, and if you can make that liquid hygroscopic to just the correct amount (expected humidity, because if it binds water too strongly (say it extracts moisture from 2% relative humidity to 1%) it has to be heated to very high temp before it gives it back up, compared to something that can extract water from 20% RH down to 10%, which may need just mild heating. So you might fine tune your solvent to the expected average and minimum RH's that prevail in your target area.
      They could double it up, because heating a large amount of solvent for very little water is costly, so you could use a solvent that takes RH from 20% avg available to 10% where the solvent gives up trying, and then you can rip the water from the solvent with a salt bed that takes it from 10% to say 8%, and concentrates up the moisture into a smaller bulk, that's cheaper to heat the extra inert stuff present, then heating a whole lot of dilute solvent to recoup the water from it.

      Also in a desert you do have a magical source of energy: the sun and the wind. What you don't have in the desert is hydrogen (or hydrogen oxide(i.e. water)), except whatever is present through relative humidity in the atmosphere.

    31. Re: 1st post by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      errata: strike amorphous replace with anhydrous

    32. Re:1st post by Sciath · · Score: 1

      Typical libertarian response, blame everything on "red tape". There's plenty of red tape in western Europe yet there economies are doing better than the U.S. overall (European Union). Let's also ignore all the red tape that protects working slobs from employer malfeasance, irresponsibility, workplace hazards, toxins, etc. etc. in the pursuit of an extra 3% in profit which largely goes into the owners pocket, not creating "jobs". You free-market extremists like to ignore the other side of the market equations until you or your child's health is adversely effected. Then scream bloody murder like they do on Fox every time something happens in the market that upsets their fantastical ideas about how markets are supposed to function. (Yeh MSNBC and CNN does the same thing. Everyone has their slant on the news even if it means employing incredulous distortions. The point being conservatism isnt as pure as all you libertarians like to pretend.) You seem to forget that a vast majority of that "red tape" came to be over the last 80 years BECAUSE "the people" demanded it after someone was killed, sickened, endangered, robbed of their savings, poisoned with contaminated fresh water, misdiagnosed, lied to, purposely cheated, etc. etc. ad infinitum. If you believe all that red tape exists just because someone in D.C. or your state legislature loved making up rules youre a fool. Most of those rules exist either because the public demanded it because of events demonstrating a need for regulation or the markets themselves created the need. The conservative theology opposing red tape largely ignores decades that demanded such regulation and is a revisionist plot to rewrite American, and global economic and political history. The fact that you can ignore the past generation of empty promises by "job creators", capitalist political sycophants, the "1%" and other capitalist lapdogs to me demonstrates you are as much of a "shit for brains" ass licker as you would accuse your liberal communist opponents. Extremist ideology on both sides is what's not only polarizing America but that extreme social discord is one of the main components undermining American prominence.

      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
    33. Re:1st post by Sciath · · Score: 1
      --
      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
    34. Re:1st post by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Gosh, the government says so, so it must be true.
      I notice they didn't explain away oil and gas, renegade Vietnamese or metals.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    35. Re: 1st post by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      I've had this very same idea of extracting another gas from the atmosphere, not water, but the 0.03% CO2, for a long time now. Ethanolamine and the like are not ideal because they probably have too high a vapor pressure and loss from it, so it has to be some liquid either high pH or just very CO2 hogging, but also low viscosity and non-evaporating at the same time. Trees have leaves spread over a large volume to capture CO2, but sometimes I wonder if they really capture all the CO2 they could, or they get lazy, and pass up a bunch of potential biofuel and energy that they could store. So if you artificially capture CO2 with an absorbent material, then make hydrocarbons out of it to store windmill energy, you might beat other lifeforms, including most efficient crops like corn, jatropha, or even algae at rate of energy conversion and biofuel-like hydrocarbon(non-ammonia) fuel generation, especially in winter when the wind blows but the sun don't shine strong, and all lifeforms only convert sunlight but no wind, so solar + wind + CO2 capture might beat corn or algae at bio fuel generated per acre per year.
      Also in deserts, there was this old Wikipedia entry on solar towers, as, to get a draft, all you need it to put up a massive chimney going really high (as the sun's rays pass through the air and heat the ground directly which heats the air next to it, which then rises randomly up into the colder regions, so if you have a chimney where inertia can set in, maybe even enticed by a removable massive fan to start, but then self-sustaning based on the air density difference, so you could have massive nuclear power plant looking towers, except much taller, that do the same thing as nuclear power plant towers, but instead of evaporating water to get cooling, they drizzle some moisture sucking nonevaporating liquid in small droplets (but big enough to where their terminal velocity is still faster than the updraft, so they don't get carried up and blown out the top of the stack - careful control of droplet particle size based on prevailing chimney wind tunnel velocity is a high tech science, especially to maintain say 1% faster speed, instead of 200% faster speed, for increased residence times through the chimney and better phase transfer contact.) The liquid would have to be pumped and atomized from windmills or solar panel pumps, and of course having just a huge pond of, say, Dead Sea water like liquid, or say calcium or magnesium chloride, and just letting it sit in open air day and night, with no moving parts, always having a reserve available to tap into, is a lot cheaper than trying to build a huge chimney tower in the desert. But that too might go to complete dryness of salt only, so an expensive organic or some other liquid (say even gallium metal with sodium dissolved in it to hog some of the hydrogen as hydroxide, would be a non-organic water sucking liquid, even if expensive to recover the hydrogen from it, so there may be nonorganic liquids, but chances are the economical ones would be some high boiling but low viscosity (maybe hindered) organic compounds) kept as a huge pond might be cost prohibitive on the capital needed to create such a huge pond of material just sitting there, to where a chimney and pumps with moving parts and dynamic try not to blow and scatter the expensive droplets out the top of the stack into the environment, so a dynamic busy setup like that might still be more economical, simple because the working liquid is expensive like gold, but the production rate of water is a lot faster.
      By the way such a setup would never provide water for irrigation, but it might be able to provide a cup of water every 2 hrs to people dying from thirst in places like Sanaa, that are so high up in the mountain sky that it's cost prohibitive to pump seawater for desalination that high, so atmospheric moisture extraction might make sense, as that moisture is transported up high for free. The problem with people in Sanaa is that they are all drug addicts, spend half they day laying around in congregations where

    36. Re:1st post by nobodie · · Score: 1

      I was taught this trick by a carpenter I worked for. He even showed me that if you put copper wires in a coke bottle they would find the pipes as well. I have used this many times, just a couple of months ago in fact, and it always works. I have also used it to find underground water flows when I lived in Thailand.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    37. Re: 1st post by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Btw, I came across a note that adding K2SO4 to H2SO4 increases he boiling point from the 330C's to the 370C's. I think it was the Kjedahl method of nitrogen digestion, or some other nitrogen test. So in case you want to recover moisture from the air in a desert (from what I gather, the relative humidity in deserts is usually between 10 and 30%, corresponding to about 0.5% weight moisture in the air. So for every 199 parts of absolutely dry air mass you get 1 part of steam or water vapor mass) using sulfuric acid, adding a salt like K2SO4 to it can lower the vapor pressure even further reducing sulfuric acid loss through vaporisation. All you need is an acid resistant pond and just let the sulfuric + K2SO4 sit outside overnight, or for weeks (and even at 10% concentration sulfuric has desiccant properties, though maybe not in a desert) and let it build up moisture. Then you need an acid resistant (such as glass) distillation apparatus, with a good acid resistant reflux column to distill the water out as steam, using solar or wind origin heat, which should condense fine at room temperature to absolutely pure distilled water.
      Phosphoric acid has similar properties, however, according to Wikipedia it boils at 158C and decomposes at 213 C into, I'm guessing, polyphosphoric acids and water, which should boil even higher. Pure anhydrous phos acid can be obtained by vacuum distilling 85% phos acid, so I'm guessing there might be some kind of azeotrope there. So anyway, polyphosphoric acids, or just plain phosphoric acid might have a lower vapor pressure and lower loss through evaporation, including loading with phosphate salts that might lower the vapor pressure even further.
      Ideally there might be some very hydrophobic sugary-like things that are liquid with water, and hold onto it strongly, I don't know if highly polysulfonated aliphatics or aromatics are like that, or even polymeric glycols which should absolutely not evaporate, but maybe they are not hygroscopic enough. I don't know if it's possible to polysulfonate them and not char them into aromatic-like brown condensates on the way to graphitization, but anything slightly polymeric and somehow, of low viscosity, should have very low vapor pressure to where if you put it outside in a pond, you can recycle it for years and years without evaporation loss. Glycerol has a high boiling pt, but also high viscosity, and a low flash point, so it's a fire hazard, which goes equally for the other organic chemicals, so the water recovery distillation part might have issues if the hydrophobic material is not properly selected. But most hydrophobic materials are ultra-loaded on hydrogenbonding oxygen groups, which should be less combustible than straight hydrocarbons, but also amine groups, which maybe more combustible, maybe not. What else can you attach a lot of to a high(or never) boiling organic polymer, besides lots of hydroxyl, sulfonate, and amine groups? Making them into a salt might increase the boiling point even further, and hygroscopicity too, but then you're probably dealing with a crystalline solid anymore, not a liquid, so when going that approach, things that are volatile in absence of being a salt might work. Also if the stuff is not volatile at all, the distillation is pretty straightforward, other than thermal degradation over time. Sulfuric and phosphoric acids are simple compounds and don't thermally degrade from repeated distillations, but most organic materials do. So something super-thermally-stable would be necessary, maybe hexa-sulfonated hidered aromatics if they still stay liquid, or even fluorinated sulfonated things, where the fluorine increases thermal stability compared to hydrogen, but it also lessens the hydrophilicity, but maybe not too much to where it's worth including it in the moisture scrubbing liquid compound.
      There are molten salts that are ionic and organic, so they might be moisture scrubbing too, but maybe too thermal degradation sensitive. Thermal degradation from repeated boilings is a very important criterion for such atmosph

    38. Re: 1st post by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      If the K2SO4/H2SO4 bulk absorbent is of high specific gravity, and stays low, you could float a vapor pressure hold down blanket on top of it, such as some highly sulfonated polymer that does not get charred by sulfuric, nor does it have vapor pressure, and it serves as an equilibration layer for moisture between the atmosphere and the bulk sulfuric, by passing water vapors through very fast, however holding back the higher molecular weight sulfuric acid, which has much lower diffusion coefficient through its pores. You would always get the moisture loaded sulfuric from the bottom of such pond, to take for distillation, never the sulfuric vapor withholding polymeric skin on top, so that skin does not have to be too resistant to thermal degradation, but it better be resistant to UV, which means probably polyaromatic polysufonated yet still liquid things, of low density, tight packing with low sulfuric permeability, if you can find anything like that.

    39. Re: 1st post by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Also, I just looked through my Wikipedia postings from 2006, looking for some energy density png image I posted, not finding it, but I noticed my comments on desert downdraft towers. Back then I had no idea about this water extraction part, I was thinking more of an artificial wind generation if there is no wind, and power harnessing like that. Which could still be an added bonus to such towers, guaranteed wind power as long as there is guaranteed sunshine. As long as there is an air density difference of cold air up high and very warm air near the sand surface, you can have either an updraft or downdraft tower, and once inertia is set in, it becomes self sustaining, possibly with some cycloning near the top tip and even throughout the tower if it's of huge diameter. But with a downdraft you get the option of super-atomizing any kind of liquid, and recovering through filters at the bottom, though then air friction and self sustaining draft becomes an issue. But you could possibly have multicyclones wet-vac style at the bottom, plus electrostatic precipitators that go after the tiniest droplets. You also don't get counter current contact, because both the air and the droplets fall downward, however you get a superhigh contact area from fog-like mist, so that should not be a problem. With a downdraft you don't get the risk of blowing your precious water hogging liquid out the top of the stack, and you have lots of real estate down there to work and massage out the tiny droplets, including massive, tortuous labyrinth path settling chambers the size of caves or auditoriums or football fields, something you cannot afford to put at the top of the stack.

      The reason why most stacks or chimneys in the world operate in a strictly upward mode is that usually you have hot air at their bottom by burning some fuel, and that creates low air density that naturally rises, and induces a draft and sets off the inertia of the flow only upwards.

    40. Re: 1st post by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia has a policy on no original research or ideas, but as far as I know, you can say anything you friggin feel like on Slashdot, the only consequence is that your comment may get moderated down, and your karma getting messed up. But then you can come back and post as Anonymous Coward, without a karma issue.

  2. A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are soon parted.

    When you have a better model and fail to take advantage of it, in favor of a completely bullshit model without any suggestions on how to falsify it, you are a fool.

    1. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I know this runs against everything /. but I have seen it work a couple of times. One of my dad's uncles could witch a field tile. I can't explain it and I won't try to but their are a precious few who seem to be able to find running water. Uncle Jule was the only one I've ever seen do it and he didn't tell very many people about.

    2. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I'd try it if I were you. It's a simple as cutting two short pieces of fence wire, putting 90-degree bends in them and just criss-crossing an area while trying to lossely hold the wires horizontal in your hands. I have no proof of how it works, possibly the flowing water manipulates the magnetic field just enough to react with the iron in the fencing wire, but it enabled me to successfully find a length of drain we needed to dig up to repair when I was a kid. It's eerie.

    3. Re: A fool and their money by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know this runs against everything /. but I have seen it work a couple of times.

      Why do you think that an unconfirmed anecdote being presented fallaciously as an argument is against everything /.?

      It would actually be astonishing if no one had "seen it work a couple of times", for several reasons. One, if there were a 100% failure rate dousing would have been abandoned years ago. Even pre-scientific peoples mostly abandoned things that were never, ever correlated with their nominal goals.

      Second, given humans are known to be prone to confirmation bias, we can predict that almost everyone who has ever seen a dowser identify one of the many, many places where water can be found will come away believing "dowsing works".

      So a large number of scientifically illiterate people saying, "Hey I saw it work a few times that proves it's true so I believe it!" is exactly what science would predict if dowsing doesn't work.

      If dowsing did work science would predict a bunch of peer-reviewed studies systematically detailing how accurate it is and investigating the factors that influence it's accuracy.

      We see the former, not the latter.

      Posts like yours actually constitute evidence that dowsing does not work.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    4. Re: A fool and their money by onepoint · · Score: 1, Interesting

      While I cannot account for anyone else. I once owned some land, and tried my hand at dowsing. Found 3 spots that felt just right, drilled the first, and found water at 70 feet. I still call it luck. If I ever need to look for water again, I'll try my hand at it again and mark 3 spots.

      While it's not science, I would be interested in how do you set up a test for a peer review of this. Seems to me that if I really think about it. It's just a lot of pot luck.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    5. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but I have seen it work a couple of times

      No, you didn't. He either already knew there was water there or he just guessed and happened to be correct (hint: underground water isn't exactly uncommon near fields). If he could actually do it (read: if he is skilled at the arcane arts and sorcery), he should take up the Great Randi's challenge and win himself a cool million.

    6. Re: A fool and their money by frisket · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's very fashionable to decry things we don't understand. Dowsing clearly works; my father called the local dowser in for his house in a remote part of SW Ireland. I watched him walk back and forth across the land, rods twitching, and eventually he hacked his heel down and said to "drill here" and we'd get "water for a family of five and to spare". Drill he did, we dropped down a remote-control DanFoss pump, and sucked on an aquifer that never failed, even in the drought years.

      OK, they guy knew all the land thereabouts: he lived locally. Maybe he just knew the exact path of every underground watercourse in the neighborhood, but I doubt it. As a scientist, I want replicability of the observation (no problem here: he and several others do this for a living: no charge unless the water flows), and I'd like an explanation of why (none yet)...but equally I refuse to dismiss a phenomenon simply because it has no explanation yet. If we did that we'd still be living in the dark because we couldn't explain sunlight.

    7. Re: A fool and their money by Copid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It would be interesting to see if drilling randomly in 3 other places on the property also generated water at around 70 feet. It could very well be that the property just sits on a lot of shallow water.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    8. Re: A fool and their money by blackest_k · · Score: 4, Informative

      once you get below the level of the water table you find water.
      similar story just outside blarney apart from no douser involved just a big drill that went down until water was found. Ireland has no shortage of water. Outside the cities septic tanks are usual and wells are fairly common place. With water charges coming in for domestic water, there may be a little boom in well digging.

    9. Re: A fool and their money by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      my father called the local dowser in for his house in a remote part of SW Ireland.

      The low areas of Ireland get more than 40 inches of rain a year, and the mountains get as much as 80 inches. I would be much more surprised if he found an area without ground water.

    10. Re: A fool and their money by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Found 3 spots that felt just right, drilled the first, and found water at 70 feet.

      How deep did you have to drill for the holes in the control group?

    11. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My grandfather did as well.

      it worked.

    12. Re: A fool and their money by towermac · · Score: 1

      "Hey I saw it work a few times that proves it's true so I believe it!"

      But he didn't actually say that, did he? He said he'd seen it work a couple of times. Everyone here knows the difference between plural anecdotes and data.

      He presented it as an anecdote, and you still feel a duty to run him into the ground?

      I'm actually interested in the discussion. What the fuck are we supposed to talk about here then, anyway?

    13. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is some scientific literature suggesting that it works, e.g. http://geobiologia.cl/files/journal_of_%20scientific_exploration.pdf.
      There are also few studies that suggest it doesn't work. Note that studying dowsing is a loose-loose idea in current academia. You either find out what was clear to everybody without your research, or you are a suspicious crackpot.

    14. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Ireland, you'll find water no matter where you dig.

    15. Re: A fool and their money by gman003 · · Score: 1

      Okay, but what are the odds of randomly drilling and finding water? Or consulting a geologist instead of a wizard? As others have noted, Ireland isn't exactly the Sahara, it wouldn't be too unusual to find water.

    16. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You answered your own question. I stated that I didn't understand it, wasn't trying to explain it and offered a reason people might be willing try it. And you decided I needed to be shot down and stated that your opinion is that I am unequivocally wrong and misguided.

      I offered a conversation and started a fight. Which is what I meant by "against all things /." . I still have an open mind that something may be able to explain drousing at some level. You, apparently, already have all the answers. Must be boring to be you.

    17. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i cant believe that a site filled with people who laugh at the idea of a magical supreme being would have so many pro magical water-finding stick comments.

      so, a stick/rod/object made of a variety of materials but in a particular and non-exact shape has special water-locating scientific properties?? give me a break. unless your dowser is drilling 'control holes' to prove that its not possible for him to always be correct due to the geography, its just another anecdote. look, everyone who drank my snake oil woke up the next morning, thus proving that my patented snake oil ensures you will not die in your sleep the night of your consuming it.

      if there is any scientific validity to dowsing, its likely to do with the person themselves and some kind of instinct based on environmental and physiological factors. similar to how animals are able to sense earthquakes or storms before we do.

    18. Re: A fool and their money by matbury · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, with this technology, you can also detect if a woman's pregnant, find out if she's a virgin, find buried treasure, expell evil spirits, and pleasure the gods until they make it rain. People have told me it works in all of these cases so it must be true.

    19. Re: A fool and their money by tompaulco · · Score: 0

      Apparently on slashdot, the plural of anecdote is the exception that proves the rule. So five or 10 people have seen witching work. Therefore it doesn't work.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    20. Re: A fool and their money by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Generally if a dowsing attempt succeeds, people will write posts bragging about it all over the Internet. If it fails, they're not inclined to write posts about being unlucky suckers.

    21. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. If a dousing rod didn't work 100% of the time, then that would be pretty damn useful in knowing where not to drill!

    22. Re: A fool and their money by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I guess to test it you would do just what you described, but with an added control - three points chosen randomly (on a map, preferably by a computer RNG). After enough repetitions you could build up a confidence interval to determine whether you could reject the null hypothesis (that the spots marked by dowsing lead to no more water than the random ones).

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    23. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet somehow no dowser has managed to claim the Randi fund: http://www.randi.org/library/dowsing/

    24. Re: A fool and their money by plover · · Score: 1

      My father-in-law believed he could "witch" wires, pipes, or whatever, using two pieces of copper wire. Funny thing is, he could never repeat a witching while blindfolded. We figured that decades in the construction industry meant that he could subconsciously spot the clues where a typical pipeline would be run.

      If I were planning where to run tile in a field, I'd look for the low spot, and the easiest, straightest run from there to a drainage ditch. Doesn't take beechwood sticks or copper wires to figure that out.

      --
      John
    25. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a televised version of a scientific study done at a reputable unversity that there is something to this. Basically the changes in the maynetic fields can be picked up...

      Interesting on how quick smarty pants can poke fun at things they don't know what they are talking about...

    26. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like you, a lot!

    27. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/animal_eqs.php

    28. Re: A fool and their money by tofarr · · Score: 1

      I call bull on your story - finding water in Ireland is simply a matter of looking out the window (ie: Right now it is raining, and It seems like it is always raining). That's why the country is so green - the West gets even more rain than the East. I suspect that if you dig almost anywhere and you will hit water sooner or later - it's just a matter of how deep. Also, how far was he walking? Unless the distance was substantial, it probably didn't matter where you dig.

    29. Re:A fool and their money by Pinkfud · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Okay, I'm a geologist. It happens that I live in an intermontane basin filled with alluvium, and I know the water table is about 30 feet down at my location. If I were so inclined, I could take a couple of wires or a willow stick, walk around a bit for show, then "find" a place. I'd tell you to dig 30 feet and you'll find water - and I'd be right. The knowledge this takes is not that hard to acquire, especially if you want to work in a specific region. I suspect many of the "professional" water dowsers are simply doing that and making a buck from credulous buyers. That said, I have seen people do some freaky things with dowsing rods. As a scientist I have to doubt any mystical source, but I admit having had a few WTF moments courtesy of one old fellow I used to know. He would find ore veins - where I knew they actually were, and he couldn't have because I hadn't shared my survey findings. But guess what? Ore veins do affect both the magnetic and gravitational fields. I don't completely discount an ability by some people to detect that - after all, some birds apparently do.

      --
      The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
    30. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No charge unless water flows. So, basically no downside for guessing wrong (the driller foots the bills). Payoff if you guess right. In Ireland. Ireland with copious amounts of rainfall and groundwater. This sounds as easy a bet as the house rules at a casino. Easier, in fact.

      It's a living, I guess.

    31. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pleasure the gods until they make it rain.

      Wait, so rain is... Eww!! That's nasty!

    32. Re: A fool and their money by onepoint · · Score: 1

      There was no control group, I just 'felt' those locations were correct.
      Now, I would love to be in the same situation again and test it out. I can afford to spend some cash and see the results if I need to do this again.
      It was lucky guessing the first time, but again, my question is how the heck do you set something like this up for an honest review.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    33. Re: A fool and their money by onepoint · · Score: 1

      ok, I get the idea of pick 3 spot's random, and dowse for 3. But what about depth to find water. Last time it was just 3 hours and boom I had water.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    34. Re: A fool and their money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yet no one has claimed the prize from the Randi fund.

    35. Re: A fool and their money by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Yes, with this technology, you can also detect if a woman's pregnant,"

      Oh, you silly genetically-defective types that can't detect a woman in heat.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    36. Re: A fool and their money by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Found 3 spots that felt just right, drilled the first, and found water at 70 feet."

      Protip: Once you go past about 40 feet you're firmly in water-storing territory. Just about anyone drilling that far will find water underneath if you're anywhere near an area that has flood plains, aquifers, and such in the area.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    37. Re: A fool and their money by Quirkz · · Score: 2

      As a start, I'd say: pick 3 spots that feel right, pick 3 spots that feel wrong, and pick 3 spots via some randomization method. Then drill all 9. Repeat over a few thousand plots of land. Compare results.

    38. Re: A fool and their money by onepoint · · Score: 1

      problem with something like your asking it cost a lot to drill. figure 100 to 200 a drilling. so 900 for a test ... Now I can see why no one want to test

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    39. Re: A fool and their money by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's why no individual bothers to do it, but if the world at large wanted to demonstrate if there was any merit at all to dowsing, that's the kind of thing they ought to test.

      You'd think somewhere there'd be one wealthy investor willing to spend a few tens of thousands to scientifically analyze this.

    40. Re: A fool and their money by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The traditional method is to use a forked stick, so it isn't a magnetic field. If it works (and I've seen comments for and against), it works by making it easy for some sort of subconscious feeling trigger something observable. This would mean that there are some perceptions that get processed unconsciously to make the whatever move or jump. At this point, I'm leaving it to somebody else to figure out what perceptions those could be.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re: A fool and their money by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If dowsing did work, why do you think scientists would necessarily investigate? There's lots of stories that tend to be overlooked by science (typically for good reasons). Now, it doesn't cost much to get some equipment to check out haunted houses, so amateurs can do it. It would be very expensive to test properly, as somebody would have to get enough land and drill both dowsed spots and control spots.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    42. Re: A fool and their money by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Dude, I have the experience too, and don't really want to believe it or to make up pseudo-scientific reasons why it works, but it does. Come on over to the house, I'll stick a couple bent copper wires in your hands and let you do it. Although I have seen one or two people that really don't get it/do it, most everyone else in the world can.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
  3. Eww.. by Drumhellar · · Score: 2

    Here in Sacramento, I saw somebody from the county water district using dousing rods while on the job. I'm not sure if he was looking for a pipe or what, and I was sadly too preoccupied to inquire with the water district to see if it's standard procedure, but, shit. I felt bad for my county.

    1. Re:Eww.. by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      just your county? that employee is a canary. you should feel bad for the whole country.

    2. Re:Eww.. by deadweight · · Score: 1

      When I was a little kid we watched a phone company employe use a dowsing rod to look for a buried wire.

    3. Re:Eww.. by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

      Well? Did he find it?

    4. Re:Eww.. by viperidaenz · · Score: 0

      It's common practise and it works

      https://www.google.co.nz/searc...

    5. Re:Eww.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just to put this report in context. There is no such thing as 'the Sacramento County Water District'.

      Closest is 'Sacramento Suburban Water District'. It's balkanized as hell. I've got tasty river water. Other neighborhoods get well water. Don't buy a house anywhere without tasting the water first.

      Weigh the rest of this 'data' appropriately.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Eww.. by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Seen that too, and the guy found the pipe. This was on an Indian rez and a tribal utility worker. Not that I go for that stuff but it was an impressive display of what the subconscious can do.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    7. Re: Eww.. by rfengr · · Score: 1

      I'd enjoy watching some from the power company dig around 6 kV lines with dowsing.

    8. Re:Eww.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0

      Buried wires and Pipes are easy- especially with a bent clothes hanger. It's a property of magnetism.

      *still* water not running through a metal pipe, or a wire with electricity flowing through it, is hard in comparison. Especially with a forked wooden stick.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    9. Re:Eww.. by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      How do you know it was a dowsing rod, and not him looking for the wire by its induced magnetic field, like one of these?

  4. It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...unless someone was taught it over a series of Sundays. :/

    I suppose ignorance on things like this is generational, and we'll stamp it out slowly, like racism or smoking.

    1. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by khallow · · Score: 2

      I doubt it. For example, there's UFOs and New Age crystal healing.

    2. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Both of those are fairly recent innovations. The fad will fade in a few generations, probably (sadly) to replaced by new fad pseudoscience.

    3. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who seriously thinks smoking is harmless?

    4. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there's really something different here.
      Lots of people believe that baptism can wash away sins, or that auditing can make you an Operating Thetan.
      But the claim that dowsing can find hidden water is an objectively testable claim.

    5. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, people who can actually use visualization and energy manipulation techniques to control the weather generally keep this a secret and use it with extreme rarity, for two reasons.

      1) people have a habit of murdering people who can control the weather.
      2) when you shift the weather, you become morally responsible for every creature that is harmed by your disturbance.

      The second one is a biggie, since you carry that burden right into the next life.

    6. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...unless someone was taught it over a series of Sundays. :/

      I suppose ignorance on things like this is generational, and we'll stamp it out slowly, like racism or smoking.

      Stamping out over time?

      It's the year 2014.

      There is still a society dedicated to the idea that the Earth is flat, not round.

      Just how fucking slowly were you planning on cooking off the head cheese of ignorance in the melting pot of western civilization?

    7. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you must be from California.

    8. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Who seriously thinks smoking is harmless?

      For that matter, who seriously thinks life is harmless?

      Life is so hard there's zero chance you're getting out alive.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    9. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I suppose ignorance on things like this is generational, and we'll stamp it out slowly, like racism or smoking.

      I hate to break it to you, but... ignorance is on the rise.

    10. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      UFOs actually exist. Yes, they do. Not to say that they are aliens but there's a long and well documented history of flying objects we can't identify.

      So how about we spend a few generations stamping out atttitudes like yours and then we can view the world as it really is.

    11. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Dowsing is an objectively testable claim.

      As is true with politics, there are people who will accept no new evidence if it contradicts their belief set.

      Two examples that seem to prove this theory are religion and superstition, but I repeat myself.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    12. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crystals were very popular in the Victoran era.
      That's nearly 200 years ago.
      The ignorant just keep re-inventing things, convincing themselves that it really works (this time).

    13. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Life is so hard there's zero chance you're getting out alive.

      There have been 107 billion humans who ever lived, and about 7 billion of them are still alive. Therefore, the odds of death are actually only about 94%.

      ; )

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he is a climatologist :P

    15. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      And zero evidence of any of the prior roughly 100 billion (your estimate again, going with your thought experiment) having gotten out alive. You're off by about 6% for the running average. Classic gambler's fallacy.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    16. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Funny

      To quote Cecil Adams:

      Fighting ignorance since 1973 -- It's taking longer than we thought.

    17. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Interesting... I like the math angle.

      But I don't think the experiment is completely over.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    18. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Lighten up, Francis.

    19. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by onkelonkel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Too true. People believe, because they were taught to believe, from an early age by people they trust. The vast majority of Christians (insert religion of your choice here) are Christian by an accident of birth. They are Christian because they had Christian parents. Had they been born in Mumbai, to Hindu parents, they would be Hindus.

      If you want a good laugh ask a Christian why they believe in God and Jesus and the Holy spirit, but not in Zeus or Odin or Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. If you get anything other than circular logic or "because" let me know.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    20. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by khallow · · Score: 1

      You know I'm not speaking of UFOs in the literal definition, but of the social phenomenon. And who knows, there may actually be aliens, humans from the future, beings from alternate dimensions, or whatever. That doesn't mean much since we don't have actual evidence of these guys, but rather a huge load of hysterical tales and remarkably poor and often doctored photographic evidence.

    21. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nearly 200 years ago"?
      Queen Victoria's reign was 1837-1901. If we survive the Unix Millennium, post this again on 1st January 1970.

    22. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Either there are multiple groups of aliens, each running around a different content. Or the Aliens are a mixture of folklore, hucksters and psychos.

      There are persistently different types of aliens reported, separated by earthbound culture.

      Western Europe: Greys...anal probes.

      South America/Africa: Big headed, sharp toothed, hungry...no anal probes.

      Asia: Yet another variation, which I forget.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    23. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      I got an honest answer once.

      It might all be bullshit, but it helps me cope.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    24. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      177 years? Close enough.

    25. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...unless someone was taught it over a series of Sundays. :/

      I suppose ignorance on things like this is generational, and we'll stamp it out slowly, like racism or smoking.

      Or you simply don't abandon reason in the first place:
      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio
      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica

      The abandonment of reason--or rather the supremacy of God's Will over His Reason--is one of the things that caused "Muslin science" to start going downhill:
      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers

    26. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I am it is 2014. Nearly 200 years since 1837.
      Let me know when you get to the 21st century.

    27. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      The ignorant just keep re-inventing things, convincing themselves that it really works (this time).

      You are attacking the wrong target. The intelligent people repackage these and create new rhetoric to convince the ignorant that they work. Normally they can become pretty wealthy before they are told to stop, which only happens after enough of the ignorant petition grievances.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    28. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      ...unless someone was taught it over a series of Sundays. :/

      I suppose ignorance on things like this is generational, and we'll stamp it out slowly, like racism or smoking.

      Oh yes, I'm sure it's the massive fundamentalist Christian population of California that's doing all the dowsing, rather than minuscule population of oh so scientific crystal-using copper-bracelet-wearing leftist nutbars.

      The Christian affinity for witches and divining and such being so well established and all.

      Thanks Slashdot, for all the "insight"!

    29. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by khallow · · Score: 1

      And zero evidence of any of the prior roughly 100 billion (your estimate again, going with your thought experiment) having gotten out alive.

      Well, there's not much evidence that they got out dead either. It's not like anyone's counted the bodies to make sure we got everyone.

    30. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am fucking amazed. I never realized that Slashdot had *this many* complete and total nutters.

    31. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by reikae · · Score: 1

      This will sound like the "nobody cares about Jews" joke, but how does leftist fit in there? Desire for increased social equality seems Christian to me.

    32. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had they been born in Mumbai, to Hindu parents, they would be Hindus.

      And if you were born to Christian parents, you would be Christian? Of course, your notion that people are unconscious and cannot change their belief systems is nonsense, and contradicted by reality a thousand times a day. But, you probably already knew it was nonsense, the whole point was to suggest while the masses of humanity are unconsciously determined by their environment, you are the enviable exception.

      Oh, you wanted something other than circular logic? Here's something peer-reviewed by one of the top medical journals in the world:

      http://www.thelancet.com/journ....
      http://profezie3m.altervista.o...

      One reason to believe in God and Jesus rather than Zeus and Odin, is it's the afterlife predictions of the former that people actually experience when they die. Keep telling yourself it's merely "circular" though. I know you'll reject evidence, even peer-reviewed evidence, the instant you hear it, because it's not what you want to hear.

    33. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by itzly · · Score: 2

      it's the afterlife predictions of the former that people actually experience when they die

      If they can explain their afterlife experience, they weren't really dead, and what they experienced wasn't the afterlife.

    34. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by LordLimecat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Too true. People believe, because they were taught to believe, from an early age by people they trust. The vast majority of Christians (insert religion of your choice here) are Christian by an accident of birth.

      You have a source for that? Anecdotally from my church a large percentage of folks joining came to faith later in life (college, etc). Looking at a poll on this indicates that thats about right-- 40% or so tend to switch from what they were raised with, 60% do not. Im really not sure in what world "60%" forms a vast majority, but whatever.

      Its sort of hillarious to hear people talk of ignorance and then bust out anecdotal and unsupported "facts" like this.

      If you want a good laugh ask a Christian why they believe in God and Jesus and the Holy spirit, but not in Zeus or Odin or Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. If you get anything other than circular logic or "because" let me know.

      Do you mock Stephen Hawkings declaration that the universe self-created itself because "there is such a thing as gravity", for being circular reasoning? Why not?

    35. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Dowsing is an objectively testable claim.

      Yes, but as was sensibly pointed out by J. Randi, most "tests" to date are invalid. Man goes out in field, picks spot, digs, behold water. Dowsing works!

      Except that's not how a valid test goes. Challenge a dowser to find a spot which does NOT have water below. Dig there. Guess what'll happen.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    36. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by coolmoose25 · · Score: 1

      I'm a Christian. I was raised Christian but ended up becoming an agnostic. Then I saw a Nova about the Shroud of Turin, and started researching it. It turns out the information on the shroud is a 2D hologram of 3D information. It is encoded onto the cloth, but the cloth is not painted. Something turned the cloth a different color without the use of pigments. Fast forward through all the options and it turns out the most logical explanation is a burst of radiation. And tracing back the path of that radiation, you'd have to conclude the radiation came from within the body that was covered by the shroud. So what was the source of the radiation? I believe it was the energy from the resurrection.

      The essence of being a Christian is that you have to believe that a guy died on a cross, was stone cold dead, not sleeping, not in "suspended animation", not hibernating, but dead dead dead. And then 3 days later, he came back to life. According to Jesus, it's best if you just accept it on faith. But as an engineer, I needed the proof... so even though I'm a doubting Thomas, I have come to believe that he is risen. And I have a much higher than normal IQ, and am not easily impressed with magic tricks, tarot cards, and psychics...

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
    37. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

      Also, a great many "christians" believe in something that their holy book (the Bible) and the very Christ they claim to follow doesn't espouse. There is no "afterlife", according to the scriptures. You are either alive or you're not.

      Ecclesiastes chapter 9 has quite a bit to say about it. Mostly that the "dead know nothing at all" (verse 5) and "there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going" (verse 10).

      And in the account of the resurrection of Lazarus, notice that 1) he was definitely dead for 4 days, 2) he came back to life by God's power through Jesus, and 3) he said nothing about going to heaven or any other place. He was simply unconscious, dead.

      There is no afterlife. There is simply life or a lack thereof. It's like a light bulb. When the circuit is broken, the photons stop being emitted. The light transmission doesn't go somewhere else, it just ceases to exist. When a life ends, that life and its continued activities cease to exist.

    38. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by KraxxxZ01 · · Score: 1

      Well that explains everything. Really everything. I wish You soon and happy death.

    39. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      But as an engineer

      This does not surprise me.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    40. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I don't recall Jesus ever decrying slavery.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    41. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      When I hear someone call that a hologram I instantly know their use of language rules out any possibility they could accurately convey technical information.

    42. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, people have been seeing UFOs for thousands of years. Hell, there's cave paintings of them. We're no better than monkeys dancing around a tree.

    43. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by MemoryAid · · Score: 1

      I think that would be better stated as "the odds of being dead are 94%," which makes me feel lucky to be alive. Dodged that bullet...

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    44. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are clearly someone who does not watch Ancient Aliens, the definitive authority on such questions, so your opinion/facts are obviously wrong. Everyone knows that the same aliens were seen on all the continents. They get different names from each group of people, but they all describe the same powers and personalities. That dude's hair is what convinces me. He's got to have a direct line to the aliens.

    45. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think Stephen Hawkings just pulls that stuff out of his ass? There is a substantial amount of data and calculations which lead to the theory. The only reason it is presented as "Hawkings said so" is because the general public, hell, even most college educated people don't have the foundations at the level of math and physics to approach the subject.

      Also, your numbers don't mean anything when you point to a giant lump-sum of 40%. The data doesn't specify from which denomination or faith, so it could be something as trivial as "I went to a Baptist church, but my new home is in a town that only has a Methodist church in the area and I don't mind the difference as long as I have access to religious services." The vast majority of the faithful are not super devout to the point where they denounce all other denominations as heretics. Otherwise, you'd see a lot more vitriol between the denominations. Most are content saying "I'm Baptist and you're Methodist, but we both believe Jesus is the true lord and savior. That makes us both good Christians." Without more underlying reason for the change, you can't dismiss that most Christians are accepting of one another and may change for convenience (a new home, marrying a spouse of a different denomination, etc.) That's why the giant 40% isn't substantial enough to refute the accident of birth.

    46. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You have a source for that?

      The poll that you supplied supports GP's argument. From the data, 40% of people change religion after birth, but over half of that is caused by people switching "within the same tradition" (e.g. changing from Baptist to Methodist or Agnostic to Atheist), and most of the rest is people leaving the church altogether. Only 4% of people in the survey were raised outside of religion and later joined a religion. So of all religious people in the survey, 96% got there by being born, and the other 4% were raised non-religious and then later became affiliated with a religion. By any reasonable definition, 96% is a "vast majority".

      As to your anecdote, some denominations (e.g. Charismatic) cater to the "born again" crowd and so will be composed of a lot of converts, which others (Catholic, Episcopal) are composed almost entirely of people who were born or married into the faith.

    47. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 1

      What actually happened is that there was something that you really wanted to believe, and you carefully filtered and interpreted information until you had constructed enough of an argument to convince yourself. Since I have no desire to believe in the Resurrection, I conclude that the things you describe don't come close to "proof" (in either the logical or the scientific sense).

      And this all has nothing to do with IQ, it is something that all people do. The best we can hope for is to try to be aware of it in ourselves and others. For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....

    48. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Therefore, this "all humans will die" has not been statistically verified at the 5% level. (Also, check those 100 billion. For most of them, we don't have any actual record or evidence of death.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    49. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Do you think Stephen Hawkings just pulls that stuff out of his ass? There is a substantial amount of data and calculations which lead to the theory

      His statement is circular, no matter how you look at it. Perhaps he grossly misspoke, but it is absurd to imply a causal relationship between the existence of a property of X, and the creation of X itself, much more to imply that that entire line of circular reasoning implies self-creation (another circular relationship).

      The only reason it is presented as "Hawkings said so" is because the general public, hell, even most college educated people don't have the foundations at the level of math and physics to approach the subject.

      Well, its a direct quote FROM Hawking, and I dont need to understand quantum physics or astronomy to know an invalid argument when I see one; I simply need to understand the rules of logic, which I do. Im not even the only one whose noted the absurdity of his statement.

      As I said-- I dont doubt Hawking's credentials, but that doesnt mean he cant make unsound statements or that hes immune to the laws of reason.

    50. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Actually, that third column is switching EITHER between faiths OR within traditions; it also includes people switching from atheist to agnostic.

      Either way, you cannot claim, that only 4% switch from non-christian to Christian; its entirely possible you went from agnostic to christian and would be included in the "between faiths" statistic.

      Which puts us right back at the 40% I was talking about.

    51. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You have to distinguish between what people more-or-less believe and how much they believe it. Most people in the US were raised more or less Christian, and tend to see religious things in Christian terms. If they turn atheist, they specifically don't believe in Christianity. If they start wanting religion, it's Christianity. I find myself doing that sometimes, and I've been, both theoretically and practically, a non-Christian for decades. Therefore, if they "get religion", it's usually not Buddhism or Shinto. (When I was young, there was a trend to adopt Eastern religions, typically Buddhism. It would be interesting to know how many people who were raised Christian and turned some form of Buddhist are of which religion nowadays.)

      Did Stephen Hawkings say the Universe created itself? It would seem very odd that a physicist would say something about the creation of the Universe.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    52. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You have to distinguish between what people more-or-less believe and how much they believe it

      Thats a pretty good point, and Id note that theres a difference between the sort of christian that would die by lions in the colosseum and those who would offer incense to the emperor. Lots of people are "christian", but the question is how many are Christian; Im operating on enemy turf here so to speak when I link to that poll, because I would somewhat dispute the fact that people accurately report things in such a poll-- there are a great number of people that I know personally who claim a religion despite it having no practical impact on their life or beliefs, which is pretty relevant to GP's claims about religions being passed on to children.

      I would agree that tradition passes on to children easily, and in fact when a large number of people say "I am christian / catholic / jewish" what theyre really saying is "these are my traditions"-- not "these are my beliefs". Sadly, polls on THAT are going to be awfully hard to find; but its sort of hard to argue that people are reliable in reporting what they believe when asked about their religion, because theyre not (which we CAN prove with polls-- see gallup polls where "christians" doubted the accuracy of the bible, the divinity of Christ, and the existence of a personal God).

      Did Stephen Hawkings say the Universe created itself? It would seem very odd that a physicist would say something about the creation of the Universe.

      He did, and it was. I remember doing a report on the man when I was much younger, and recall both how smart he seemed and how he remarked on the necessity of a deity. Fast forward ~20 years, and he made the remark,
      Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
      And, as has been noted, its not only an odd remark, its a circular and nonsensical one. Hawking is a smart man in his domain, but he either misspoke, or was misquoted, or created a massive logic problem.

    53. Re:It's OK to attack mythology and superstition... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a source for that? Anecdotally from my church a large percentage of folks joining came to faith later in life (college, etc). Looking at a poll on this [pewforum.org] indicates that thats about right-- 40% or so tend to switch from what they were raised with, 60% do not. Im really not sure in what world "60%" forms a vast majority, but whatever.

      The poll you cite actually indicates that only 4% switched from "unaffiliated" to "affiliated," meaning they came into religion from a state of not having a religion. I don't see any number like 40% in the poll, but it does show that 27% of those polled has switched between one religion and another -- and it also explicitly states that this includes switches within a faith, for instance between different forms of Protestantism.

      A Protestant switching to some different form of Protestantism is hardly strong evidence that people are "coming to faith later in life."

      Do you mock Stephen Hawkings declaration that the universe self-created itself because "there is such a thing as gravity", for being circular reasoning? Why not?

      I'm not OP, but yeah, anybody of scientific mind should recognize that for what it is: his opinion. Given that he has no evidence, I don't see why he bothers to state it out loud. But that's Hawking's problem.

  5. As it's always gone by quietwalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People who are suffering, ignorant, and afraid are more willing to turn to the supernatural - be it religion or superstitions - as a 'solution' to their problems.

    1. Re:As it's always gone by polyphemus · · Score: 3, Informative

      People who are suffering, ignorant, and afraid are more willing to turn to the supernatural - be it religion or superstitions - as a 'solution' to their problems.

      Definitely.

      I see parallels between this and any number of other situations that make people desperate:

      * Cancer patients turning to stem cell "remedies" from quacks who don't bother looking for evidence

      * People with autistic children who can't find a cause so they blame vaccines

      * People who can't see any obvious good options, so they turn to psychics

      Fear is a wonderful tool if you're a charlatan, as it makes your victims less likely to pause and ask whether you're actually qualified to do (or to know) any of the things you claim.

    2. Re:As it's always gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Truthfully, the notion that we could actually be facing judgement from an entity that nobody on earth could ever hope to fathom in entirety, and that we will be held eternally responsible for the choices that we make while we are alive is probably no less terrifying to many than the notion that we are just gone when we die to others.

    3. Re:As it's always gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Desperate times call for desperate measures - as always. It's sad, but sometimes hope is more valuable than science.

    4. Re:As it's always gone by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      People who are suffering, ignorant, and afraid are more willing to turn to the supernatural - be it religion or superstitions - as a 'solution' to their problems.

      This.

      There's an old Russian proverb: "Pray to God, but continue to row to shore."

      If a problem requires action to solve, you can't just pray it away. On the other hand, if you're powerless to do anything about a problem, you may turn to a spiritual salve in order to cope. I have no problem with spiritual practitioners who offer the salve. But if they claim to solve the problem, then I burn with contempt for them.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:As it's always gone by bunratty · · Score: 1

      One could even say it's the opiate of the masses.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    6. Re:As it's always gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truthfully, the notion that we could actually be facing judgement from an entity that nobody on earth could ever hope to fathom in entirety, and that we will be held eternally responsible for the choices that we make while we are alive is probably no less terrifying to many than the notion that we are just gone when we die to others.

      And yet neither group respects life for what it is. What is KNOWN about life. To simply LIVE it, and respect what you have.

      No, instead religion states we must fight to the death trying to prove what happens when you die. No you're wrong. No, YOU'RE wrong. Ad nauseam.

      Sorry, but fear has little to do with that. I'm not afraid to die. I'm afraid to die by the hand of some religious idiot who thinks they know better. This has everything to do with ignorance.

    7. Re:As it's always gone by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Have you been paying attention:

      Synthetic opioids are the opium of the masses. Duh.

      Bread, circuses and oxycontin.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:As it's always gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, instead religion states we must fight to the death trying to prove what happens when you die."

      *citation needed

    9. Re:As it's always gone by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Im sure thats exactly why Christians in Egypt, Syria, and first century Rome turned to Christianity: to reduce their suffering.

    10. Re:As it's always gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Rome was in rough shape at that point. Tiberius, a known tyrant, was in rule to 37 AD. He was followed by Caligula, who started his rule fairly just but became totalitarian, crude and insane by the time he died. Caligula was poisoned by his wife and succeeded by Nero, who was young at the time. Nero (linked to the burning of Rome) ruled from 54 AD to 68 AD. 69 AD was the year where Rome was in turmoil between 4 emperors vying for the throne. All of this would have occurred around the time when Jesus was spreading his teachings.

      I personally don't know enough about the state of Egypt and Syria and that point in history to claim that the spread of Christianity in those regions was linked to suffering or not. But I think most would agree that the spread of Christianity in Rome was linked to the first century being full of tyrants.

    11. Re:As it's always gone by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Turning to christianity in the mid first century meant turning from a disliked-but-tolerated religion (judaism) to one that was universally hated by both Rome AND the Jews. The Romans didnt much like the Jews because they were obstinate about worshiping only their God, but at least they could argue that their religion was (by that point) ancient and that it would create peace.

      The christians didnt even have that as a shield, so they bore the brunt of a lot of malice-- for instance, the accusation of arson in Rome around 60AD, or the persecutions under Pliny in Bithyna..

  6. What's the problem? by blue9steel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As long as the contract stipulates payment only after confirmation of findings, who cares if they use geology or dowsing?

    1. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's say I'm a farmer, but I don't want to hire a geologist because a dowser is cheaper. The dowser causes me to dig 3 wells and find water only on the third. Then I pay their flat fee. I have expended resources and time to dig those two previous wells, causing me not to have those resources or time to do other things with. A dowser is less effective than a geologist and bears, at the minimum, a higher opportunity cost over the average (of instances of people searching for water with a dowser instead of a geologist).

      TL;DR: It's called wasting your time. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    2. Re:What's the problem? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A dowser is less effective than a geologist and bears, at the minimum, a higher opportunity cost over the average (of instances of people searching for water with a dowser instead of a geologist).

      A fine economic analysis, but you're forgetting the balance-of-costs comparison.

      If what you saved using a dowser (who, by your own scenario, is cheaper than a geologist) is more than the cost of two wasted wells, the dowser was a cost-effective alternative. In that case.

      If, on the other hand, the dowser wasn't much cheaper, or you had to sink 5 dry wells, or your dowser never finds water, the dowser was a net loss.

      I think that on balance, the latter scenarios are more likely. If you're thinking about choosing dowsing, you're better off just throwing darts at a large map of your property and saving that cost for the same effectiveness.

      But if you're going to do an economic analysis, show all your work.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    3. Re:What's the problem? by blue9steel · · Score: 2

      It seems like specifying a contract where you're going to pay for the well digging and he gets as many tries as he wants to select well sites isn't likely to lead to a good outcome whether he's a dowser or a geologist. Pay for performance seems like a lot better model than pay for consultation in this instance. Of course, I dare you to find a dowser who would actually agree to that kind of contract, heh.

    4. Re:What's the problem? by Stumbles · · Score: 1

      Your flaw is thinking a geologist can say "drill here" and find water in a usable amount every time; not.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
    5. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... A dowser is less effective than a geologist and bears....

      That would depend: what do the bears charge? How many of them do you need?

      And what the hell do they have to do with this, anyway?

    6. Re:What's the problem? by Stumbles · · Score: 1

      Pay for performance? No well drilling business would remain a business with that type of model. You clearly have no clue about business or the costs to own and operate such a rig. I used to help a inlaw that owned his own well drilling business and if I were to suggest that to him he would laugh in my face. You can have the most accurate geological maps and the best geologist but that in no way guarantees that hole will have water or if did the flow would be enough for residential use.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
    7. Re:What's the problem? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      It seems like specifying a contract where you're going to pay for the well digging and he gets as many tries as he wants to select well sites isn't likely to lead to a good outcome whether he's a dowser or a geologist. Pay for performance seems like a lot better model than pay for consultation in this instance. Of course, I dare you to find a dowser who would actually agree to that kind of contract, heh.

      Better still is payment based on past performance. Whether he's a dowser or a geologist, how many times in the past has he succeeded as a fraction of his attempts? If dowsing is a crock (and I think it is) and study of geology actually improves the probability of finding water, then the geologist should win over time. Unless, of course, the dowser has actually acquired an intuitive sense of geology, and the dowsing rod is just a prop.

      Of course, I doubt you will find a dowser who is willing to compare his success rate to a geologist.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:What's the problem? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      He also forgot the third column in his test: "Use neither a geologist nor a dowser" Since that'll be just as accurate as using a dowser, it'll be the winning column for sure.

    9. Re:What's the problem? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      TL;DR: It's called wasting your time. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

      Tell that to my Casio, I'll let you know when its 88:88

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:What's the problem? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not the well driller. The dowser.

      He gets $X (say the cost of 3 holes), he pays the drill rig until he finds water. Even if the rigs costs exceed $X.

      They would not take the deal. Unless they knew there was water everywhere. Even then...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be ok with that, with one stipulation - I dig and there is no water, the "douser" pays for the dig. I dig and there is water, I pay the dousers fee.

    12. Re:What's the problem? by generalyore · · Score: 1

      <quote>As long as the contract stipulates payment only after confirmation of findings, who cares if they use geology or dowsing?</quote>

      Because digging for water costs money (or time if you do it yourself).  If you're going to bear the cost of each failed attempt to find water, you'll want a good reason for each spot you try.  You won't get a good reason from dowsing because it's quackery.

    13. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was sitting working in an office that overlooks a very quiet road, about 4 cars an hour. A van from the local water company pulls up, and a guy in uniform get out and starts going over the road with what I'm guessing was a ground conduction meter or GP radar. He marks a couple of sites on the road with a spray can, then he packs away the kit and gets out the dowsing rods and goes over the area again to check it! It just seemed to be part of his normal routine.
      A few years later, I met socially one of the lab guys who works for the same water company and asked him about it. He said that quite a few of the leak checkers used dowsing, and the company didn't mind, because it seemed to find the cracked pipes.

    14. Re:What's the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's paying a significant price for a placebo instead of using the same money to deal with the real problem. It's worse than doing nothing, because you're wasting money on hucksters. They could have used the money for more pipe, a deeper well, whatever.

    15. Re:What's the problem? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      A dowser is less effective than a geologist and bears

      Right but with the dowser, you have a lesser chance of being mauled.

  7. Dowsing is real and global warming isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when will this crazy train finally go off the rails.

  8. Devil's Advocate by ihtoit · · Score: 1, Informative

    OK, if someone claims to be able to find water with a stick, takes your money then doesn't find water, are they committing fraud?

    Let's test this: Did they *guarantee* to find water? If yes, then fraud happened.
    If no, then fraud did not happen.
    Why? Because they only claimed to be able to find water, they did not guarantee that there would be water under the test area.
    HOWEVER, if it is known that water is under the test area (and this can be proved contemporaneously with the dowsing), then fraud did occur because that would prove that either the stick operator knows the stick is broken or someotherhow malfunctioning, or his method is hokum as either way he FAILED to detect what he claimed to be able to detect yet it was present at the material time.

    (up until 1951 witchcraft was illegal in England, since then it has been the burden upon the accuser not to apply an ambiguous label to someone's behaviour, but to prove that his actions were of a malicious and criminally fraudulent nature, ie a medium stacking tarot cards).

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:Devil's Advocate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're looking at it all wrong. Being guilty of fraud would require the accused to knowingly claim abilities that they lack. Whether or not they guarantee success or find anything is immaterial.

    2. Re:Devil's Advocate by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      Disclaimer: I don't know shit from shinola about the (pseudo)science of divining water with rods in one's hands.

      Water well drillers have been the contractors of choice to locate underground reservoirs wherever I've lived, and they usually relied on knowledge of aquifers in their respective locales.

      Caveat: They often require payment to drill the well whether they find water or not, and there's no guarantee on the volume your new well might produce.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Devil's Advocate by Stumbles · · Score: 2

      Your caveat is exactly right. I used to help a brother in law that had his own residential well drilling business. There were many times a hole ended up dry or could not produce enough for a home and we would have to move the rig elsewhere. And yes, the customer had to pay for the dead hole. Running a drill rig is not cheap.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
    4. Re:Devil's Advocate by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How many experts in any field do you know who would stand for being called fraudulent just because they got something wrong? People screw up sometimes, despite the best of intentions.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  9. realtor. by nblender · · Score: 2

    I was looking at an acreage and asked the realtor if he knew where the septic field was.. He said no but would find it. He grabbed a wire coat hanger out of the closet, bent it into some divining sticks, and went outside trudging through 2' deep snow... My wife and I just kind of glanced at one another and rolled our eyes... Thing is, he honestly thought he was helping...

    1. Re:realtor. by onepoint · · Score: 1

      the question is ... did the realtor find it ?

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    2. Re:realtor. by nblender · · Score: 1

      Not accurately, no... Turns out the field is actually the entire yard so there wasn't really anywhere he could go to not find it.

    3. Re:realtor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the realtor acted out a sham to go along with making some shit up. Most that I know just make shit up and tout it as fact. They're absolute scum-of-the-earth.

  10. Could try sacrificing virgins by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 4, Funny

    but it's California, so they may be hard to find.

    1. Re:Could try sacrificing virgins by Jerrry · · Score: 3, Informative

      "but it's California, so they may be hard to find."

      Only if you restrict said virgins to females. There are plenty of male nerd virgins living in their parent's garage (we generally don't have basements here).

    2. Re:Could try sacrificing virgins by antdude · · Score: 1

      I am one of the male virgins!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:Could try sacrificing virgins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of male nerd virgins living in their parent's garage (we generally don't have basements here).

      Good thing for them that asexual reproduction runs in the family.

    4. Re:Could try sacrificing virgins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon, you'll meet somebody. There's no need to volunteer as a sacrifice

    5. Re:Could try sacrificing virgins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hurray, a volunteer! \o/

    6. Re:Could try sacrificing virgins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am one of the male virgins!

      No kidding hey?

    7. Re:Could try sacrificing virgins by Nimey · · Score: 1

      It's not Montana - there has to be virgins among the livestock.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  11. Not surprising by ericloewe · · Score: 3, Funny

    It sounds like a typical reaction:

    "No, I'm afraid we can't fix this. We're going to have to work around our problem... Conserve water, reuse wa.... No, no! Don't pay the fucking witch doctor for a rain dance!"

  12. Why is this on Slashdot? by ComputersKai · · Score: 1
    Yes it's another one of these types of posts, but in all seriousness, why is this on slashdot.org? Most of the articles on Slashdot at least pertain to the "news for nerds" category in some way, but this?:

    These 'water witches', draped in dubious pseudoscience or self-assembled mythologies—or both—typically use divining rods and some sort of practiced intuition to "find" water. The professional variety do so for a fee. And business is booming. They're just part of a storied tradition of pseudoscientific hucksters exploiting our thirst for water, with everything from cloudbusters to rainmachines to New Age rituals. [Source text above]

  13. Re:Agreed by khallow · · Score: 1

    So what about that "gets" you? Supernatural by definition needs not be observable. What gets me are the natural conclusions supposedly justified by this supernatural being, like that God considers homosexual behavior to be a sin (not to mention the concept of sin in the first place) or that humanity can continue to multiply exponentially because God will end the game before too many people become a serious problem.

  14. Re: A fool and their money (Witching Sticks) by Waterwatcher · · Score: 2, Funny

    A single locating flag wire bent at an angle works EVERY time for buried infastructure. Some use two wires, but I use one. It works every freaking time. Not sometimes, not occasionally, every time. I can find gas lines, water lines, sewer lines, co-axial lines, you name it and it is buried it can be found using witching sticks. The main problem is that you can not identify what you pick up while locating, which is why I then confirm the locate with some other source such as an map or line locator.

    But the main point is that it works.

  15. Re:Agreed by viperidaenz · · Score: 0

    Santa Claus does not exist any more.
    The SWAT team shot him in the head

  16. Re:Agreed by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    ... or that humanity can continue to multiply exponentially because God will end the game before too many people become a serious problem.

    On the flip side, since many of the most devout religionists are prone to war and episodes of mass suicide, perhaps they will inadvertently help with the overpopulation problem.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  17. There's an app for that ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... look up Water Witch in Google Play.

    It's free.

    If you download it in the next 15 minutes, it's ABSOLUTELY free.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  18. Desalination is the only viable answer by kolbe · · Score: 1

    In San Diego, California, USA where I live we have an initiative to build the worlds largest Desalination plant of its kind, yet are plagued by the state constantly forcing setbacks. Partially EPA related, partially playing card material for the Governor Jerry Brown.

    China has a similar design going into effect right now and achieving an effective and profitable desalination design. Still, it comes down to two things:

    1) Economy of scale in desalination (how much) There is currently a break point in efficiency/pollution whereby anything under 100 gallons/hr. can easily be cost efficient. Anything beyond that has to this point, cost more than importing it. San Diego's DeSal is attempting to create a new break point @ the high-end of production however (2 million gallons per hour) and it remains to be seen if it will work. Source

    2) Supply & Demand When it rains, why spend money on desalination when you get it from the sky? As California's Jerry Brown once stated: "When it rains here in California, it might as well be raining money." Jerry Brown, 1982.

    The biggest concerns from the EPA about Desalination technologies come down to what happens to the brine sludge byproducts and the cost to run. Well, San Diego's option is actually rather efficient and its cost only slightly higher than importing water. A cost we can live with, but the fight continues on another front! The sludge has become the new controversy that the EPA and PETA girls are all upset about.

    Right now, most desal plants average about ~1 metric ton of sludge per ~12 million litres of fresh drinking water. So what happens to it?
    - Australia, Africa, Saudi Arabia and the UK bury it.
    - Ghana, Egypt, Nigeria and a few other African nations with Oil reserves are using it as part of their Oil extraction method
    - USA, Japan and Greece currently use it for industrial use as soda ash and sodium bicarbinate
    - Japan and Australia are currently looking to use it for cement compound, bricks and building materials

    In summary, it certainly is NOT pumped back into the Ocean as much as it was even 5 years ago, but the EPA is still "concerned". We just cannot seem to win. Another technology being deployed RIGHT NOW will actually make use of it... ALL of it. WaterFX, a new company on the scene (relatively) has a solution to the amount of sludge that results in 93% of the water becoming palatable. With only 7% byproduct being "sludge salt", it is converted directly into Soda ash and Sodium Bicarbonate and used for: Fire extinguishers, Cooking, Neutralization of acids and bases, Medical uses, Personal hygiene, Cleaning agents, Biopesticides, Cattle feed supplements, Glass making, Pool chemicals, Water softeners, Laundry detergents and a ton of other uses.

    None the less, we have to drudge through the political process to get anything done here in California, which unfortunately will take years.

    1. Re:Desalination is the only viable answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try pumping it into the ground. Preferably near a big fault.

    2. Re:Desalination is the only viable answer by sjames · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder why not back to the ocean (sufficiently diluted to avoid a high concentration area, of course) the water the sludge came out of will end up back there, why not the sludge?

    3. Re:Desalination is the only viable answer by Megane · · Score: 2

      After that oil well break in the Gulf of Mexico, the EPA wouldn't even allow a ship which would suck in oily water and spit out less oily water, because the less oily water had oil in it. You think they're going to allow anybody to put seawater sludge from desalination back into the sea?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  19. Re:Agreed by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

    Well, it's easier to say God doesn't exist, than to say that He does. If we simply believed something with no proof, than why are we willing to take shit from so many people we meet in life that think we are fools? Slashdot likes to brag about things like using the scientific method and requiring proof, but the proof that God exists is intangible. You can't point to something and say,"There, that's God," but He's still present. He changes people, He changed me.

    But He WILL NOT reveal Himself to someone who doesn't want to have an encounter with Him. Saying that Christians(I'm still on the fence about some of the other religions) are simply fools indicates that that person wouldn't respond in a positive fashion if God showed Himself, so He doesn't.

  20. uh no by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This has nothing to do with farmers, or droughts.

    Plenty of people here on Slashdot believe in:
    Ghosts
    Vaccines cause Autism
    Sugar is poisonous
    Gluten sensitivity
    Alien visitors
    Wifi allergies

    and on and on and on...

    Some people are desperate for water, others are desperate to explain their childs ailments, desperate to explain their own ailments, desperate to live in a world different than our own. Desperate people will believe strange things. Myth is the anesthesia for anguish.

    1. Re:uh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd list. Look up Coeliac DIsease. There's nothing flaky about needing a gluten-free diet if you've got the misfortune to suffer from that.

    2. Re:uh no by jemmyw · · Score: 1

      Look up Coeliac DIsease.

      That's an actual verifiable reaction to gluten that can cause death. Charliemopps is talking about the now popular gluten intolerance. Funnily enough, I myself feel a bit bloated after stuffing a couple of sandwiches down my gullet.

    3. Re:uh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the large amount of people on gluten-free diets don't, they have a gluten sensitivity that has been discredited even by the scientist who first theorized it.

    4. Re:uh no by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And some people just want to have some sort of "right" to be an annoying SoB, and don't want to turn vegan just for that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:uh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sugar is poisonous
      Gluten sensitivity

      Diabetes
      Coeliac disease

    6. Re:uh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and sugar is poisonous (to a diabetic).

      Undiseased humans remain unaffected.

    7. Re:uh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I myself feel a bit bloated after stuffing a couple of sandwiches down my gullet

      That's not "gluten intolerance", though. That's an early sign that you're borderline diabetic. Lay off the carbs.

    8. Re:uh no by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  21. Get with the times! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day"

    Unless its digital :)

  22. On the first reading.... by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    "A dowser is less effective than a geologist and bears, at the minimum, a higher opportunity cost over the average (of instances of people searching for water with a dowser instead of a geologist)."

    Wait, a dowser is less effective than bears, at the minimum? What kind of low bar do bears set? Where does one go to hire a bear to find water and how do they go about it?

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:On the first reading.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a "geologist and bears, at a minimum". You need the geologist to wrangle the bears, you can't just go and hire any old bears, they need to be specially trained by the geologist.

  23. Quite likely by publiclurker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My grandparents had a dowser site their well. apparently all of the natural springs on their land wasn't enough of a clue that water was not hard to get.

  24. If you actually believe that by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    You might want to pick up an easy million dollars from James Randy. funny thing is, nobody has ever succeeded in a real test, no matter how easy they claim it is.

  25. Re: A fool and their money (Witching Sticks) by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Amazing Randy has $1 million waiting for you to come and claim. You fucking liar.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  26. 100% would be interesting by DrYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One, if there were a 100% failure rate dousing would have been abandoned years ago.

    Actually if the failure rate was exactly 100%, it would be a valuable tool:
    it would very reliabily show where NOT to look for water, and by deduction you'll know that you need to look for water at the remaining NOT dowsed places.

    The real failure rate would be something very high, but not close to 100%.
    By random chance, you're bound to find water, eventually.

    The whole point of a scientific statistical test would be to see if the few successes occur as frequently as random chance, or if dowsing has a slightly higher success rate that could NOT be explained purely by random chance.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  27. It's everywhere by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

    I called the local call-before-you-dig number because I was having foundation work done and you have to have an underground lines located before you can so much as plant bedding plants around here. A lady showed up and followed procedure for the gas and electrical lines then she pulled out her water witching wands to locate the rest of the stuff. Crazy. I called and left a complaint but they never got back to me. One day she's going to have some equipment malfunction and she's going to use her wands to locate an electrical line and it'll kill someone.

    1. Re:It's everywhere by PPH · · Score: 1

      she's going to use her wands to locate an electrical line

      But you saw her 'follow procedure' for the dangerous stuff. Everything else (water, sewer, cable, telephone) will be a nuisance if it's cut. But it won't kill anyone.

      I don't know why she dowses for some stuff, but uses tech for the important stuff. I've been in the utility business for long enough that I can usually spot the water meters, sewer clean-outs and network interface boxes and make an educated guess about where stuff was installed. The witching wands are probably her way of keeping most customers from griping about guesswork.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:It's everywhere by sjames · · Score: 1

      Probably because gas and electric are easy to find using a defined procedure. They are also the most important to find.

    3. Re:It's everywhere by McFly777 · · Score: 1

      My wife worked for the local Bell Telco, as an outside plant engineer, when she was in college. According to her, the workers would first consult the maps to know approximately where the services were, but they would use the two-pieces-of-wire style of dousing-rods to determine exactly where to dig. Of course there is all sort of bias possible in that you already know the approximate location, but the ones digging the holes claimed they dug more successfully when using the rods (as against having to dig twice because the cable wasn't exactly where you thought it was). And in that case, even if it wasn't actually doing anything and was only as good as a best guess within the mapped area, there was little time lost trying it.

      --

      McFly777
      - - -
      "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
  28. Re: It's OK to attack mythology and superstition.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very confusing. You are willing believe in aliens from other worlds, time travel and the idea all this can be kept hidden but a person being able to witch a well is a bridge too far? Wow dude. Put down whatever you are smoking.

  29. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, anyone who *would* believe in god if they had some rational evidence of it's existence is shit out of luck, their soul damned for eternity, because you have to believe with all your heart in something unbelievable before it reveals itself to you, and you alone? thanks god, for making it impossible for rational people to be saved by you.

    "god made me this way". if he wanted skeptics to believe in him, he's going to have to pony up some real evidence, the kind he created us to desire, otherwise skeptics will simply continue down the path toward eternal damnation that "He" himself set them on.

  30. Water witching by Skynyrd · · Score: 1

    I know it sounds batshit crazy. I know it's not science. I know I'll be moderated to "shutup dumbass". I'll say it anyway.

    I grew up in rural Oregon. My family moved there in the early 70's, from California. We bought a big chunk of land, with nothing but trees on it. We pitched two tents, and started searching for the best house site. We filled 5 gallon bottles at the neighbors for a while, until we decided where to build the house.

    The neighbor's father was a well witcher. We assumed that it was part of a big joke on the city slickers, but humored him, and let him witch the well. He had a forked stick, and walked around for 30 minutes with it. He said "drill here. at 60 feet, you'll get 10gpm, but keep going to 80. At 80, you'll get 20gpm". We offered him money, and he said this was a gift from God, and he refused any sort of payment.

    When the drilling rig showed up, they asked where we wanted to drill. Keep in mind that there are no maps, no charts, *nothing* to tell you where to dig. The guy with the truck will always suggest a spot; the one with the easiest access for his giant truck. So we drilled where the old man suggested. The driller shrugged his shoulders when we told him to keep drilling when he hit good water at 60 feet; he gets paid by the foot, regardless of water output. We got 20gpm at 80 feet (I don't remember the exact numbers, but it was within a foot or tow, and a gallon or two).

    20 years later, my folks built another house on the property. They got the well witched again. It was a different guy, but a very similar story. "Gift from God, no payment". Accurate prediction of depth and volume of water.

    If I didn't see it myself, I'd call bullshit.

    That said, I'm sure there's a million scammers out the now.

    1. Re:Water witching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The neighbor's father was a well witcher. We assumed that it was part of a big joke on the city slickers, but humored him, and let him witch the well. He had a forked stick, and walked around for 30 minutes with it. He said "drill here. at 60 feet, you'll get 10gpm, but keep going to 80. At 80, you'll get 20gpm". We offered him money, and he said this was a gift from God, and he refused any sort of payment.

      Alternative hypothesis: Local person who'd lived there for a very long time, and was aware of how much groundwater was present, and at what depths, (because, you know, everybody in town humors him by having him witch their wells and he gets phone calls back that tell him where the wells were dug, to what depth, and how much they produced), just happens to be able to predict... umm... how much groundwater is present, at what depths.

      In other news, London taxi driver knows shortest route from A to B, grizzled veteran mechanic knows what that annoying squeak is coming from your suspension, and Slashdotter suspects the machine may be compromised because the hard drive light and router LEDs are going nuts even when the machine's idle.

    2. Re:Water witching by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now, now, now... that last example is at best black magic.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Water witching by McFly777 · · Score: 1

      My grandmother would do the same thing (for family anyhow). Might have been luck of course, but when my aunt bought property on the top of a ridge in North Carolina, Grandma witched the well positions. The well driller, who was a local, was suprised to find a "river of water" at an unusually shallow depth for the area. Point being that Grandma was NOT a local, yet she was able to find the water.

      The interesting thing is that she could make it work for another person too. When my brother bought property, she witched some well locations. She used a Y shaped stick (but not held the way that you usually see on stupid movies). When my sister-in-law tried to do it nothing would happen, but if Grandma put her hand on sister-in-law's back, the stick would twist strongly in Sis's hands in the same places. Now, before someone else says it, yes, there is all sort of non-double-blind bias, etc. which could come into play here, even unconciously. But Sis (who didn't believe in it before) said she was suprised at the force with which the stick seemed to "want" to move in her hands, and Grandma wasn't holding Sis's arms or doing anything which could have affected Sis's grip.

      --

      McFly777
      - - -
      "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
    4. Re:Water witching by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Or the NSA. Not that there's really much of a difference.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  31. Re: It's OK to attack mythology and superstition.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

    You forget that aliens are often branded as "science" (minus the fiction of course). Watch a few Discovery and National Graphic TV shows, and remember that those are supposed to be our "educational programming" networks.

    Prefixing an argument with "Scientists believe that" is an easy way to dupe people that want to believe they are more intelligent than those other people. That particular appeal to authority is used quite often with good effect.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  32. Re: It's OK to attack mythology and superstition.. by khallow · · Score: 1

    You are willing believe in aliens from other worlds, time travel and the idea all this can be kept hidden but a person being able to witch a well is a bridge too far?

    Where's the evidence? If the Greys land in front of the White House in a flying saucer and ask to be taken to our leader, then I would allow that there's something to this UFO stuff. Who knows? You might too.

  33. Re: A fool and their money (Witching Sticks) by tompaulco · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gas lines, water lines, sewer lines, coaxial lines, electric lines can all be found with a minimum of effort without witching sticks. All you have to do is go to a random spot, any old spot, it doesn't even have to be within 1000 miles of a human settlement, and dig. If you do not hit one of the above, you will at the very least cut the only fiber connection to an entire continent.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  34. CIA, NSA, Navy, Air Force, FBI, DOD, DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rain machines and weather manipulation is a capability we possess but they keep it for themselves. They prefer to create natural looking disasters and fuck with each other than to create peace or to regulate the weather in a productful way.

    10 governments plus the yakuza have access to interferometers. And countries been messing with the weather using them since the 1950s. Read up on directed energy and electromagnetic interferometric terrorism : http://www.OregonStateHospital.net/d/story.html#nsabrainlink

    Tornados and hurricanes and quakes and rainy and snowy seasons and hot and cold bursts and jet stream shifts can all be created.

    Also rise in tempurature leading to more hot weather is totally man made thanks to piss poor planning and profit games off unclean technologies. :D

    1. Re:CIA, NSA, Navy, Air Force, FBI, DOD, DHS by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Global warming denial meets conspiracy theory.

      I feel like in some weird, cheesy DC-Marvel crossover comic...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  35. Rousing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes me laugh about all these people who criticise whatever because it has a bad reputation, are mostly the same people who would be completely accepting if dowsing was commercialised and sold everywhere by some company who commission some bullshit "research" where a tiny group of people had success 50% or 60% of the time. But oh no, because some prick hasn't robbed people en masse, you suddenly have the balls to say something. My point is there's a lot worse shit out there than someone with a pair of metal wires prancing around land dressed like a wizard. Good luck to em.

  36. oh boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If California is really doing this, then they are doomed. They need to learn to conserve, even if that means learning new ways that are actually old ways. I have a garden, and I haven't watered it a single day this year. I have a bumper crop of tomatoes, more than I can really deal with. California could do this too, it's a lot of work to conserve water, but I don't know anyone else personally that garden like I do. I cut grass with my Scythe, I put said grass in my garden carefully. The grass is a water barrier, as well as nutrients for the fruit. Also since Tomatoes are versatile, I dug them up, and replant them 2 foot deeper, so on top of the grass water barrier, my plants are 2 foot underground where they would never usually be. Food for thought. Also I don't water my lawn, I let mother nature take care of that, and the grass clippings I don't get to. P.S. 200 years ago people didn't water their gardens in America, why do they do this now.

    1. Re:oh boy by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In all fairness, 200 years ago Americans were smart enough to not settle in the middle of the bloody desert.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. Re: A fool and their money (Witching Sticks) by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    That's the thing with water too. There's a water table in many places, and if you dig and find water chances are if you move 100 feet in any direction and dig you'll find water too. Other times the dowsers instinctively head to where water is most likely, stream beds, depressions in the earth, etc. Where dowsing fails though is in a blind test, they absolutely do not find water reliably in closed opaque barrels where neither tester nor testee know which has water.

  38. I dont know how - but dousing works by BeCre8iv · · Score: 1

    I tried it as a skeptic, but its hard to deny what happens in your own hands. It was demonstrated by someone who works in archeology and is highly respected in her field with a track record of finding buried structures (roman villas, neolithic burials etc).

    Ignoring or ridiculing an observable phenomenon because you have no explanation. Even though that ridicule has precluded any sort of mainstream scientific study. Is pretty unscientific IMO.

    Superposition or the simultaneous wave/particle properties of light sound pretty batshit to the layman. But im glad they are being investigated enough to at least present hypotheses to test.

    --
    This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  39. I can dowse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posting this AC for obvious reasons, it's bad enough accidentally re-igniting a flame war over systemd just to ask a question...

    Anyway, my dad taught me this as a kid. He, my sister, and I can all do it, while my mom could not. We use it to find water pipes, though it sometimes works for other utilities. We use bare wires (low but not too low friction) bent into an L-shape, and you hold the short end tightly in your clenched fist so the short end points down and the long one points straight ahead, one in each hand, although you can also use just one. You then walk slowly ahead and when the wires turn 90 degrees toward you you're standing over the pipe; walk backward, and the wires open up again.

    Here, this video explains it better. As the video author says, I can't explain how it works, but it does and is reliable.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I've tried using this technique for other things, such as finding ground water or gold, and failed. I also have never been able to do the dowsing with the wishbone-shaped branch you often see.

  40. Speaking of New Age rituals... by Megane · · Score: 1
    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  41. Re: A fool and their money (Witching Sticks) by sjames · · Score: 1

    That tells us only that it isn't the water itself that the witcher can locate. It says nothing about the ability to find a geologic structure that will typically have water.

  42. There is only one known ritual to make it rain by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    There is exactly one surefire way to create rain, it works flawlessly every time:

    Wash your car.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  43. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stephen Hawking has said (paraphrasing), "The existence of God is impossible because time did not exist before the Universe existed; therefore, nothing could have existed to create the Universe."

    And as I said in 1993 physics class: change requires time (delta t), so if there was no time "before"* the universe exists, there is no changing from nothing to something. Instead it is more likely that the Big Bang theory is wrong, and that there is an eternal source for existence.

    *what does before mean without time?

  44. I've seen it by badzilla · · Score: 1

    Dowsing, astrology, homeopathy, whenever anything like this comes up I always find it scary to see the angry response that comes from "science" people. It's as if they feel threatened somehow like their gods had been insulted. If they truly thought the subject was worthless they would just ignore it and not even bother to get into the debate.

    When I worked in an IT company in Johannesburg one of the kernel developers there used to get extra money finding water for farmers. Not sticks or wands, what he did was get a brick and stand it upright on the palm of his hand. He would walk around and interpret the water course according to the brick's movements. I have no idea how or why it worked but he was getting paid regularly.

    --
    "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    1. Re:I've seen it by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Dowsing and astrology are actually relatively harmless. Homeopathy has the potential to kill people by making them not go to a real doctor in time. I'm very much against relying on alternative medicine for anything important.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  45. If you actually believe that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bend 2 coat hangers at a 90 degree angle and walk outside with the long side hanging down at 50- 55 degrees from vertical. The coat hangers will swing together and cross against gravity for many people. I tried it. Does that mean there is water under you? Who cares. There's a force similar to magnetism that is not understood.

  46. Maybe there's also a market for snake oil? by rainer_d · · Score: 1

    Quick, make a kickstarter campaign!

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  47. Re: It's OK to attack mythology and superstition.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dousing is retarded because it can't actually hold up to a controlled test. Get a giant tank of water of 50 gallons, cover it and have some dousers try to locate it in a large area. You'll be very hard pressed to get results even p less than 0.1

  48. Re: A fool and their money (Witching Sticks) by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    it is possible to scientifically test dowsing, it would just be expensive and scientists have already decided that dowsing is BS and don't want to do the research to prove it.
    All you have to do is have a dowser go out and do his/her thing. Where they indicate there is water, dig. Also, dig 10 or 20 other random holes and figure out if there is water within about the same depth. Repeat about 100 times at different geologically separated and diversified areas. Shouldn't cost more than 10 or 20 million to put this to bed one way or another.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  49. Cause of the drought: by vandamme · · Score: 1

    Too many people making Orgonite and clearing the sky of clouds and chemtrails.

  50. Re: A fool and their money (Witching Sticks) by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Or just 50 cents worth of common sense.

  51. Re: A fool and their money (Witching Sticks) by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Common sense isn't always right. I don't see a good mechanism, but I'm not going to assume dowsing won't work without a decent study. Currently, I figure it's an interesting story with some not-particularly-convincing evidence, but I have no actual need to either believe it works or believe it doesn't.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  52. Oh, come on! You exaggerate ... by timothy · · Score: 1

    It's a groping *or* a rapey scan, usually. You make it sound like there's something unseemly!

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  53. Modern Climate Research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One only needs to read a Slashdot article about climate change to prove that this story is legitimate...

  54. Pseudoscientific hucksters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But yet business is booming? Such success would suggest REPEAT customers or "word of mouth" reference! But how can this be if it's just a mythology?

  55. Obligatory xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://xkcd.com/808/