Starbuck's comments:

on Bull Run Water

Mr Shaff, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Falsification as :

"to prove or declare false; Disprove" (among other definitions).

Falsification is SOP in science. I certainly could have said disprove or wrong or invalidate, but I chose that word as I did check with Brita, while the program was running, concerning their specs.

n any case I said nothing with respect to LT-2 in my statement. I had one question to settle and that was it. You confuse the issue with introducing LT-2 at that point.

An unequivocal No from the head of the Water Bureau suggests that you indeed have the proper information allowing such a response. If it is untrue, no matter how you cut it, you have egg on your face, in my humble opinion, sir. That raises questions in my mind about any other possible inaccuracies from your Bureau.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context

on Bull Run Water

The question aked of Shaff concerned the existence of any filter system available for in home or faucet filtration and he answered no. Then when faced with a falsefication of his answer, he equivocates. This is the crux of the matter: Truth and confidence.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context

on Bull Run Water

David Shaff is dead wrong about faucet filters. Brita confirms that their filters removes 99.99% of Crypto and Guardia.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context

on Bull Run Water

The argument that Portland wants weakened EPA rules is really turned around. What we should be showing is that a system like Bull Run has stellar qualities, not demanding excessive tratment that a truly Green system would provide. Congress needs to hold up Bull Run as the system to emulate. We do not need to treat a system which has no problems. It's comparable to adding exhaust treatment rules to cars that are exclusively electric.

posted 2 years, 9 months ago
view in context



Become a sponsor