<rs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have said this repeatedly here and ohter places > that KRST 1+9 for 3 minutes may not be adequate. There is a pretty thorough Danish study showing that low density areas are converted to much lesser degree and KRST toned specimens are not as durable as KBT treated specimens. I already posted references to that paper a few times. ----------------------------------------------------- Maybe so, but it does not appear on a simple search of your name, Danish, and KRST. aLL i COULD PULL UP (OR Recall)was... "Danish research showed that protection given by KRST treatment is highly dependent on the image density, material, dilution, treatment time, etc. and their data show there is no simple way to make KRST reliably effective for image protection. I have done my own peroxide fuming tests with several test strips...." perhaps I missed something. Anyway... ---------------------------------------------- This is not a proper citation. If you feel the paper is worthy of our attention, would you please cite the referance so we may examine it? Or, if you have already cited it, and do not want to spend time doing it again, would you give us enough information to locate it with a simple, efficient search? Who were the authors? What Journal was it published in? (BTW, if you could find the time, it might interest some to know the details of how you did the fuming tests. If they were useful, perhaps someone here might like to try it.) TIA, Ray __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ ============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.