On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 19:58:18 UTC, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 06:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/03/18 04:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:

This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication
from a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god
doesn't exist; where beliefs of the existence that father christmas,
and the like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it
the words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever
happened to actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even
newsgroups.


Once it did. These days it means a coterie of paid academics are
masturbating each other for money, if te word 'environment' or 'eco' or
'climate change' apperas anywhere in it.

Anyway how many people have DHW systems that operate at 150C - where the
test were carried out?

Ad has been said elsewhere, the application to the domestic water supply
is precisely zero.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Have you have a publication refused?

maybe you read stuff in a different field to me. TNP is right about some fields at least.


NT