GainesvilleReef: Richard has kept this conversation civil, but I feel some of your remarks are straying from that civility.Richard,
I know what fallacious means. And as a big fan of yours, I was giving my opinion that your article came across as very negative. Perhaps you should re-read your article with more empathy for Triton. Also, others listed in your article have been making very disparaging posts about Ehsan and Triton. None of which is useful to the conversation.
When I sad 'lab analysis', I meant analysis for the purposes of research where all the certifications and traceability are useful. I don't need certifications to decide to throw Cuprisorb in my tank if I get an elevated copper from my triton test. Triton testing is being marketed to hobbyist not research institutions. What I saw in the article is a bunch of people that have access to free (meaning that they are not paying for it themselves) ICP testing and expensive standards as well as other precision lab equipment throwing Triton under the bus because it is not as good as they expensive methods they use. Nobody would expect it to be the same. Why should Triton be beat up for offering a "volkswagen" to the market place.
Please keep up the my toys are better than yours arguments. It makes for good theater. But in the end, only institutional scientists can afford those kind of toys. Maybe it's the elitist perspective that is putting me off about all this.
When I first used Triton testing I sent duplicate samples and ran my own tests at the time of the samples and everything matched very well. They matched quite a bit better than another testing service in the business. So, I approached it with some skepticism as well . But, I never had the notion that it was the same thing you compared it to in your article.
Thanks for responding and letting me disagree with you.
Please understand that I am one those who will wait anxiously for your next article. Keep them coming.
Carl
I want this conversation to continue, so let's keep it respectful.