Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarecrow
The issue is a lab report you can't validate the source and credentials of and certificates that are manufacture self-issued certificates - both these issue go to the heart of the credibility of BioVAL and what is marketing versus what is actually a legitimate independent study.
|
I am honestly not trying to be dense (and the scare-quotes I put around "issues" are meant literally, not as pseudo-sarcasm) but let me make sure I understand.
I think based on what you explained you're ultimately interested in whether Bioval is the kind of place that engages in, at best, shilling and misleading. (And the icing on the cake would be if the BBs are harmful in some way -- like made of glass that shatters into tiny razor-sharp ninja stars.) Is that right?
Put in other words, your spider-sense has been tingled and you want to know if Bioval is as shifty/untrustworthy as they seem to be acting.
If that's the case then all the sidetracking about observed BB performance in the field and stuff is kind of irrelevant (and probably frustrating to have show up in your thread),
except where it might provide some kind of evidence contrary to the report or certificate statements, or evidence of possible harmfulness (e.g. shards, etc.)
I'm going to jump ahead of myself, and assuming that's right try to be helpful and itemize some things that would get closer to answering that ultimate question:
- Establish credibility/non-credibility of lab report (what you're doing right now)
- Find evidence that the BBs are clearly dangerous/harmful in some way (moreso than other BBs) and Bioval is conveniently not mentioning it.
- Get different results than the lab report findings (actually measure size/mass consistency to see how it jives with report's table).
- Establish just how "biodegradable" they really are or aren't. (Might be technically correct but essentially misleading to call them biodegradable.)
- Anything else? Would it be worth trying to replicate their 'ouch test'? What would it mean if our findings differed from theirs?
#1 seems easiest. #2 is iffy. #3 and #4 - probably the most conclusive ones - would unfortunately need non-typical tools and a LOT of time/effort. (Or knowledge of the "secret ingredients") and probably are not practical.
Or am I completely misunderstanding all this and owe you an apology for shitting up your thread?
