Re: [pct-l] RE: RE: [at-l] filter

["Ed" <tiger1@fuse.net>]

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.

thanks

>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
facts.
> >
> > I've done independent research into filters/purifiers, and the
> > PUR models do
> > not compare to the effectiveness/practicality (in real use) of the
others.
> >


* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================