You're flat wrong. I didn't bother checking the other claims that logfromblammo made before my previous comments, I accepted them at face value, but I did th

You're flat wrong. I didn't bother checking the other claims that logfromblammo made before my previous comments, I accepted them at face value, but I did this time; Boric acid has a hardness of 3 not 1 as he claimed. Diatomaceous Earth has a hardness of 1-1.5. [0][1] I looked at the source for the wikipedia claim that logfromblammo described so: "which does not contain anything remotely close to the text added". The source does support the claim in wikipedia. [2] >Pesticide products containing boric acid and its sodium salts are registered in the U.S. for use as insecticides, fungicides and herbicides. As insecticides, some act as stomach poisons in ants, cockroaches, silverfishand termites, while others abrade the exoskeletons of insects. The foundational premise behind his original post "unsourced wikipedia edit mislead other websites" is flat wrong. And on top of that, his reasoning for why boric acid wouldn't be a good abrasive "mohs hardness of 1" is also wrong, and egregiously so when the infamous Diatomaceous Earth that he claims is being mistaken for boric acid has a mohs hardness of 1-1.5! It's an irrelevant argument. My initial diagnosis of logfromblammo being the one who was confused was absolutely correct. Very disappointed in both of you. Hopefully many people weren't mislead by being convinced by logfromblammo as you were. [0] http://www.americanborate.com/all-about-borates/borate-applications/borates-in-pesticides/ http://www.americanborate.com/all-about-borates/borate-appli... -- another source about the abrasive properties + boric acid hardness [1] https://www.tedpella.com/company_html/hardness.htm https://www.tedpella.com/company_html/hardness.htm -- boric acid hardness [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20080406065032/http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0024fact.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20080406065032/http://www.epa.go... -- the wiki source that was incorrectly identified as not supporting the claim