Well, I see. Thanks for that. And, I might add, you have also brought some rather broad critique embedded in your speech. It is these giant assumptions that bring us to attention more than the "subject." First you say you have no knowledge, your first look at the subject and you wish to discuss it, but the big stinky fish is this.
"...not a topic suited to the US educational system, nor the depths of Roll it up at this time. "
There is no depth in this Structured Water commercial claim. "...to add structural integrity..." Water is a most structurally stable molecule. It is the basis of Life as we know it. If it was not stable already, we would not have Life.
However, you want to begin the discussion with false arguments. When we point out the false arguments, you take it personally. You talk about High School Science as if that has any meaning in the Real Science world.
It doesn't. It is a simplified basis to begin. Again, I am very familiar with the peer review process. And like cn, I preferr, let's say require, written papers that can be explored and compared for false argument. So, there are many bogus ideas, many bogus conspiracy paranoias, but only one cauldron of Science. Studying the various structures of molecules is Science.
Selling devices to "fix water" and fix pollution is just the latest form of Snake Oil. I looked up the peer review. There is none.