My point was to show how 0.395 mg/cm2 claim needed to be looked at skeptically. Now if I just said that number resulted in over 10 years of wearing without needing to be recharged, you wouldn't have believed me.
Similarly, if the Scent Blocker had come out and said their garments would be worn threadbare before you needed to recharge them in Woodsie's 1500 degree dryer, you'd also be unbelieving. However, they threw out some obscure number and a lot of people would let it slip by without question.
So here are some points really worth thinking about:
1) If I told you my anti-telepathy hat would reject 4.8GHz radiation up to 1.2 Mega-Teslas and attenuate up to -20db? . . . See I bet you didn't even finish the sentence. You've already made your decision. You either buy into it or you don't. Probably what sold you on the anti-telepathy hat was the graphic:
. . . because that is what you looked at first. All the rest could have been Gospel Truth or complete lies. You either believed the picture or you didn't and made your decision based on that.
2) Why do companies involved in this scent reduction market have to make extraordinary and excessive claims? If the darn things work, why not give easily verifiable results?
3) Has anyone really verified any of this? I'm still waiting to see a published side-by-side comparison between a scent-suit and wearing an ordinary rain suit. If this stuff is really scientifically proven, where's the science? If I had paid for real scientists to do real science and the stuff worked, I'd be finding every way I could to slip real science into my advertising. Based on what I've seen from these scent-reduction peddlers, there is either a) no real science behind it b) the science doesn't back up the claim c) the entire paradigm is screwed up-- you could be going out in wool cruisers and smoking a pipe and have about as much luck.
. . . oh, Gee! Wasn't that what we were doing before all this scent-hooey got started?