Could you tell me what (you think) the point is in quoting from an article that you have ALREADY linked to? And why you gave the link a second time? And what help you think it gives in answering the questions I asked? And why you (appear to) assume that I didn't read it? BTW - from that quote - he's wrong: it's not quantifiable, since neither Langan nor he produce any numbers. The guy is a nut, like Langan, He engages in double talk, like Langan. He makes claims that he doesn't support, like Langan. In short that "paper" does NOT validate the CTMU.