[Coral-List] [EXTERNAL] USACE used bad science to rule out useful instrument for siltation monitoring
Jordan-Sellers, Terri SAJ
Terri.Jordan-Sellers at usace.army.mil
Sat Jan 23 13:49:59 EST 2016
Dr. Erlingsson - I would recommend that you provide your device to an independent 3rd party (I believe you provided 3 devices to the researchers at ERDC in 2012) and have them run studies both in the lab and field. Then they can publish the results. That would remove any concerns about the results being biased (as it appears you are accusing USACE researchers of finding your device incapable of measuring sediments as you claimed it would as a way to limit its use on USACE projects). Any results that you publish would hardly be considered unbiased, as you are attempting to sell this device and make money off of it.
It also appears as though you are accusing the researchers at ERDC of conducting fraudulent studies and publishing fraudulent technical memorandums. It seems to me that 2 years after the publication of these memoranda, when the results were not what you wanted them to be, you have sour grapes and accuse the review team of bad science. I have forwarded your posts from this list to those researchers at ERDC so that they are aware that you are defaming their reputations.
From: Ulf Erlingsson [mailto:ceo at lindorm.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 1:35 PM
To: Coral List <coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
Cc: Jordan-Sellers, Terri SAJ <Terri.Jordan-Sellers at usace.army.mil>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Coral-List] USACE used bad science to rule out useful instrument for siltation monitoring
On 2016-01 -23, at 12:24 , Jordan-Sellers, Terri SAJ wrote:
As I have previously stated, USACE-Jacksonville district NEVER considered your device for monitoring, as the testing for this device had been completed prior to the advertisement of the contract and the device was deemed unable to detect the sediment to the level advertised.
This is exactly the point: Their conclusion that the SediMeter was unable to detect the sediment to the level advertised does not hold up to scrutiny. I stand by my instrument and I don't hesitate to say that the USACE report is deceitful. If it's deliberate or not I cannot know, but your reply above clearly shows that it led to the consequence I suspected: It was not being considered.
It was not being considered due to a flawed report. That's the bottom line.
I am know conducting a PROPER study and will publish the results when ready..
More information about the Coral-List