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

["Justin Case" <jcase@worldimage.com>]

If you are interested in unbiased research, then start off on your own -
that will make it more pleasing to you.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pct-l@backcountry.net [mailto:owner-pct-l@backcountry.net]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.
>
> 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  *
>

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

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