3 ms·
The article claims "The Crystal wash did not seem to do BETTER or WORSE than regular detergent", but I'm really curious to know how the author was scoring that.
by Steuard 8y ago
The article claims "The Crystal wash did not seem to do BETTER or WORSE than regular detergent", but I'm really curious to know how the author was scoring that. At least to my eye, the density of bacterial colonies in the "Crystal Wash" sample looks much more comparable to the density in the "no detergent" sample than to the "Kirkland detergent" sample. But maybe it falls under her threshold of statistical significance.
Even apart from the results of this experiment, the basic concept of this product sounds really sketchy to me. I'm not going to say that there's no way at all that mere exposure to sunlight could recharge a catalyst that would change the pH when immersed in water, but just about every pH changing process that I know of involves using up some chemical reagent, and exposure to sunlight alone seems unlikely to replenish that sort of resource. So it sounds like snake oil to me.
- AdrianB1 8y agoRead between the lines: there is no effect on germs from detergents or Crystal wash. Zero equals zero :)
- Steuard 8y agoThat seems like the other possibility, yeah. My eye sees what looks like a meaningfully different number or density of bacterial clusters on the "detergent" sample in that comparison, but I could pretty easily imagine it falling into a "close enough to be statistically indistinguishable" category. (I would have expected detergents to damage cell membranes enough to make some kind of difference, but I'll admit this is awfully far from my expertise in high-energy physics. :) )