|
|
Dear Editor, Daniel Koss' denigration of my work and my
Jun 10, 1994 6:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor, Daniel Koss' denigration of my work and my
professional credibility (RDR May 6, 1994) is not only unfounded,
it's contrived for the purpose of suppressing the truth. Such
abuse demands swift redress and a large dose of truth.
Dear Editor: Koss says: "Sharon Wakefield's tests were so flawed
as to be meaningless." My work, he continues, "is fast becoming a
laughing stock among informed diamond trade circles." Koss
suggests: "One can totally dismiss Wakefield's findings." This
hyperbole refers to my article: Fracture Filled Diamonds: A
Ticking Time Bomb? (Autumn 1993, Cornerstone). In the article, I
report that a test sample of Koss' product degraded and
discolored under ultraviolet exposure. Daniel Koss knows my
report is valid. In fact, his company knew of this UV problem
before my investigation. That I can prove. What I cannot explain
or understand is why Koss persists in publicly defaming me and
ridiculing my work for the sole purpose of suppressing
information his company acknowledged months ago. UV Instability
Confirmed by Koss VP Mr. David Shechter, Koss' vice-president and
technical engineer, confirmed my report that Koss filler degraded
under UV exposure. In his letter addressed to me, dated January
22, 1994, on the subject of my report, Shechter says:
"Fortunately, quite long ago, we also discovered this [UV
exposure] problemI" He goes on to blame the instability on a
chemical vendor and states that they subsequently corrected the
problem. Did Koss notify anyone who purchased these defective
goods? If Koss corrected the problem, why does his current
product appear to degrade similarly under UV? Koss' "Expert"
Criticizes My Work Chaim Even-Zohar, author of the critical Mazal
U'Bracha editorial, admits no competence to conduct scientific
inquiries. Yet, under the artifice of "editorial opinion," he
published an "expert" criticism of my laboratory study -
conspicuously omitting any statement of his professional
credentials, or lack thereof. Furthermore, I informed Even-Zohar
of his technical errors weeks before he published the editorial.
Why did he flatly refuse to consider my offer of clarification?
Why did he adamantly refuse to print any rebuttal in the critical
Mazal U'Bracha issue bearing his technically flawed editorial?
It is this highly questionable "expert criticism" that Koss now
proffers to defame me, to protect his product from scrutiny and
to suppress the exchange of professional and educational
information. Koss' Forgotten Test Report The question of why I
conducted short-wave UV tests that Koss now ridicules as
"scientifically questionable and irrelevant" is answered by the
following quotation from a Koss sales brochure: "After exposing
the [filler] material to short ultra-violet rays of [sic]
hundreds of hours - the equivalent of exposing it to hundreds of
years of daylight - Koss scientists discovered no change
whatever." His test obviously was not "questionable [and]
irrelevant" when he performed it. Only after I undertook to
repeat his test, and reported results that Koss knows are
correct, but seeks to suppress, does he ridicule both the test
and me. Caveat Emptor Due vigilance requires that we look beyond
obviously self-serving smoke screens and seek objective
information about products we offer to the public. Personal and
professional dignity demands that we reserve judgment when
competing interests enter into public displays of ridicule and
hyperbole. Sharon Wakefield, BS ChE, GG
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar Articles
No articles found
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|