> I think that was the whole idea behind those Standard Methods, that
> someone bullyied a while back.

Let's not get distracted by trying to be funny.

This is a serious question, and that question is what methods have been
used in the various efficacy numbers we have been given to date and are
they useful for comparison?

We assume that they can be used as a yardstick for one method vs.
another, but are they.

This was brought to my attention when viewing a report by a group in
Ontario.

As for standardization, that may not be possible if the tests are not
comparable.

As Bill has noticed, the results of a one time treatment may not be
easily compared to a series of treatments taking place over time.

Does anyone but Bill understand what I am saying?

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html