In no way do I believe that carbon can be regenerated. Lou has reminded us that one of the main focuses of this post (and the lawsuit) was the regenerative features, or lack thereof, that sentlok claim. If i'm not mistaken (i'm no chemist) charcoal is the main ingredient in carbon. We do know that charcoal has absorbing qualities, but as many have pointed out in this post, the life span and the effectiveness of that charcoal/carbon is miniscule compared to what Sentlok Ads lead you to believe.
I find two things interesting about this "situation". The first is the fact that anyone is gullible enough to believe that there are any certainties 100% of the time. I know false advertising is illegal and should be punished, but if anyone believes an Ad that says "100% effectivness" then I have a problem with them thinking they can sue a company when (again in my opinion) their ignorance and gullibleness (if that's a word) played a factor in the purchase.
The second interesting item, is how so many people are willing to believe the ruling of a court. I'm not saying that because I disagree with the courts rulling, Lord knows I don't, but what happens if a court rules against our 2nd admendment rights, as they've almost done in Chicago twice? I'm not going to believe that ruling.
Again, I don't believe that carbon clothing can be regenerated in a commercial dryer or that the scent reducing qualities of these suits are effective from a quanity or life span perspective, but it's interesting how many folks jump on Scentlok just because a court says so.
In my opinion, Scentlok should be fined for their false advertising and that fine should go towards wildlife conservation. The plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit forward should have their atty fees paid and that's it. I don't think that any person should get rich because they believed a false claim. How has these hunters been wronged? Did they not harvest that big buck due to the carbon suit being non-effective? If that's their claim, then how can they prove that the buck smelled them and didn't walk by? This ruling seems to have raised more questions than it has answered, at least for me anyways.
I just seen a scent loc add on tv and they are still making some pretty bold clams.
Maybe we can put this in somekind of perspective.
The lawsuits are much larger then just Scentlok and included Scent Blocker , Cabela's , Gander Mountain and Bass Pro . The basis of the charges were based on fraud and conspiracy. That they worked together to defraud the public . They were found guilty by the judge as a matter of law. The actual trial is still to come to determind damages. There was significant evidence for the judge to rule. Just the testimony of the experts from both sides clearly proved they were guilty. All of them. Don't raise red herrings by trying to bring in other cases. If their own expert says it doesn't work , it doesn't work.
The thing that we lose sight of is that the discussion is about false advertising but the real evidence supports that carbon does't work to stop human odor from be released. Why do you think Scent Blocker was so quick to settle. They wanted to stop this from coming out to the public.
We tend to forget that in the Feb.1999 issue of Field and Stream a carbon expert was interviewed and stated that scientifically this process can not work. Hunter's wanted something magically to work and they went along with these claims despite the evidence. Then pro and celebrity hunters saw a chance to make some quick money or get sponsorships and jumped on board and started pushing products they didn't believe in. Take Lee Lakowsky, he has a chemistry background and had to know some of these claims were false. He went as far to talk and complain that the carbon wasn't working. Despite his chemical background and his personal experirnce with carbon and the decision of the court and expert testimony he continues to support carbon by accepting sponsorship.. In fact we haven't heard one word from anyone who accepts money or sponsership for carbon. Why aren't the speaking out ?
Just a little research on the properties of carbon would go a long way revealing that these claims are false and are intended to fool the average hunter. Actually a close study of the court documents reveal that there isn't enough carbon to stop anything close to what they claim.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests