Scent Blocker/Scent Lok...
07-03-2010, 11:12 AM
#31
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 349
I just read this somewhere. Does anyone know anything about this?
Quote:
"Independent testing ?
Scent blocker is now claiming that they have done independent testing to prove how effective their product is reducing odor (Not Human)
They choose Hexane to use in the testing. According to Wikipedia” hexanes are significant constituents of gasoline. They are colorless liquids at room temperature with boiling points between 122 and 158 with gasoline like odor. ( Carefully chosen to fit into the dryer temperature. Just as Scentlok chose EMA with a boiling point of 96 in the Intertek testing.) They are widely used as cheap , relatively safe , largely unreactive , and easily evaporated non-polar solvents. “
It has always surprised me why these companies chose to use compounds other than human odor for testing purposes and then turn around and state their findings. Scott Schulz knows better than anyone that when his product is tested with animals it fails miserably as revealed in the Fox Investigative report and other test that he is aware of. Yet Haxane is proof positive of the superior product that they claim to have even it has nothing to do with human odor. Why won’t a hunter with a chemist background like Lee Lakosky come out and be honest and upfront with the hunting public ? We know from the transcripts that he notified Scentlok that their product was not working and he was being winded."
Quote:
"Independent testing ?
Scent blocker is now claiming that they have done independent testing to prove how effective their product is reducing odor (Not Human)
They choose Hexane to use in the testing. According to Wikipedia” hexanes are significant constituents of gasoline. They are colorless liquids at room temperature with boiling points between 122 and 158 with gasoline like odor. ( Carefully chosen to fit into the dryer temperature. Just as Scentlok chose EMA with a boiling point of 96 in the Intertek testing.) They are widely used as cheap , relatively safe , largely unreactive , and easily evaporated non-polar solvents. “
It has always surprised me why these companies chose to use compounds other than human odor for testing purposes and then turn around and state their findings. Scott Schulz knows better than anyone that when his product is tested with animals it fails miserably as revealed in the Fox Investigative report and other test that he is aware of. Yet Haxane is proof positive of the superior product that they claim to have even it has nothing to do with human odor. Why won’t a hunter with a chemist background like Lee Lakosky come out and be honest and upfront with the hunting public ? We know from the transcripts that he notified Scentlok that their product was not working and he was being winded."
07-03-2010, 11:44 AM
#32
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,876
It's no wonder the country's in the shape it's in, few actually think through things.
Just curios, why do I wear any clothes for a length of time? I mean if getting rid of the accumulated stink is impossible without burning them up, you'd think clothes would be thrown out at an alarming rate, yet some how they are reactivated to once again absorb more stink. Just an amazing concept for people who claim to know science. Must never wash and dry any clothes. It is kind of a new concept in personal hygiene.
Sheep come in all shapes and sizes but they all have one thing in common, they're followers of a Judas goat. I've read T.R.M. and didn't find him to be a credible source and it wasn't about his claims to know the science behind scent lok clothing. A company he had no problem with until they fire him.
Blind hatred blinds. If people weren't so blind they'd see what scent lok came up with and do the same. Just common sense stuff wrapped in the mystery (hocus pocus stuff to sell the product).
The carbon does work in 2 ways. It adsorbs and creates a cover scent.
I like good wool but SC is half the price without the hassle and just as good a product with or without scent control that wool doesn't have any claims. I can also find SC at bargain discounted prices. Wool? forget about it and SC doesn't shirk like every piece of wool I've owned and ruined hunting away from home using laundry mats.
SC not SB is great clothes at a good price when you shop smart. Never found SB at a good price.
Just curios, why do I wear any clothes for a length of time? I mean if getting rid of the accumulated stink is impossible without burning them up, you'd think clothes would be thrown out at an alarming rate, yet some how they are reactivated to once again absorb more stink. Just an amazing concept for people who claim to know science. Must never wash and dry any clothes. It is kind of a new concept in personal hygiene.
Sheep come in all shapes and sizes but they all have one thing in common, they're followers of a Judas goat. I've read T.R.M. and didn't find him to be a credible source and it wasn't about his claims to know the science behind scent lok clothing. A company he had no problem with until they fire him.
Blind hatred blinds. If people weren't so blind they'd see what scent lok came up with and do the same. Just common sense stuff wrapped in the mystery (hocus pocus stuff to sell the product).
The carbon does work in 2 ways. It adsorbs and creates a cover scent.
I like good wool but SC is half the price without the hassle and just as good a product with or without scent control that wool doesn't have any claims. I can also find SC at bargain discounted prices. Wool? forget about it and SC doesn't shirk like every piece of wool I've owned and ruined hunting away from home using laundry mats.
SC not SB is great clothes at a good price when you shop smart. Never found SB at a good price.
07-04-2010, 06:06 PM
#33
Spike
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 10
it's no wonder the country's in the shape it's in, few actually think through things.
Just curios, why do i wear any clothes for a length of time? I mean if getting rid of the accumulated stink is impossible without burning them up, you'd think clothes would be thrown out at an alarming rate, yet some how they are reactivated to once again absorb more stink. Just an amazing concept for people who claim to know science. Must never wash and dry any clothes. It is kind of a new concept in personal hygiene.
sheep come in all shapes and sizes but they all have one thing in common, they're followers of a judas goat. I've read t.r.m. And didn't find him to be a credible source and it wasn't about his claims to know the science behind scent lok clothing. A company he had no problem with until they fire him.[b][/b
they never fired him he never worked for them
blind hatred blinds. If people weren't so blind they'd see what scent lok came up with and do the same. Just common sense stuff wrapped in the mystery (hocus pocus stuff to sell the product).
The carbon does work in 2 ways. It adsorbs and creates a cover scent.
When you have 27% coverage as the trial revealed it does neither. Would you trust 27 % ?
I like good wool but sc is half the price without the hassle and just as good a product with or without scent control that wool doesn't have any claims. I can also find sc at bargain discounted prices. Wool? Forget about it and sc doesn't shirk like every piece of wool i've owned and ruined hunting away from home using laundry mats.
Sc not sb is great clothes at a good price when you shop smart. Never found sb at a good price.
Just curios, why do i wear any clothes for a length of time? I mean if getting rid of the accumulated stink is impossible without burning them up, you'd think clothes would be thrown out at an alarming rate, yet some how they are reactivated to once again absorb more stink. Just an amazing concept for people who claim to know science. Must never wash and dry any clothes. It is kind of a new concept in personal hygiene.
sheep come in all shapes and sizes but they all have one thing in common, they're followers of a judas goat. I've read t.r.m. And didn't find him to be a credible source and it wasn't about his claims to know the science behind scent lok clothing. A company he had no problem with until they fire him.[b][/b
they never fired him he never worked for them
blind hatred blinds. If people weren't so blind they'd see what scent lok came up with and do the same. Just common sense stuff wrapped in the mystery (hocus pocus stuff to sell the product).
The carbon does work in 2 ways. It adsorbs and creates a cover scent.
When you have 27% coverage as the trial revealed it does neither. Would you trust 27 % ?
I like good wool but sc is half the price without the hassle and just as good a product with or without scent control that wool doesn't have any claims. I can also find sc at bargain discounted prices. Wool? Forget about it and sc doesn't shirk like every piece of wool i've owned and ruined hunting away from home using laundry mats.
Sc not sb is great clothes at a good price when you shop smart. Never found sb at a good price.
their product does zero with 27% coverage.
07-04-2010, 06:23 PM
#34
Spike
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: MN
Posts: 10
High Tide - Be Truthful - The court never ruled it works.
This was a settlement agreement that Scent Blocker agreed to so that they won't be found guilty just like Cabela's , Scentlok , and Gander Mountain.
They settled in 9 different lawsuits in 9 states. Why ?
Why would they enter into a settlement agreement if their product worked ?
Why would they pay a HUGE sum to settle if they weren't guilty ?
Is it because they think the hunting public is stupid enough to believe this ?
The testing they did at the University of Minnesota was set up by Scent Blocker and the choose to test with Hexane which has a boiling point that fits in exactly with the temperature of the dryer. Hexane has nothing to do with human odor. Why not just test human odor ? When you rig the test you can get the results you need. A careful study of what you posted has more holes than swiss cheese. A copy of Scott Schultz's staement has been sent to the court to verify their statements concerning these products.
This was a settlement agreement that Scent Blocker agreed to so that they won't be found guilty just like Cabela's , Scentlok , and Gander Mountain.
They settled in 9 different lawsuits in 9 states. Why ?
Why would they enter into a settlement agreement if their product worked ?
Why would they pay a HUGE sum to settle if they weren't guilty ?
Is it because they think the hunting public is stupid enough to believe this ?
The testing they did at the University of Minnesota was set up by Scent Blocker and the choose to test with Hexane which has a boiling point that fits in exactly with the temperature of the dryer. Hexane has nothing to do with human odor. Why not just test human odor ? When you rig the test you can get the results you need. A careful study of what you posted has more holes than swiss cheese. A copy of Scott Schultz's staement has been sent to the court to verify their statements concerning these products.
07-05-2010, 01:12 PM
#35
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 349
I just read some new information. Anyone else hear about this?
Quote:
"Scent Blocker’s Schultz makes a mockery out of US District Court Ruling.
Schultz the CEO of Robinson entered into a settlement agreement for his company and personally that was issued by the US District Court. Scent blocker and Schultz were sued in regard’s from the marketing of carbon lined clothing. The parties stipulated to this final order for settlement. The findings stipulated herein are for settlement purposes only. The parties have agreed ….. except for the performance of the settlement obligations.
Schultz is quoted in a release to Hunting News that the Court has found Scent Blocker’s products superior. The whole article is full of half- truths and falsehoods. They were sued for false advertising not how their product performed and the court in its decision never stated about how their products actually worked. For Schultz to make the statements he did to Hunting Net shows contempt for the hunting public and he knows these statements are not true.
It is becoming, in my opinion, that the truth is lost in the search for the almighty dollar. The media and the magazines are not interested in whether a product actually works but only in the revenues it can produce. They failed to do any amount of checking to see if the claims made by carbon clothing makers are accurate and true. One program gave Scentlok a full half hour to spread the claims that the US District Court found to be false. The media is largely responsible for where we find ourselves today.
Human Odor Testing by Scentlok and Scent Blocker
In order to show how effective carbon was in reducing human odor in clothing these company’s chose to do what they call” independent testing” even though they paid for the testing.
Scentlok hired Intertek labs to do their testing and the compound that they chose to test was EMA (Ethyl Methylamine- which has a low boiling point of 97-99 degrees)
Scent Blocker went to the University of Minnesota and chose Hexane to test which in turn has a boiling point of 158 degrees.
Why EMA and Hexane were chosen was because they had boiling points the fit into the temperature of a home dryer not because of any real relationship to human odor.
Essentially what Scentlok and then Scent Blocker did was to rig the test to get the results they wanted, to fool the hunting public that their products worked despite the courts clear ruling that they did not."
Quote:
"Scent Blocker’s Schultz makes a mockery out of US District Court Ruling.
Schultz the CEO of Robinson entered into a settlement agreement for his company and personally that was issued by the US District Court. Scent blocker and Schultz were sued in regard’s from the marketing of carbon lined clothing. The parties stipulated to this final order for settlement. The findings stipulated herein are for settlement purposes only. The parties have agreed ….. except for the performance of the settlement obligations.
Schultz is quoted in a release to Hunting News that the Court has found Scent Blocker’s products superior. The whole article is full of half- truths and falsehoods. They were sued for false advertising not how their product performed and the court in its decision never stated about how their products actually worked. For Schultz to make the statements he did to Hunting Net shows contempt for the hunting public and he knows these statements are not true.
It is becoming, in my opinion, that the truth is lost in the search for the almighty dollar. The media and the magazines are not interested in whether a product actually works but only in the revenues it can produce. They failed to do any amount of checking to see if the claims made by carbon clothing makers are accurate and true. One program gave Scentlok a full half hour to spread the claims that the US District Court found to be false. The media is largely responsible for where we find ourselves today.
Human Odor Testing by Scentlok and Scent Blocker
In order to show how effective carbon was in reducing human odor in clothing these company’s chose to do what they call” independent testing” even though they paid for the testing.
Scentlok hired Intertek labs to do their testing and the compound that they chose to test was EMA (Ethyl Methylamine- which has a low boiling point of 97-99 degrees)
Scent Blocker went to the University of Minnesota and chose Hexane to test which in turn has a boiling point of 158 degrees.
Why EMA and Hexane were chosen was because they had boiling points the fit into the temperature of a home dryer not because of any real relationship to human odor.
Essentially what Scentlok and then Scent Blocker did was to rig the test to get the results they wanted, to fool the hunting public that their products worked despite the courts clear ruling that they did not."
07-06-2010, 10:46 AM
#37
Fork Horn
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 349
Here is another little article I got sent to me.
Quote:
“The first volley in the war between Scent Blocker and Scentlok was sent by Scent Blocker in a news release to Hunting Net News. All over the internet and on most of the hunting blogs are postings stating that the Federal Court has found that Scent Blocker products are superior. Superior to what ? This was never stated by the court or is part of the settlement agreement. Despite entering into a settlement agreement in 9 separate lawsuits filed against Scentlok and their CEO Scott Schultz to avoid being found guilty. Scent Blocker took advantage of the court by presenting some false data that they told the court showed that Scent blocker was superior to Scentlok. Scent Blocker presented to the court a testing program done by the University of Minnesota and claiming to the court that Hextane related to human odor. A careful study reveals “ hextanes are significant constituents of gasoline. They are all colorless liquids at room temperature with boiling points between 50 and 70 degrees C with gasoline like odors. They are widely used as cheap, relatively safe , largely unreactive and easily evaporated non-polar solvents.”( Wikipedia) Sent Blocker specifically chose Hextane to use for testing purposes because it fit into the temperatures of a home dryer. Just as Scentlok had used EMA’s as their testing compound with Intertek Scent Blockers sole effort was to fool the hunter into actually believing that the product worked on human odor. The testing had nothing to do with human odors with boiling points of compounds that are higher than reached in a dryer. By testing against Scentlok , which has already been found guilty, Scent Blocker is trying to increase their market share. The bottom line is that although Scent Blocker for years relied on Scentloks patents and testing to bring their product to market, paid thousands of dollars in royalities has now chosen to try to undermine their competition with some very false and misleading statements to the court and the public. The is an old saying “ you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free “ Scent Blocker and CEO Schultz know full well that their product has been tested ,using their directions , and failed to stop enough human odor to keep a search and rescue dog from finding an individual in their clothing using their sprays as well. It seems that after making millions at the expense of hunter’s the truth would be refreshing.”
Quote:
Scent Wars
07-07-2010, 09:01 PM
#38
Fork Horn
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 261
I'm not going to say that it eliminates all of your odor, but it does help. Sure, there may be some false advertising there, and you should ALWAYS hunt the wind, but I do think it helps at least somewhat. But in order for it to have a real effect you need to go at it 100%. Store your clothes in a scent-free container, wash them with scent free detergent, spray down before and after getting to your stand, wear rubber boots, and eliminate and mouth odor.
07-08-2010, 04:48 AM
#39
Spike
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Southwest, Indiana
Posts: 47
I used Dead Down Wind one year, had a doe with her fawns come within ten feet of me, while I was on the ground. Close encounter, the wind was in the deer's favor, never busted me. I need to find some more of that Dead Down Wind. It proved me wrong, pretty quick.
07-08-2010, 05:56 AM
#40
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Westville, Indiana
Posts: 233
I have always used all the scent away products. I have even take the green bath soap and mixed it in a spray bottle for cover spray. You will always be busted by deer, but I have been very little using this product. This is just in my case. Everyone's is different...
http://stores.dogdayssupply.com/-str...dor/Detail.bok
http://stores.dogdayssupply.com/-str...dor/Detail.bok