 Actually, no, this is not terrifying at all. This is a request for collaboration from you, because this is the way we improve all of our operations and our health and our safety, and professionally in my career, the reason I'm here is I have never encountered a group which is so collaborative and open and willing to share information, so I'm here for the pure enjoyment of the group, with perhaps a little bit of my ability to bring in some expertise that helps all of us, you know, in a highly stressed environment. So I'll start on this story about where this workshop came from. I'm walking down the street in Grand Rapids, Michigan, I think it's July of 2017. We're trying to figure out what year it is, and we're not sure on that one. But the National Environmental Health Association, and I've known these guys for a couple of years, and they're walking down the street, and it's about lunchtime, and I go, what the hell are you guys doing at NEHA? And then they say, hey, we're going to lunch, you want to go? I said, sure. So we're sitting there at lunch, and there's a beer or two, and I'm there, and it's like Graham looks across the table at me, and Ashconn was sitting on that side, and Graham was sitting on that side, because I remember we were next to a pillar. And Graham said, we're doing some microbiology, by the way. And my response was very polite, it was something like, what the hell do you boys know about microbiology? And the conversation on doing this project started then, and we've all been just a tad busy in the last few years, you know the feeling? And so finally, we've got an opportunity this year to actually kick off something. We've announced it through the FTA already, but these guys have generously offered to help do this workshop and hold the conversation about this. So our special guests, of course, are Graham Talley and Ashconn. Now, you're going to ask why? Why Graham's name comes first? Because I guarantee you there was a bidding war between these two as to how they got listed. Well, Graham responded first. Early bird gets the worm in the bottle of tequila, that is. All right, so what we wanted, let's talk about basic terminology and things like that, for science where we use facts and observations to explain the world around us. We develop a hypothesis, and you might call that what does corn on the cob look like because we use facts and observations? And as the facts and observations change, the hypothesis gets changed. That's like changing your business model. You're already doing this. And where people get a lot of confused in what we're trying to do here is religion is based along faith, not necessarily facts. It may be facts, but not necessarily. And so they're not mutually exclusive, so don't get confused by the two. You can exist with both of them, whatever your beliefs are. All right, basic terminology. Microbiology is a squishy science that deals with life and all the variables. And it drives other scientists crazy. All right, you hear some specific terms, and this is an example of where we need to be very precise. A coliform is this thing that ferments lactose to make acid and gas 24 to 48 hours at 37 degrees. But a fecal coliform does the same thing at 44 degrees. So if you're testing and you get coliforms, it could be the soil, not feces. So there are terms that must be defined in microbiology very precisely, even as squishy as science as it is. All right, let's talk about different kinds of disinfectants for a little bit. Liquids have to contact something. If I had a bottle of liquid disinfectant and I wanted to disinfect gram, I couldn't do it from here. But if I sprayed him, it'd probably cost me a beer later, but it would disinfect him. Yet, filtration is not a disinfection technique. You're removing something but not killing it. Don't think of filtration as a disinfection. It is a control factor. UV kills by cross-linking DNA. But it is intensity and length of exposure. Ozone kills by oxidizing about every damn thing it comes into contact with. We would describe it as a nuclear weapon. The big question is, do these work-and-float solutions? And that's what your health department, the state, the CDC, and whoever your national authority is asking today, do we have solid proof that what we're doing works? I said proof. If you listen to Justin's talk, we're in the same situation as Justin. We have some data but can't prove it conclusively on a scientific basis. OK, disinfectants and sanitizers, they must be registered. The studies are expensive. The labels tell you how to use it. I beat you up last time on this thing. If the germ isn't listed, you don't know it works. And if you're using it in a manner that it's not listed, so you're using hydrogen peroxide in a float tank and you're calling in a disinfectant, read the label. Is it on the label? Nope. Does it work? Can you prove it? Nope, you can't prove it. It's not a proven fact. So there's more uncertainties. By the way, don't get too terrified because I did this talk three years ago, four years, when I was in 2018. I can't find a germ that I'm really worried about. Based on a theory, I don't have the proof. So this is about how we work together to prove that theory that I came up with in Portland. OK? It's a collective effort to prove that we're safe. And it's back up. All right. What we see in science is some academics. And I've been there. I'm studying a project. I want to study bananas. There's no standard method for bananas, so I create my own method for studying bananas. But the problem is somebody else studies bananas, and they create their own method. And then my result doesn't look like his result, or her result, or Graham's result, or Ashkahn's result because they're studying bananas too, and they didn't know it. Anyway, how do you compare the results? There's no standardization, which is the same problem that Justin, which is the same problem that Flux has had. Standardization of methods. So if we standardize methods and we all study bananas, then Graham and Ashkahn become the world leaders on bananas because they have the data. So when we're doing microbiology, we pick standardized methods, and we can compare them from one to the other, to the other, to the other, to the other. And now we have a database. Science. All right. Health departments use standard methods. Commercial testing labs use standard methods. Universities see a problem. There's no method. They go off on blue sky, and they create their own method. And boy, have I done that a few times. And then we argue whether they're going to have to valid or not. So we, as we're doing this, use standardized methods. And many of you are already going there, but you may not have realized why you went there. This is why, so we can compare results from float centers in Georgia, to California, to Oregon, to Australia, to Hong Kong, to England. All right. How do you select an outside laboratory? Well, there was all this question about, does this lab do any reproducible data whatsoever? Is this lab any good? How do you know? How do you know that this contract lab that you give and all this money is even worth it, aren't it? Well, the US EPA came up with this program called the National Laboratory Accreditation Program, or a conference, NELAC in 1995. And they set up another institute. Of course they set up another institute to run. And they call it the TNI. And then they accredited labs. And they call that NELAC, National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference. I couldn't remember what the C was. And then the lab is accredited through the accreditation program, NELAP. How do you know it's a government program? Look at the acronyms. OK? So this is the kind of lab that you pick, a NELAP lab. Most of you are probably already doing it and didn't even realize it. So you did it by accident? Good. Microbiology methods, where to find them? Now, where to find microbiology? The first thing you do is you ask a geek. Well, the geek is wearing a Hawaiian shirt today with a microphone. And there's a whole variety of places you can find methods. You can do the EPA, the BAM. That's one of my favorite ones. BAM. OK. You got AOAC, another acronym. You got ASTM, another acronym. But what we've really got is the standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Really exciting. It's that thick and weighs 10 pounds. So this is the method that you're actually using if you didn't know where it came from. All right. And so the methods that you would use, you would go to the book. And here's the methods. OK, boring. Move on. We've got the methods. We've identified them in the book. We know where they come from. These are the methods that we would use. And by the way, these are the ones, the lab that you're going to, which is NELAP lab, is using that book. Because every NELAP lab owns that book. They own the most current copy of that book. Comes out about every three years, and it costs $175. OK, so that's the methods that they're going to test. But how are you going to test? OK, how are you going to test? Are you going to do swabs? Well, they're qualitative. So does that tell you how many pseudomonas there are? No, it tells you whether they are there. Plus, minus. It's a digital test. Yep, you got pseudomonas. So do you have two pseudomonas or 200 million pseudomonas? You don't know. So you need to use liquid samples. And the minimum size is 100 mils. OK, all right. Then you want to know how you're going to sample. All right, now if this isn't all geek speak, I don't know what is. But this is basic microbiology that you probably are doing and may not have realized. So you use the containers from the laboratory. We'll explain why in a minute. They must be sterile. If you are using hydrogen peroxide or chlorine or ozone, you have to neutralize the sample. You have to tell the lab what you're using so they give you the right sample container, which now means you have a selection issue. And if you are selecting your samples, are you getting them to the lab within six hours for them to process? That means they have to be taken and processed at the lab within six hours or held on ice and processed within 24 hours. Now you have a communication issue. Are you coordinating the day you're pulling the samples with the lab or are you leaving them in the trunk of your car over the weekend on a critical multimillion-dollar study in Manchester, England? Been there, done that. It was a chemist. And for some reason, his data had more reliability with senior management than my data, which had full documentation. OK, what not to use? Q-tips, glass jars. And my favorite one, I have seen this done so many times. It is not funny anymore. Pickle jars. My first encounter in recreational water, I got called into the lab within a month of being on the job. And they wanted me to analyze the sample. And the first thing I noticed was a vinegar sample, a vinegary smell. They had transferred it to a sterile sample and made me work on it before they showed me the jar that looked like that. I got indoctrinated at the crew pretty quickly. All right, so work with the lab. And they're going to have sample labels, and they're going to tell you how to use it. You don't have to create your own sample labels. They'll give you the sample labels if you're doing microbiology. And they'll tell you how to fill them out. Almost all labs do this. You run a cheap lab that doesn't do it. And they're going to do something in a regulated study called a chain of custody. Now, you've seen these in police programs where they sign off the thing they handed. You guys didn't sign it. OK, so the data matches on the sample. And that's where you track the sample. Who gets the sample? I took the sample. I gave it to Graham. Graham gave it to Ashconn. They didn't sign it. I don't know what they did with the sample. OK. So it's complicated, but it's not hard to do. They're going to teach you how to do it. It's no problem. There's a chain of custody. This is what I found on the internet. And you have to tell the lab what you want to test, because if you don't tell them what you want to test, they won't test it. Then you won't get any results. OK, so you just fill out the paper first time through. I guarantee it's going to be complicated. Second time you're going to be through. It's less complicated. And the third time you're going to say, why was I even worried about it? This is easier than the first stressed float you've ever taken. Just takes a little work. Simply because you find something doesn't mean you've got a health threat. I found a pseudomonas. I have not had, but more than a few phone calls, somebody found a pseudomonas. I don't care. I've run regulated study. And when we found our first pseudomonas, I took the crew out for beer that night because the data looked so good. It looked like we were faking it. You have to find something because it's there. So just because it's there doesn't mean you're correct. It's below the level of concern. Who cares? If it's above the level of concern, you have a plan. What do you do if it's high? You come up with a plan. Questions. What do you test for? Well, we need to decide that. I got some ideas. Maybe. How often do you test? I don't know. That's why we're here. What's the action level? Well, we can discuss that. Cost. What cost is too much? It has to be practical. It has to be doable by you folks. And believe me, your complication of running a float center is infinitely more difficult than what you could be doing on a sampling program. Some of you are doing it now. If we design a sampling program as a collaborative effort, as a voluntary effort, and we share data, it has to be less stressful than me talking about deadly diseases to you. It has to be simple. It has to be doable. OK. I wrote the slides and then Ash Khan sent this in here. And it's like, I don't know what the answer is. Let's discuss it. There's some pros and there's some cons. And it's an outside view. I would say, look, it develops a large data set, displays dedication, and minimizes outgoing. And there's really one negative. And that is, if you tail off your sampling after six months or a year, the health department says, why did you stop testing? Were you terrified? You planned and said, it was in the plan from day one. We planned it. And the health department goes, oh, you weren't trying to hide it. So it's all how you are transparent. Because the health department, if they see something that looks suspicious, they dig in if you're being inspected. OK. What standards of operation should we use? Needs to be based on science, not guesswork? We've already done the risk assessment. Many of you sat through it. 2018, we did it again in 2019. We presented it to the CDC. Well, two of us did. One of us missed the presentation because of a hurricane. I'm not going to mention any name, Graham. The chief microbiologist from the CDC was sitting about four rows back from that side right over there. And he's, by the way, a floater. Saw the microbiology and thought, yep, got it. So the CDC's already seen what we think. And they're happy with it. But we can't prove it. So we use standard methods. We have some discussion about this. But what if we share what some of you were already doing? Share the data, just like Justin's talking about. We compile a database with thousands of samples. And that increases the reliability. We could publish it in a scientific journal. And I've already got flux to foolishly volunteer to help. There's beer and ball flux. It's fine. We could share that information, take it to the health departments. This is what we find works. There is nothing to worry about. And then we could develop a rational operating standard. And we could do it through the Float Tank Association, who has graciously offered to sponsor the test. And I just happen to be on the board of directors at the FDA, by the way. And these guys are sharing their information. And so it's really an open question at this point. Some of you have already been in communication with me. Some of you have already got data. The idea is, whatever you're doing, if you're doing something now, start sharing the information. And once I get through swimming pool season, because that's my full-time job right now, I start writing this thing up. And it might take a year or two, just like Justin said. But we now have a database thing for the benefit of everybody. So open question. That's all I got. These guys are up here just to support me, because I've now run out of things to say. What are your concerns? Do you have concerns? Is your health department bugging you about where's your microbiology data? Or are they not bugging? Are they bugging you about chloro... Do you have written procedures? All of these things can be asked by the health department. Or not. Floor's open. I just had a quick question off the bat. Is, like, how many people here have ever actually done, like, taken a sample to a lab? All right, nice. So we've got, like, a good group of people at least into this process. I think we've got eight labs or nine different float centers that are already doing data. I got another question for you, too. How many actually take samples to a lab as part of, like, an ongoing process? Or, like, currently, are taking samples regularly, you know, whatever the time period is? Okay, definitely a few out there. So there's a few. There's a few. Have any of you been asked when you first started up about microbiology? Not a peep? If you didn't hear it? Not a peep. Didn't get asked. Are you getting hassled about, you know, verifying operational standards? Have you been asked for a manual for your center? How many people were regulated by the health department in their area? Okay, so not a ton. And without picking on you, Texas down there. Did they change that as part of the pool code that just came out, Jeremy? Okay, and for the sake of those on a virtual meeting, Jeremy's talking about a specific local health department down in Texas where they wanted the FDA standards and weren't particularly picky, but they did ask some questions on there. And there, what you're seeing is we've got a difference there, you're San Antonio and then you're Houston. And so there's a difference on a county health department. I see this in Georgia. So there's the county level, there's the state level, there's the national level, there's an international level and we see the same thing in swimming, ghouls and spas. They can be totally different and totally ignore each other when the territory's about each other. Yes, go ahead. One of the ways we do this, and it's like Flux is much more knowledgeable on doing blind studies than I am, but what we do is we code the data to your center and we use some weird number on there and we pull a number out of a hat and your data's there. And the only people that see where that data come from is a couple of the study directors. So it's a blind study and then when it's published, your site's never identified. It's defined by a letter or something. Flux, what do you think? Oh, I can take a crack at answering that too, which is like one of the things too is just having this big pool of data is only gonna get more useful as time goes on and as we collect it. And even though some places are unregulated, there are not only different areas in the US but other countries where they're more or less regulated as well. And having this is kind of helpful for the entire industry to be able to present that data when it comes up and also to use a Roy Vor voice, as hard to say. Also, just because you're unregulated now does not mean that it'll always be so. And at that point, rather than having to suddenly gather all of this data and make it work, having that pre-accumulated and just having this evidence to present is incredibly useful, yeah. I think there's, I'll describe two potential scenarios. The fear level now that I have of getting bad data. It's approaching zero and in microbiology, that's as good as you're gonna get. My biggest fear is what I started talking about in 2018, which is still ongoing, as the industry expands, you become a bigger target for regulation. So many of us are already regulated under fees now. So now if you're generating fees, the health department has to prove they do something to justify the fees. So now they put standards on you and if we don't have the data, God knows what they're gonna be. So I'm scared of that tunnel, looking down the tunnel, is that the light or a freight train rolling down to roll right over us? Because I've seen this in pools and spas where the regulations were not based on science, they were based on political motivations. And so this is a preemptive strike. And, okay, other, oh, over here. Fresh hold for contaminants, if you will. And then, like I said, it would bring legitimacy to the centers, right? Right. Just for the data collecting purposes, would it be critical to track how many floats have been through the solution? It would probably be helpful, but not essential. Because what you're really doing when you're doing a sampling like this is really a snapshot in time. So that's the critical information, but Flux and I will tell you we're data geeks. We'll take all the data that you get. And so we would encourage massive amounts of data and then Flux gets to crush it. Yeah, I'm curious too if there, like, should there be any consideration for the fact that you're taking a sample like before or after filtration? Yeah, it's like, you know, in swimming pools, for instance, if you're doing a study under the US EPA guidelines, OCSPP-810-2600, thank you, Jen, I got it. All right. You collect 144 samples over the length of a swimming pool season, which is generally five months. You collect samples from the opposite side, located midway between the skim, ah, there's a whole bunch of garbage in there. We could write our own sampling procedure based upon just logic. And you guys know your float tanks. I'm a pool boy. I'm here to help and drink the beer. Okay, let's be honest. I'm here to help and drink the beer. That is what we promised him when we brought him into the industry, yeah. Yeah, and before we run out of time, I remember we... Oh, you understood this? Oh yeah, there's, you know. Oh, this is also that now. This is also that now. Perhaps it's a reward if you were to send in your data, no promises though. You may just get your very own Roy Vorsox with little glasses of beer and Roy Vor's face on them. And I would like to point out that these guys were so generous that they made the beer an amber instead of an IPA. We wanted them to wear them, so. Because I wouldn't have warned them if they were an IPA. Yeah. It's my turn. Yep. I'm just here to share some virtual comments and questions for you. Oh, nice. Geert says I did lab tests monthly for four years in Belgium, not regulated. Four years? Tested? Yes. Got data? Yes. Yeah. Yeah, tell him to send it along. Send it along. Send it along. Send it along. And Randall... Except for the Whitbeer. I don't like the Whitbeer. They don't have to send that along. Randall would like to know what kind of testing equipment we will need on site, if any. None? Yeah, just probably like bottles that you get from the lab. Like when we do it, we actually get sample things. The price of the bottles and the labels and everything is part of the cost of the sampling that you might be doing already. So the lab's gonna give it to you for free and then they're gonna charge you on the back end for it. What are you finding? 30 bucks a sample to somewhere in that range? We get charged different amounts for the different tests that we do. But I think it's across, I think we do four things now. We are usually paying like 150 or something for four tests per year. Yeah, somewhere around there. I think the tests range from, yeah, around like high 20s to... $30 to $40 per test is a standard national range or something in there per sample. And when this gets going to, for those of you who are reaching out to labs to find testing, we found there was at least in the like non-government side of things for the private labs that are doing testing. They're competitive. Or lab labs that are available for private companies, I should say, to do testing, huge range of prices. Like one place wanted us to charge us almost $100 per test, called around and eventually found one that was more like $35 per test. So don't just assume that all labs, because this standardized science are actually charging the same amount of money. Yeah, huge, huge variation. So I guarantee you, if you were in a major metropolitan area in the United States, there's at least three commercial test labs that are testing water right now. And the prices, if they're international, will be somewhat competitive. But if they're small, they could be all over the map. And so there are international labs, international standards that have training standards located all over the United States. Jen. Let's go to the microphone. Okay, sorry, go to the mic. I'm sorry, but just my question was actually about the testing. So I went to my local pool places and water places where I get my water. And I'm like, do you guys do testing? And they're like, oh, maybe once a year we take all of our people and we'll put it all in. So I didn't have a place to go. I wasn't exactly sure. So I wanna participate, but I really don't understand what should I be looking for? And I did take a picture of your slide. What specifically do we wanna ask them to look for in that way? Really good questions. Let me answer the first part on swimming pools. Generally, depending upon the state you're in, and I think the only current state that requires microbiology tests in the United States, last time I looked was New Jersey. And Washington requires it for float tanks. For float tanks, all right. Now the reason in pools and spas you don't have to do microbiology is we know if you are maintaining one PPM of chlorine in a swimming pool, there is better than a 99% chance that it is well disinfected. And as a matter of fact, there has never been an illness except for one organism in swimming pools when there was one PPM of free chlorine and that's data based upon hundreds of thousands of samples. So one PPM in a swimming pool is proven technology. So if it's proven technology, you go, eh, we're not gonna test for it. It's a waste of time. Float tanks, ooh, don't have the data. That's what we're trying to do. What is that level? And one of the variabilities when we collect needs to be what is your salt concentration, okay? Because if your salt concentration, if your specific gravity is 1.23 or something like that, you might have pseudomonas like crazy. We don't know. We don't know where that cutoff is yet. So there is some data and this is party. Let's just call this the opening conversation. Then as we move into this project, the Float Tank Association is planning quarterly calls through the FDA on standards. This project as a forum for sharing information and sharing ideas. So this is just a kickoff. This is the formal public rollout. You're asking questions. Probably the health department's gonna wanna know pseudomonas and fecal coliforms. They might wanna know coliforms, but I think I could make a real good argument that you don't need to test for that. You know, some people might, you know, but if we make a case, some people might want Staphylococcus, but there are no Staphylococcal incidents in swimming pools and we could assume that here too. So we have pretty good list of what we probably would be testing and it's pretty small to three organisms at most periodically. So and we'll put out details too when we get closer to collecting data for exactly what kind of lab to look for and things like that too. There's usually directories that are kind of localized to states or counties for labs that are more certified to test for different things. Yeah, like in Oregon, the Oregon EPA website just lists every certified lab in the state and you can just go find the ones around you. Yeah, we can get a website posted up there that say this is the way you find a lab in your state and there's lists that you find on. By the way, in doing independent consulting over the last couple of years, how did I find the labs that I use? The internet, it took me about 10 minutes. Okay, next question. Sorry, Jen. All right. I got a quick question actually. One of the things I was curious about is we have the various things that we're concerned about at least in pools and spas when we're talking about E. coli versus pseudomonas versus like cryptosporidium or giardia. And then some of those things seem really easy to test with these lab tests, right? Like pseudomonas and E. coli. But I did some point it was like, I wonder if I can test for crypto because that's like that, something that would be good to have some information on and when I contacted our lab, they're like, oh, like we could find a place out of state and it's really expensive and complicated. Yeah, one of my colleagues from the pool and spa industry is Jen, is here with me. And we have run into this search for doing crypto, cryptosporidium. It's a major pathogen in pools and spas, pools, not spas. And the reason it's a major pathogen is it's chlorine resistant. And you've got to use UV or ozone to kill it in there. All right, but the good news is, okay, for float tanks, are you using a one micron filter? Are you? If you're using one micron filter, crypto is bigger. Ooh, how about that Jeremy? Run it through a couple of the times between floaters and you filtered out the crypto. So now you got to control, you didn't kill it, but you filtered it. So could we test for it? Yeah, there are tests for it. But unfortunately, I found that the EPA test for it is not necessarily a live dead test. It made you say, yep, you got crypto, but didn't say that it would cause disease. It's more of a presence absence test. And so it's like a question that's like, hey, you want a beer? But you don't know what kind of beer you're gonna get. Okay? So if you want to test for it, we got to do a little bit more digging and put it frankly, we would be more economical in the long run to standardize on a one micron bag filter and just eliminate the conversation. As we move forward with equipment design, and I've had this conversation with nearly all the manufacturers and they're aware of what my view is like, if you got a one micron bag filter, it's gone. Who cares? And if it's gone, you're wasting your money to test for it. Jen, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait for the microphone, Jen. I got to yell at my colleague, by the way. He yells at me all the time. So I'm new to the flow tank industry, but I'm from the pool and spa industry, as Roy mentioned, and because filtration is so effective in removing pathogens like cryptosporidium, which we know are very, very, can cause a lot of illness, right? It's really important that we have some sort of standard, and I'm sure you guys are probably already doing this, but some sort of standard around how often you check your filters, and that should probably be based upon how many floats you have and things like that. And so finding a consistent way to do this, this is the thing that health regulators are gonna really hone in on because we know the swimming pool and spa industry so well. And another pathogen that we should probably talk about, Roy, is Legionella. Because... Nope, not worried about it. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Nope! Okay, well that was a hard to test for, so it's a little more complicated. Why, all right, Legionella is the only pathogen in recreational water that has a high lethality rate. And people with underlying health conditions such as emphysema, smoking, diabetes, organ transplants in an untreated case, Legionella from spas can have a fatality rate of approaching 30%. No other pathogen has a fatality rate over 1%. Legionella is transmitted in droplets, are your people floating in an aerosolized environment with the pumps running? If the pumps turned off and you don't have aerosols, you don't have Legionella. And besides that, it can't grow in that much magnesium sulfate. Move on. And then they're being exposed to that, the pumps and the aerosolization. I think the risk assessment we did this, that Ben Till from CDC has seen it, I have virtually zero concern about Legionella, virtually zero, and it's probably as low as we can get. And if we go back and look at the 2018 documentation, we laid it out. We could, now, Jen points out something. We got a model, so we might have to do limited testing, not a whole lot, but if you proved with a little amount of testing, then you killed that entire concept. So it could be, but I don't have any concern on it. I have a question for you. Yup. What's the minimum amount of testing from a single center that would be useful? Like if we got every float center in the world to do one round of tests on all of their float tanks, is that useful or is there a minimum like five rounds of testing over a month? Well, it all depends on how you design the study. And to a large extent, Lux chime in here anytime on this one, what we necessarily are talking about is a random grab sample across a whole variety of parameters. Now, how to statistically analyze it is gonna be different. But if we have hundreds, if not thousands of samples across representative areas, and we've covered parameters on there, we're likely to have a sufficient database. We've gotta have at least a few hundred samples, at least a few hundred samples. And many of you guys have got hundreds of samples now, but you got one location. All right, have that been replicated at another facility? Now we got somebody day over here, we got somebody over here, we got somebody over here. And now we're seeing the same pattern across everything. Now, the biggest issue we got right now is different labs are using different methodologies. They're using different standard method numbers. So it's not directly comparable. So it's a little statistically ugly, but hundreds of samples. So a couple of years of samples that you've already got. I don't know how many samples we've got the last time. You guys shared the data a couple of years ago, but I haven't looked at it in two years. Yeah, I mean we, I think we've been testing since 2012, but a little less frequently, but now we do once a month. So somebody that had a couple of years of samples, and another sample, a couple of years, and another, it may be, I don't know, it may be we're approaching the magic number now, or it may be we need to collect for another year. So more work to do. I know exactly how Justin feels about trying to figure out the unknowns, because I frankly don't know how to do everything at this point. That's why we're asking for help. Andy? Yeah, is there any ability to get a large lab to just sort of partner with us? Economies of scale get cheaper testing and have them do the same tests on every sample that comes in. Everyone sort of mails their lab, their sample there. It might have to be if they have regional locations of the timing, but... Andy, that's an interesting thought on there. We could, there are international labs, one name comes to mind, it's Eurofins. Yeah, and it's like, Jen and I can do some research on that, and it's like, but somebody, there are branches across the entire United States, maybe we could cut a deal and say, we want this test. Right, and we know it's the same procedure, same company. And it would have to be like overnight shipping on us, and it has to be, well, if the sample is processed within 24 hours, the problem is it needs to be, if it's not processed, it needs to be held on ice. What happens when you put 30% magnet sulfate solution on an ice solution? Oops, maybe we need to rethink that ice a little bit. I'm a water guy, come on. We've also, I mean, even just with us and the limited amount of sampling we're doing from our One Float Center have talked to our lab and been like, hey, we're gonna bring in a sample like every month across these things, can you like cut us a deal? And that's work too, so it doesn't seem like you have to be... It's like a couple floats under the table. Yeah, so yeah, even if you're trying to do anything with any consistency, you might be able to get a deal. And whatever we'll standardize on, we'll do more research on it, we'll go say standard methods 9213E. And so, standardize, so every, you tell a lab, I want standard methods 9213E, it will take them less than two minutes to have the SOP laid out on the desk saying, yes, we can do that. Their intake will have a list of everything they do, they will be trained on it, they will be proficient on it, they will have had to have been tested by an independent agency and certified. They are certified laboratories. And so, when some public health department says, that data's not me damn good, and you pull out the NELAP certificate and go, yep. So, it's worked for me on this kind of argument on various other things with health departments to do a program like this, so. Okay, we got about five minutes left. Additional thoughts, what do you think? Does it sound like something that you're interested in? You people that are watching virtual nod your head. We can see you. Okay. Oh, we got one more question there. Specifically for Graham and Ashkahn, since you guys have been testing since 2012, have you done any sort of like, have you tried to use that as a bit of an asset to show customers how pristine your water is and just say, hey, look at all this data. This water is crystal clear, safe, you know what I mean? Like, we could promote this as like a way to make floating a little bit more approachable and less like, ooh, I'm getting in the same water as everyone else, you know? Yeah, I mean, mostly just being able to say that you do it is as far as we've ever needed to go. Like, we've never actually been like, look at these lab reports, because, yeah, you know, they look like lab reports, but we do tell it to people, we're like, yeah, you know, we do, this is, how do you clean the float tanks? We do this, we do this, we do, you know, testing, we actually take samples to the lab and test for different things, and it's kind of like part of our sort of spiel on our general sanitation practices. Yeah, it's really useful for addressing one-off concerns, like for some customers that come into float, you know, like the float water being clean is actually the primary thing that they're worried about and probably one of the main reasons they haven't come into float is their, you know, germaphobes or they're just, you know, very cautious about what they're doing in an unknown environment. And in that case, yeah, just being able to mention it to them and say, like, hey, this is, like Ash Khan said, this is what we do, is awesome. I think the only time we put that out publicly was during our COVID procedures video, where we're talking about how we, like how we're cleaning the facility just in general and extra practices. And we also threw in a little mention of like, and we take these to get tested by an external lab, right? So it is a nice thing for sure. When the concern is, is germs to be able to toss that out there. And I think one time, like years ago, someone contacted us saying they have like floated and then, you know, something weird was going on. And it was nice to just like, we could look back. I mean, not just our like lab tests, but all the stuff you're measuring, right? Like your levels and logs that you keep for whatever sanitation systems you have. And I could just look back and be like, hey, well, you know, I look back at things. We do like lab testing. We haven't gotten any unusual readings. All of our levels were in range. Like, you know, there's probably a good chance it wasn't the float tank. And that wasn't up. Like they were like, okay, thanks. And like that actually was a satisfying answer to them. And they were sort of convinced that it was maybe just a coincidence or something else that happened in their life. Yeah, and that is one of the values in a documentation trail is to, in case you get into a lawsuit, we've done this. And then it shows due diligence from a responsibility on your part. You've done your job and you've met a standard of conduct. And that's really quite a, you know, an FTA type North American float standard can provide. We followed the standard. Here it is, it's based upon science. And frequently that is used as a negotiating point in lawsuits. Yeah, the other thing I'll throw out there just cost-wise, it was kind of briefly on that testing schedule slide. As one thing we started doing was, you know, we have six float tanks and for a while we were testing it twice a year. And so we would go and take a sample from all six tanks in twice a year into the lab to get it tested. And then at some point we decided to switch it to taking a sample from a single tank in every month. And so, you know, it's more driving time. Like you gotta like go to the lab and deal with this every month. But it's the same amount of cost in terms of actual testing. And we get just a slightly better sampling of time. You know, I mean, it's not like a significant ground breaking, better sort of data or anything. But it does allow us to just at least have like one tank a month kind of getting some info back from it for the same cost as taking them all in every six months. Also just like human psychology-wise, we found that doing it every month kind of makes it more consistent and reliable. Like I feel like every six months it was hard to actually stay on top of like getting that done or get pushed aside a little bit more. And now that it's just part of our regular monthly operations, it's a lot easier to just like stand on top of that. With just standard operational management, the more you do something that's routine, the more you're consistent on your results, the same people are doing it or they're doing it. So they remember how, if you do it once a year, what the hell did I do a year ago? And it is actually- Well, that's a personal experience, by the way. We found, too, it is really easy to mess up your samples just as a pro tip. I mean, we'll put this all out when we start asking people to collect samples and have advice and things like that. But one of the biggest things is just not getting contaminants from your hands or in the process of filling up the bottle on there, right? It's so easy to cross contaminate and not be actually getting positive readings from the float tank, but from something else in the environment, including just your fingers that got on there. You have no idea how many times- Or pickle jars. We've really tried using the pickle jar thing for a while, but you're right, our readings were all over the place. We switched to using the labs. Yeah. All right, you will hear more from us. Thank you for your time. Yeah, thanks, everyone. Thank you.