You are confusing solutions with compounds.
How so? I used the word “mixture”, even in what you quoted. A solution is as you describe, and describes most of what I’ve mentioned (which is why I list the various compounds making up the solution/mixture like I did, separated by commas, minus the scientific syntax, what I also refer to as a chemical concoction). The only thing I’ve mentioned that’s a compound is what many claim rainwater is after bonding with CO2, i.e. H2CO3. But even if the molecules don’t bond to form the H2CO3 compound, it’d still be a H2O-based solution, not H2O.
http://www.chemicalformula.org/acid-rainhttps://www.reference.com/science/rain-water-naturally-acidic-1772817b5bc124beNearly all solutions are “stuff” dissolved into liquid H2O. Put just a few percent of NaCl into liquid H2O and you have something akin to seawater (minus the many other constituent minerals found in Earth’s waters). But if we were to drink enough of it we’d dehydrate and die. It’s been drastically altered. Yes those differences are small and these various liquids are still mostly H2O in content, but your conclusion ignores the wide variety of chemical, biological, etc. reactions that can be produced due to only minor variations in a mixture, which seems shortsighted, especially for a sci-fi scenario where imagination transcends reality-bound limits.
Again to my point: the bottom line is that when various components dissolve into a liquid solution they combine to become something different, and these differences, no matter how minor, can incite vastly diverse chemical reactions with other substances (including sci-fi alien epidermis). Therefore (and I repeat), “water” (e.g. in lakes, streams, oceans, tap, etc.) isn’t H2O. It’s an H2O-based mixture (which almost all liquids on Earth are). And since in the film the aliens aren’t harmed by exposure to other forms of H2O (i.e. fog, dew, even just humidity in the air, etc.) it seems Shyamalan’s intent was for liquid drawn from the Earth to be what harms them (whether he grasped the science of it or not). Not specifically H2O, but an Earth-based liquid water solution.
Again, though, that still leaves open the legitimate question of why the aliens raided a planet full of the stuff while not utilizing some form of protection or possessing any form of technology whatsoever. To address that I’ll deviate from the water vs. H2O debate and branch off into other areas in this post.
When minerals are dissolved in water, we have the original H2O molecules with ions of the dissolved elements floating among them. It is still mostly H2O.
Which is exactly what I described (and describe again above).
But the acidity (or alkalinity) of drinking water is pretty close to neutral. It's H2O with some very common, chemically neutral, minerals dissolved in it (with the minerals making up less than 0.05% of the mixture).
True, but the variance can be several percent as I presented, not just .05%. However, I get why you’re focusing on the .05%, and it has merit to the discussion since we see the alien burned by tap water. The emphasis of that statement would be on the word “alien”, a science
fiction conception. However, in various real-world scenarios just that .05% variance can cause reactions with biology or other substances. Although of course the small traces of minerals common to Earth’s water don’t typically react in such a violent manner to most other substances here on Earth in those minute portions, remember we’re talking about a science fiction situation.
We can extrapolate various real-world scenarios and transpose them into a science fiction setting (remember, real-world limits don’t apply in sci-fi). Most water (especially groundwater) has traces of various alkali metals, as we’ve established. Our bodies need many of them in small doses, and as you point out are found in the human body (we have to assume the aliens knew this and were using human bodies for purposes that would either not put them at risk or they could avoid). We could use this as an example to base a sci-fi scenario upon.
We know that alkali metals are so reactive that they are usually found combined with other elements. They react vigorously, and often violently, with water to release hydrogen to form caustic solutions. In addition, nonmetallic substances such as halogens, halogen acids, sulfur and phosphorus react with alkali metals, and alkali metals themselves react with many organic compounds, particularly those containing a halogen or a readily replaceable hydrogen atom. The below video shows reactions to various alkali metals with water (in this case H2O itself is the culprit), some quite violently exothermic (classic science class experiments and Mythbusters fodder):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvVUtpdK7xwAlthough this is a good example of real-world chemical reactions, because we empirically observe the aliens not having a reaction to H2O in the air, dew on cornstalks, etc. it’s less likely that it’s the H2O itself that causes them harm. Although nothing should ever be 100% ruled out. Case in point: the examples above of alkali metals reacting with liquid water only do so when submerged in it, so there could be an argument that only a certain quantity of liquid H2O poured onto their skin (maybe of a certain temperature range), as well as submersion perhaps (if you recall we’re told they avoid bodies of water), would incite the reaction we observe in the film. Again, its sci-fi so anything is possible (e.g. the aliens in Alien Nation to whom seawater was deadly).
So alkali metals explode upon submersion in water despite the Earth’s surface being about 71% water? That’s just bad writing. Plot hole! That would never happen in the—oh wait, that
is the real world. My bad.
We also know there are other substances alkalis react with such as phosphorus, sulfur, halogens, etc. So let’s imagine there’s something in the alien’s epidermis, perhaps even some element humans aren’t yet privy to, that reacts to even small traces of one of those metals common to Earth’s supply of liquid water (or a combination of several), perhaps only if it existed in a H2O-based liquid solution, or to narrow it down further perhaps even only at certain temperatures. Now pour a glass with trace amounts onto the alien. Or we could come up with a more specific example, still thinking “outside the box” into the realms of sci-fi. In fact, what if the reaction was enhanced by some additive that’s introduced into water sources by humans? I’ll explore it…
Imagine an alien with skin that for some sci-fi purpose (e.g. its natural ability to camouflage) produces high levels of a previously unknown element called milon in a sebaceous-like secretion from its pores. Now consider that much of the world’s drinking water is fluoridated (about 25 major countries as of 2012), and that this water drains into groundwater aquifers, lakes, streams, etc. (not to mention about 28 countries have naturally high levels of fluoridation). Fluoride is the negative ion of the element fluorine, which itself would react with milon (in fact, naturally occurring fluorine is so reactive that its presence in the Earth’s crust is as a fluoride).
Now pour a glass of fluoridated water (naturally or otherwise, but there’d be a stronger presence of it in tap water most likely, depending on region, especially in the U.S.) onto that alien’s skin. And if enough of it were to exist in lakes and reservoirs, it might make sense for the aliens to avoid those bodies of water (thus the locations of their crop circles that allegedly indicated strike zones in areas away from them). Once we stop confining our mindset and expand it to sci-fi scopes the possibilities become endless. Although such thoughts may need more refinement if one were to want to adhere more closely to real-world chemistry, this is sci-fi.
We could do something similar with chlorine or any of the halogens, or any other substance for that matter. Now combine these examples (while accounting for countless others that could be dreamed up) with the fact that God works in mysterious ways (in the film’s universe). All of this considered together (especially that last bit) is why I don’t have a problem with it within the context and full scope of every aspect of the story.
Of course my point with all this speculative visualization is that in sci-fi/fantasy anything is possible and is well within acceptable limits (since there are no limits), including aliens harmed by Earth’s tap water. However, none of that creative science-fictionalizing is necessary for “Signs” because it has nothing to do with the point or intent of the story (more on that later). I still enjoy entertaining ideas on the matter, though. As a side note, a resource like the following website could be used by a sci-fi writer to concoct all sorts of shenanigans:
https://www.webelements.com/caesium/chemistry.html we're still talking about some of the most common chemicals present in the earth's crust. Not to mention - in the humans those aliens were abducting.
This also matches my description. You’re really just rephrasing what I’ve already stated. But yes, correct.
the corrosive reaction this drinking water had with the alien's body was very fast, very aggressive
You realize “sci-fi” is an abbreviation for “science fiction”, right? Emphases on
fiction? I was assuming this would solicit some imaginative leeway, but apparently this film is subject to higher standards than most.
Not only that, but this particular story involves an omniscient being that works in mysterious ways and guides every single event in the universe toward a goal humans aren’t meant to comprehend, but who catch glimpses of insight as “signs” (thus the name of the movie). The aliens attacked the way they did, using methods that don’t involve technology, harmed by a liquid substance common on Earth because that’s what God wanted. He set them up to fail as a test for humanity (remember that most world religions put humans as God’s chosen ones). The point of the film is that there was a plan in place leading toward His desired outcome.
But that’s not the part you’re complaining about. For some reason most naysayers are fixated on the “aliens harmed by H2O” bit when it appears more likely that Shyamalan’s intent was to depict them being harmed by liquid water derived from the Earth (e.g. not fog, not dew, but quantities of liquid water), which is perfectly fine within the context of a sci-fi yarn. Water is being incorrectly conflated with H2O despite the film itself seeming to contradict the notion. Your points about the aliens having no technology, again, do have merit, but that aspect directly ties into the core message of the film, which is basically that God was behind all of it and that human logic can’t explain it (or that we don’t have enough information to explain it), i.e. “God did it”.
But there are indeed a plethora of potential explanations. For example, due to the vastness of space intergalactic traversal takes an extremely long time, almost certainly involving multiple generations depending on lifespan. If the aliens were depleted of resources and desperate and happened upon a planet with a resource that could be exploited (in a way that isn’t explained in the film), they would take the risk, despite having evolved no use of technology. Or perhaps master aliens who do use technology, but who are little more than big brains and therefore unable to directly engage, raid planets by sending down low-intelligence trained “monkeys”. In the end, no explanation matters, or is needed, but explanations are only limited by one’s imagination.
Complain about the implications of the “God did it” aspect for our society. But stop complaining about the water. And stop conflating water with H2O because they aren’t the same thing chemically.
It does not stand to reason that a certain ion, the concentration of which in that water was very low (considerably below 0.05%), caused this kind of chemical reaction
Sure it does. Of course the reaction to the alien was exaggerated (again, “sci-fi”), but even by real-world standards there are conditions suffered by humans to common water mixtures, probably due to the various constituent minerals (or additives) found within it, even at the small percentages typical of tap water.
http://flipper.diff.org/app/items/info/4933http://www.cholinergicurticaria.net/aquagenic-urticaria-allergic-to-water-can-you-be-allergic-to-waterhttp://water.thinkaboutit.eu/think5/post/the_rare_and_unfortunate_aquagenic_urticariahttp://www.md-health.com/Aquagenic-Urticaria.htmlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1081120610630712http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/gard/10901/aquagenic-urticaria/resources/1http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Aquagenic+Urticariahttp://www.diseaseinfosearch.org/Aquagenic+urticaria/9541http://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1105413http://www.jaci-inpractice.org/article/S2213-2198(13)00124-4/fulltexthttp://cholinergicurticariasite.com/aquagenic-urticaria-useful-factshttp://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-aquagenic-urticaria.htmhttp://perezhilton.com/tag/aquagenic_urticaria/#sthash.sKWSGINY.dpbshttp://healthyliving.msn.com/diseases/allergies/highly-unusual-allergieshttp://sites.psu.edu/rclamc6291/2012/12/04/the-girl-who-is-allergic-to-waterhttp://abcnews.go.com/Health/AllergiesNews/story?id=7401149http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ced.12147/abstracthttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1186%2F1939-4551-6-2http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Allergy/I-have-Aquagenic-Urticaria-does-any-one-else/show/4358http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-520329/The-teenage-girl-allergic-WATER.htmlhttp://www.waojournal.org/content/6/1/2http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1424795http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquagenic_urticariaSo are people suffering from Aquagenic Urticaria (or the similar Aquagenic Pruritis) living, breathing plot holes? How can they largely be made of water but also have an epidermal reaction to it? Mull it over.
So, they could build space fleets, had all the technology required for space travel, landing on a planet, etc., but had no means of assessing the chemical composition of the planet they were targeting?
They did know that water harmed them because they actively avoided it. We’re told in the film by the Ray Reddy character (played by the pretentious Shyamalan himself) that their crop circles were always far away from bodies of water (and yet shown that fog doesn’t harm them). But “targeted”? Or desperate? Who knows? And again, crop circles? These clearly aren’t hi-tech aliens. There’s something else going on here.
yet they managed to develop a poison that was effective on humans? And somehow reach the conclusion that those human bodies were somehow useful to them? Does this make any sense to you?
They didn’t “develop” a poison, nor any discernable technology we observe. It’s all organically evolved. Their camouflage isn’t technology. It’s biology. Even their “ships” could be biology. There’s absolutely nothing in the film depicted that we can state with certainty is technology, at least in the manner we’d label it. But as I’ve stated a number of times now, I see this as a legit debate because the movie is so ambiguous on the matter and I completely understand why it’d rub some the wrong way (along with the religious “hidden signs”/”everything happens for a reason” aspect as well). It’s easy for me to consider, however (although perhaps that’s because I’m a sci-fi nerd who’s read/seen numerous examples of exactly this over the decades) that they didn’t arrive in ships of metal, electronics, etc. in the manner humans would understand it. There’s absolutely no evidence of them possessing any form of technology, from their naturally evolved abilities of camouflage and poisonous gas to telepathic method of click’n cluck communication that can only be picked up by baby monitors.
There are more holes in this plot than there is a plot in this movie, mate, that's my point, and you're wasting your breath trying to defend it.
You’re trying to apply human-centric logic to a story that is framed around the core concept of everything happening for a reason and God working in mysterious ways, providing “signs” for those with the insight and faith to see them (with aliens thrown in). You’re absolutely within your right to dislike this, even abhor it, but not to blindly dismiss it or fail to acknowledge that this is what it’s actually about. There only appear to be holes when you fail to consider all aspects of the story that’s been presented. You can’t hone in on just one component. You seem to completely dismiss even the films namesake, which lies at the very heart of the story’s intent.
http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2012/08/This-theory-will-make-you-rethink-everything-about-M-Night-Shyamalans-SIGNSI’ve seen the link above and references in other threads and forums to this concept before. I don’t agree that it was Shyamalan’s intent to depict literal demons. However, I think everything he presents in the film is highly symbolic of various mythological elements. Most of his early films are, in fact, and shouldn’t be taken literally, but as allegorical fables. There’s more going on in this film than an alien raid of Earth. Much more. Having studied modern U.F.O. mythology as well as the cultural and sociological impacts of various world religions, what’s described in the link above hints at my own inkling upon first viewing the film.
With all of this information coalesced, including the fact that “water” is more complex than just H2O, I recognized “Signs” for what it was intended to be: a blend of old and modern mythological components revolving around a story of tested faith. The target audience accepted it as well because it fit their worldview. For most of them “God did it” is all the explanation they need, is the answer to any unknown, even if they recognize that how its presented in the film is an exaggerated version of the concept (e.g. a deity controlling every aspect and having a specific plan for all individuals vs. one that allows free will and lets things play out while intervening only at pivotal moments) even by the standards set by their religious texts, whatever that may be.
I see cinematic efforts as works of art just like a painting or any other form of artistic expression. Art sets its own rules, and our reaction to art is shaped by our own predispositions, so I try to leave those at the door and let the art dictate to me what it is, rather than the other way around (most people impose their own partialities upon it—I do not). For example, some immediately dismiss products of Picasso from his Cubism stage (his portraits with misshapen facial structures, i.e. crooked noses, misplaced eyes, etc.) while others recognize it for what it is, without applying their own preconceptions and biases, letting the art dictate its purpose.
And yes like many of my posts, this one is long and overly verbose. I’ll apologize in advance.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
reply
share