Sign up for our daily Newsletter and stay up to date with all the latest news!

Subscribe I am already a subscriber

You are using software which is blocking our advertisements (adblocker).

As we provide the news for free, we are relying on revenues from our banners. So please disable your adblocker and reload the page to continue using this site.

Click here for a guide on disabling your adblocker.

Sign up for our daily Newsletter and stay up to date with all the latest news!

Subscribe I am already a subscriber

Can electricity be used to reduce water hardness in hydroponics?

Beginning hydroponic growers are faced with large amounts of information when first getting started, which can pose a significant barrier to entry. One such product claim, which has found its way to the Iowa Supreme Court, involves a non-chemical process called electromagnetic water treatment (EWT). Proponents of EWT, primarily manufacturers of commercial and consumer devices, assert that their product helps buyers reduce rust and water alkalinity in their plumbing. This process works, allegedly, by inducing an electromagnetic field using a device through which untreated water passes.

The evidentiary basis for these types of products was debunked in 1989 via a court case brought via the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act of 1965 assisted by an Iowa State University distinguished professor emeritus, Douglas Finnemore. Finnemore’s expertise in superconductivity and magnetism provided key testimony, which resulted in successful litigation against a manufacturer of EWT devices.  

In a paraphrase of his testimony, Finnemore maintained that “[the device] was incapable of producing enough energy to cause chemical changes in water by either preventing the bonding of certain elements or affecting the crystallization process.” Ultimately, the manufacturers of the device in question contended that their product claims were not “based on any scientific information” but rather the inventor’s “personal opinions and speculation.”

Despite the Iowa Supreme Court’s findings and summary judgment against this manufacturer of EWT devices, in 2021, there are still a surprising number of similar devices available for consumer purchase. It is unclear what, if any, pending litigation is proceeding related to these devices. In absence of policy to prevent the exploitation of hydroponic growers, it is essential to further educate and improve the ability of the public to discern fact from fiction where extraordinary scientific claims are concerned. 

Have a horticulture myth that you would like to submit for consideration? Contact the author, Christopher Imler, at

For more information: 
Michigan State University 
Publication date: