Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
None whatsover. Not the case here, mind.
|
How was it not the case? Waiting months for any testing would've been an unnecessary delay. They didn't fail testing, they just hadn't yet been tested.
When on packaging it says "not subjected to animal testing" (or whatever), it doesn't mean it has never been tested on animals, just that somebody else has tested the same or similar formula. There is no reason to expect there to be a problem with any new product based upon older tested similar products.
When products say tested to X, it might well be perfectly ok to use it when exceeding X, just that their testing only went up to X.
---------- Post added at 22:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:53 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
What delay? At the time they were being asked to release the suits to the NHS they hadn't been verified as being to the NHS standard. When they were they were then released for use.
What would have happened if they'd been released and then failed the test? There was a 50/50 chance that was the case.
|
On what basis would they have been likely to fail any test?
Not a complicated design issue.