In that case Mike, you would have to do the same with the brands which John believes are contaminant free also! After all, it is only their word that he is going on too, isn't it <grin>? dee
On 7 Jan 2010, at 16:19, M. G. Devour wrote: > Dee writes: >> But in this case Annie, Marshall *has* tested it scientifically and it >> came up negative, which is as much proof as anyone could need surely? > > Well, not quite, Dee! <grin> > > Marshall, what mode of testing are you using? It seems to be quite > specific as to compound, and you need to know what you're testing for > in advance. Why? Thanks very much for doing it. > > In fairness, all we know from Marshall's testing is that the two most > common or likely sources of aluminum contamination from processing > equipment -- metal and oxide -- are absent at least to the sensitivity > limits of his measurement.. > > So, until somebody comes up with a specific chemical species for > Marshall to test for, or else takes a sample of Arm & Hammer baking > soda to their local environmental testing lab and asks for an atomic > absorption spectroscopy analyisis for elemental aluminum, we'll have to > leave this in the 'asserted but unproven' category. Neither > contamination nor purity has been demonstrated beyond doubt. > > And that is the essence of a successful marketing campaign. <shrug> > > Thanks for your patience, John. > > Peace, > -- The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver. Instructions for unsubscribing are posted at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: silver-list@eskimo.com Address Off-Topic messages to: silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com The Silver List and Off Topic List archives are currently down... List maintainer: Mike Devour <mdev...@eskimo.com>
