Independent Test of
by the staff of
The LAUNDRY SOLUTION
Test performed late March 1997. Report written April 4th
1997. Minor updates September 3rd 1997.
Specific reason for test: Claims that violate
basic scientific understanding.
Example given from a brochure dated Oct 2nd 1996
which was included in a unit of "The Laundry Solution" (the
product) marketed by TradeNet Marketing, Inc. (TradeNet),
1497 Main Street Suite 301, Dunedin, FL 34698, (813)
Q. What is "The Laundry Solution?"? A.
It is Structured water that emits a negative charge through
the walls of the container into your laundry water. This
causes the water molecule cluster to disassociate, allowing
much smaller individual water molecules to penetrate into
the innermost part of the fabric. The Laundry Solution
replaces detergent, thus eliminating the use of the
chemical. You actually see the results of cleaner clothes
without pollutants produced which harm the environment and
your family. This is the latest in 21st century technology!
In addition to the above, you can discard fabric softeners
and no longer need an extra rinse cycle, thus saving water
and money at the same time!
Even if that specific claim(s) were removed, other
claims and the product line itself would still be highly
To be straight forward and honest: To
people who have spent four generations studying the
physical, chemical, and biological properties of water,
including all aspects from plumbing to theory, farming to
nuclear physics, environmental protection to process
control, biology to pollution, everything including proven
concepts such as pH scale (can you say "the negative base
ten logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration"), surface
tension, osmosis, Deuterium concentration (about 1 in 7000),
specific heat (1 calorie / gram), density maximum (at 4
degree Celsius), latent heat of fusion and evaporization (80
and 539 calories / gram), constant molecular angle (now was
that 104 or 107 degrees?), to such people on our staff
"The Laundry Solution", as presented to
us by a multilevel network marketing representative of
TradeNet and in printed material, is simple superstition
which we would call
fraud if it were not for the 60 day
satisfaction guarantee that allows customers to bail
We are not discussing the price, not the
distribution methods. We are only discussing the claims made
about the properties, and the claims made about the workings
of the product.
What is disturbing our world view is that we had
to witness at least one person, a health professional with a
bachelor of science degree, believingly become a
representative of the product.
Luckily he doubted his decision enough to
ask us for our opinion, after he had become a
representative. This page, which you are reading right now,
is our answer to his questions.
Let's quote some more from TradeNet:
Q. Is The Laundry Solution environmentally
safe? A. The container is made of recyclable plastic.
Return to TradeNet for recycling. The contents are natural
and safe for the environment. The confidential manufacturing
process changes the molecular structure of the water. There
is nothing chemically based. The product works by properties
of physics. Hence there are no residues left on your
The actual product, The Laundry Solution, is an
about 2.5" diameter ball filled with what appears to be a
TradeNet claims a product life of
approximately 1500 washes. They claim at 20 washes per month
the product will last for 75 months.
That means one plastic ball, filled with
modified water, should clean 1500 loads of laundry.
While regrettably it may require quite some
intellectual and emotional understanding of science to
immediately or quickly recognize the nonsense in above and
other claims made by TradeNet,
we were able to easily disprove them on
the following claim:
Q. How can you prove the "The Laundry
Solution" actually works? A. Proof is in the pudding!
You will see results.
So we went and did a simple, reasonably well
designed, reproducible test:
1 soap, 2 the product, 3 water. Sorry for the low quality
Want to know for sure? Test it yourself.
100% cotton cloth. Cut into three stripes. Same
dirt: Sidewalk dirt, bicycle chain, ketchup, mustard, olive
oil, felt tip pens, ball point pen, cloth marker, coffee.
Same few minutes to soak in before taking off excess ketchup
and mustard. Same 72 hours to air dry. Clearly marked with
numbers 1, 2, and 3. Pictures taken (not developed yet).
Three equal washers. Same temperature
settings. 1 with regular soap which we use every day. 2 with
The Laundry Solution. 3 with water only, no soap, no The
Laundry Solution, no additives. Not any other items in
washers at the same time. Washers were watched and ran for
Washed sample stripes were laid out on a
counter and shown to parties who did not know about the
soap(s) used. 1 was considered most clean by a wide margin,
2 and 3 were considered equally dirty.
Pictures taken (not developed yet). Five
days later above picture was taken with an old digital
camera, indoors, without appropriate lighting. We hope you
can see what we definitely can see on the originals.
Hopefully we will have better pictures in a few weeks.
Proof is in the pudding. Proof that it does not
work, that is. The Laundry Solution performed just as if it
were not there.
If you think we have made a mistake in the
execution of the experiment, e.g. by using three different
washers, e.g. by not performing enough variations on the
experiment, please feel free to perform and document many
more experiments yourself.
Because of work overload, there is a backlog of
other, unrelated experiments that we hope to publish, we are
not going to do another laundry test anytime soon.
We will, however, try to archive all
sent to us on this topic, whatever their content may be.
Are we looking for trouble? Are we trying to put
TradeNet out of business? No, and yes. The claims made by
TradeNet about The Laundry Solution are so outrageously in
violation of proven science that we want them to stop making
those claims. If presented in a comedy show, their claims
were simply a sign of disrespect for common sense. Presented
in the real world, their claims are obscene. Now that is
some obscenity that we think the world should be protected
from. Water is too important in human life. No one should go
around and tell such tall tales about water, ...
... not even to bring up the sanitary
situation in homes or communities that were to use The
Laundry Solution, a potential health hazard.
What stands between the world we had
grown up in, that had put people onto the moon, that has
developed semiconductors, optoelectronics, understanding of
some laws of nature, and a threatening upcoming rule of
Must we now really fear prosecution in
court, and potential enforcement of censorship, or is this
publication of our analysis covered under free speech? Do we
need to align ourselves with the established laundry
industry to afford funding for legal and other defense
against TradeNet? Is it still possible to call a fraud a
Will we be found guilty of disrupting
business? Or will they be found guilty of false
If you are a scientist and can agree with
our factual criticism of this incredible scheme, not
necessarily with our emotions about it, please
a vote while you are here, to help us defend the right
to keep publishing this critical page, which you are reading
right now, at this URL, if challenged in court (at an
unknown time in the future).
Do people fall for the Laundry Solution scheme? We
have been told our friend has paid US$400 (fourhundred
dollars) for a distributorship. Another source has reported
that as of February 1997 there were 35,000
(thirtyfivethousand) distributors. 20,000 of these were said
to have signed up in the last three months. From these
numbers we estimate 8 million dollars income from sign-up
fees in one quarter.
To be fair let's mention that later we have been
told the $400 amount was for more than one territory sold to
our friend. Does this make a significant difference?
Can you believe we have to consider the
possibility of being sued on the following ground: Their
claims are advertising claims and are not meant to be
scientific fact, hence we could be considered doing them
wrong, damaging their reputation by calling it fraudulent?
By calling it fraudulent we could disrupt their business,
for which they could claim damages.
Ok, here we counter: We don't discuss
advertising, we don't discuss their business, we only
discuss science. We make no recommendations to buy or not to
buy from them.
This case stinks. Just like the laundry
of our friend, the health professional become
representative, started to smell bad, which made him ask us
Science is not equal technology. Science is
understanding things. Technology is making things. Science
is inherently less dangerous because by itself it changes
nothing outside the mind. The applications of science in
technology or business can be dangerous, as the application
of anything else, including and specifically superstition,
in technology or business can be dangerous.
References: We really did not use any concrete
references other than above quoted brochure. This page was
written from past work and research experience, at that time
using German, French, Russian, and US twentieth century
scientific literature that we currently do not have in the
In September of 1997 we have become aware of a
very reasonable page (there may be one minor scientific
glitch or another in mostly good material) at
In September of 1997 we have become aware of
another published test at
Also, there seems to be more information at