25 



Navy Yards. Finally, NBS did not make commercial tests of battery 

 materials, did not endorse commercial products, and did not permit the 

 results of its tests to be used for advertising purposes.^^ 



At about this same time (Aug. 25, 1949). a letter from the Oakland 

 Chamber of Commerce, with a copy to NBS, went to the National 

 Better Business Bureau, endorsing in principle the latter's pamphlet 

 against the "battery-dope racket" but asking that AD-X2 be specifi- 

 cally excepted from its application."- 



During 1949, the NBBB continued to press Vinal for a compre- 

 hensive and up-to-date statement that woidd unmistakably apply to 

 AD-X2. Finally, Vinal wrote, June 22, "It has been our policy not 

 to make any tests on commercial products until requested to do so 

 by some Government agency which is interested in the merits of 

 the product. If this matter is turned over to FTC [the Federal Trade 

 Commission] it is possible we may be requested to make tests." ^^ 

 In the vSenate hearings. Senator Gillette told Director Astin of NBS 

 that "if that is not a suggestion on how to proceed to ask your organi- 

 zation to make tests, I do not know the English language, Doctor." ^* 

 However, the NBBB had filed a protest with FTC regarding AD-X2 

 on June 17, and had apparently sent a copy of the action to NBS 

 at the same time. It was probably to this action that Vinal was 

 referring, rather than volunteering the suggestion that the action be 

 taken. Earlier in the hearing, Secretary Weeks, of the Commerce 

 Department, had also been a victim of this same misinterpretation. 

 In his prepared statement, March 31, he had said: "* * * I find the 

 National Bureau of Standards suggesting to the National Better 

 Business Bureau that tests would be made if requested by the Federal 

 Trade Commission." ^^ 



A reason for NBBB anxiety to have an explicit and authoritative 

 statement as to NBS findings on the inefEcacy of AD-X2 was that 

 potential "legal complications" were assuming importance. WiUson 

 wrote Vinal, Alarch 29, 1950, to explain: 



The reason why we have considered sending a bulletin to Vjattery manufacturers 

 on this subject is because Pioneers, Inc., apparently has been pursuing a deliberate 

 course of making inquiry of various manufacturers and their dealers in regard to 

 the product — AD-X2. When they receive in reply a copy of our bulletin on 

 battery compounds and solutions, they believe they have evidence to show that 

 through the distribution of our bulletin we and the manufacturers distributing 

 it are damaging their business. I do not know what they intend to do with this 

 "evidence," but in view of certain threats which they have made about possible 

 action against the manufacturers, we felt dutybound to put them on notice * * *. 



Pioneers, Inc., has always been in the position to tell us that although they 

 agree completely with everything that Ur. Condon stated in our bulletin, the 

 National Bureau of Standards has not tested their product and, therefore, was 

 not in a position to state with authority that it is not the exception that they 

 claim it to be. If we now can tell Pioneers, Inc., that you have tested their prod- 

 uct and found it wanting, they may continue to dispute your findings and con- 

 clusions but they cannot claim that they are based upon theorv and not an 

 intimate knowledge of the product.^'^ 



With the permission of NBS, NBBB in August issued a new pub- 

 lication on battery additives specifically identifying AD-X2 (among 

 others) as having been tested and found ineffective by NBS. The 



31 Ibid., p. 772. 



32 Ibid., p. 79. 



33 Ibid., p. 777. 

 31 Ibid., p. 250. 

 3^ Ibid., p. 2. 



36 Ibid., p. 780. 



