[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [pct-l] RE: RE: [at-l] filter
- Subject: RE: [pct-l] RE: RE: [at-l] filter
- From: "Justin Case" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 17:56:17 -0700
If you are interested in unbiased research, then start off on your own -
that will make it more pleasing to you.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of Ed
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 3:30 PM
> To: PCT-L@backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] RE: RE: [at-l] filter
> I'm interested in the factual data on this. Who specifically are
> those who
> least admires the PUR? Where can I see their "science"? Where can I see
> the independent research?
> I'm interested in forming my own opinion based on the facts
> themselves. I'm
> not trying to fan any flames, but I agree with the middle quote below: It
> is facts that we each need to sift through, not summaries of facts.
> >The paper PUR filters are
> > the least admired by those in water quality/treatment
> vocations. They've
> > done the math - in this case the science!
> > We all have our opinions, and we can only hope to sift through to the
> > >
> > > I've done independent research into filters/purifiers, and the
> > > PUR models do
> > > not compare to the effectiveness/practicality (in real use) of the
> > >
> * From the PCT-L | Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html *
* From the PCT-L | Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html *