Another CR fan here. They don't have a magical crystal ball, just engineering and user tests, so of course their "predictions" aren't absolute. But they are a way to stack the odds a bit more in the buyer's favor. Any model by any manufacturer can turn out to be a lemon. And, unless the underlying design is hopelessly flawed, any manufacturer can make an effective and reliable model. It's for the statistical in-betweens that CR helps, as well as the information their articles. And they list all the products they test, not just the ones they recommend, because they know that not everyone's needs will be met by their recommendations. For example, two weeks ago I realized that we needed to replace our dishwasher. I didn't have much time and it had been years since I had looked at what was on the market. Thanks to CR, it took all of five minutes to identify a couple of brands with models that come up high in their ratings that also had a lower frequency of repair (I don't have time to deal with repairs either) and to identify the latest features. Then it took only a few minutes at the store to pick a model. It was not a "Best Buy" because I was willing to pay more to get certain features but it was another model which ranked high. My new DW installed, running well, and I'm pleased. Is it possible somewhere there'is a better model for my purposes? Of course, but how much better would it be? Meanwhile, I saved a lot of time, and was able to get the new one before the old one stopped working. CR is supported by subscribers, so they test products of interest to the majority. Personally, I have no need for tests of commercial spaghetti sauces, for one, but since lots of people use them I don't fault CR for testing them. They usually test a few upscale products, if only to report on whether the higher price is justified objectively.

davidr- you should check out the Inova flashlights. Well, I finally did. I was at a Target store the other day and saw an Inova Radiant on closeout at a very attractive price (not much more than the Chinese knockoffs) so I gave it a try. I have to admit that I'm impressed. I tried it with the somewhat used AA alkaline cells from one of my Maglites (I use mostly NiMH rechargeables, but keep alkalines in the ones that don't get used very often). Open circuit voltage of the AAs totaled 2.98 volts. The Inova certainly seemed significantly brighter. But how much? The bluish light that "white" LEDs emit can be a fooler. I wanted some numbers. I used my old photographic light meter to measure the relative output of the two lights. It's calibrated in unidentified units (lumens? footcandles? Lux? Ivory? ;-), from 0.2 to 1600 in two sensitivities. I measured both lights on the high scale (50-1600 whatevers). I chucked the Inova in the vise and aimed it at the meter's PV element, so that the "hot spot" covered the PV (its edges aren't very sharp, so this was approximate). It turned out that this was exactly 6" from the meter. I then chucked the Mag into the vise 6" from the meter and adjusted its beamspread to cover the PV, getting the coverage as close to the Inova's as possible. The Mag measured 300 <mumbles>, and the Inova 1600 <mumbles>. I don't know whether the light meter's scale is linear (suggesting 4x the output for the Inova), but I'm going to assume that it's pretty much colorblind. It certainly seemed to confirm what my eyes told me. I then measured the current consumed by the lights. It was almost identical - the Mag used 305ma, the Inova 308ma. Remember, this is with a somewhat used battery, just slightly below nominal voltage. Results would no doubt be different with brand new or very nearly flat cells. Thus we can safely say that the Inova's efficacy is significantly higher than the Mag's. Now, some user-level notes on the lights. The Mag is considered a top-shelf item. It's constructed of machined aluminum and is made in USA. The beamspread is adjustable. It costs about $10 (less on sale). The Inova Radiant is part of the company's budget line. It's made of polycarbonate, and is made in USA "with US and imported components" (my guess is that the LED itself is Chinese, but I don't know for sure). It costs about $20 (I paid less on closeout). I'd say the Inova is pretty solidly built for the low end of the high end. ;-) I find the bluish light color unattractive but that doesn't really hurt its utility. I miss the Mag's beamspread adjustment a bit, but it's not that big a deal. My real concern with the Inova is the switch. It has a push-on / push-off switch on the end. On other gear, I've found these switches aren't especially long-lived. Time will tell.

When you aimed the exhaust out your window, did you have it blowing through a window screen? If so, that's wrong. It's very difficult for air to blow *through* a screen. Try it again with the screen off the window or the exhaust duct aimed out a door, or simply laying on the floor, whatever, so the air stream has no restriction. Just wondering also ... I've seen cases in which the dryer was shoved too far back against the wall, crushing the flexible vent hose or bending it sharply. By the way, the thermostat is *supposed* to turn off (and then back on) to maintain whatever is the target temperature for the selected cycle. For your reference, below are the temperatures at which the heat shuts off. It cycles back on when the temp drops by 10°F to 15°F. High = 155°F +/- 10°F Medium = 145°F +/- 10°F Low = 125°F +/- 10°F Ex Low = 105°F +/- 5°F Your washer's spin speed does have some effect on drying time, but the new dryer still should be able to dry a load in close to the same time as the old one. Maybe your old dryer ran hotter than the new one? Did you normally use the High temperature setting on it? The starting cycle time is only an estimate. The electronic control recalculates and adjusts the remaining time based on how quickly it senses the clothes are drying, size of the load, what is the target dryness level, etc. If the two damp items were of substantially heavier fabric weight than the rest of the items in the load, it's normal for them to be damp at the end. Your dryer's electronic sensing split the difference between the lighter and heavier items. If your old dryer didn't have an electronic sensor, you may not be accustomed to how it works. Some newer dryers also tend to err toward the side of less-dry for energy saving purposes, so you may need to raise the target dryness setting by one level depending on the mix of fabrics that comprises your normal loads.

Well, looks like we have one consumer that wasn't buffaloed by the personal attacks, and more remarkably, she had the guts to stand up for her right to know about any risks. Paulines, Bill Vincents, and a few others seem to like to proclaim each others crediblity on this issue. How convenient. Paulines, I wouldn't put myself in the same leauge as Bill, he no doubt is a very talented tile guy, but doens't know much about radiation or granite. Like you, he has a reputation to uphold, and like you he participated in the installation of a lot of granite over the years. Opposition to this testing effort is all about the money and loss of reputation. After all, what expert wants the public to find out that they really didn't know everything about what they were selling or installing? Paulines want to whine about baselines, but measurements are measurements. The simple fact is that today I was measuring a slab that averaged around 5 mR/hr and had hot spots over 10 mR/hr. Think about that, a chest xray is around 20 mR... two hours on a hot spot or four hours just using the kitchen countertop gives you the same exposure. There is a difference though, the chest X ray is used to protect your health, there is public good in exchange for the exposure. A hot granite countertop is not any prettier than a low level one of the same type. Where is the benefit? And Paulines, Dr. Llope and I stay in touch constantly either through email or the rad forum I got him hooked on. The guy has become a friend of mine and I can tell you that people like you, Kevin, Bill, and Sue are the ones that made him stop contributing. He won't likely come back till comments like your side makes on a constant basis are stopped. Bill, I still see you as misguided, but basically a decent man on the wrong side from lack of information. Problem is is that you refuse to consider any info but what fits your world view, so there is no help for it. Split hairs if you must, but installing and selling isn't much different. I'm not knocking you for what you didn't know before, but from last year on, you should have educated yourself on the issues instead of spending the time and effort to try to squash the discussion. Bill, Geiger counters are go/no go devices. They won't give you a extremely accurate reading because of the inefficiencies of the small units, but they are designed to be portable and fast. Designed for the aftermath of a nuclear war, testing food and water for safety didn't require exact levels, just good or bad. That is what they can do for the fabricator. The EPA stance is not up for interpetation. Prior to mid May, they said not to worry about radiation or radon from a granite countertop. Now they say they don't really know, that some granite can have high levels, that if you have a granite countertop, you ought to test your home for Radon. That is not a 180 but it is a 150 degree turn. Once Dr. Llope gets done testing and publishing, the other 30 degee turn will happen. NORM regulations are in 33 states, from 5 uR/hr to 30 uR/hr, and I can take any fool that still wants to debate to a slab yard and find two dozen granite types that will be higher than the highest state NORM level. Lisagraz, thank you for having the courage to stand up to the bullies. There are plenty of safe granites out there, I have reported on some on both here and stone sites, but the other side doesn't dare admit that or they would lose their only effective weapon against the testing effort, using personal attacks to attempt to destroy the messanger. You see that Revans1 and I are way closer on the facts than the others, but he can't admit it or the others will stop listening to him as well. The facts are that somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of all granites are a problem. Revans1 gets this, spent time educating himself on the issues, and is now on the opposite side he was last year. It is a wonder the others haven't attacked him more than they have already. arda, will you ever understand that that cartoon is about electomagnetic radiation not ionizing radiation? Electromagnetic has not been proven dangerous, a small fringe thinks so, but it hasen't been proven. But today I worked cutting samples from a top that was 40 times background radiation, and BEIR VII said that even background radiation caused some cancers. It is open and shut on that issue. Luvmyguys, it isn't a mess to the stoners, they want this to be a mess. They will continue to smear anyone that dares mention the issue and post distortions along with their personal attacks. It is the only weapon they have cause the facts are against them. Bill, again microwaves are not ionizing radiation. Saying that they equate to ionizing radiation from a granite countertop is just plain ignorant. And as always, your argument is that it is too expensive to make sure granite is safe, better to let the consumers take the risk than the stone shops lose a few bucks. And some quarries are testing now, and some importers. All the chinese importers brag about their class A granite rating. Really, does anyone that has read the posts believe that one side of this debate is not only endangering consumers for personal gain, but has resorted to personal attack and outright lies despite haveing seen data to the contrary? And don't think for a minute that when this thread is gone that will be the end of it. People will continue to ask questions, are you going to riducle all of them?