I think most of the meaningful exchanges with respect to TBIII have taken place and the silly stuff has crept in. I have not read the article in Wood magazine. I have used both TBI and TBII. l have not used TBIII and do not intend to do so since I have no need for its alleged attributes. It appears to me, only from reading the comments of others, that Wood magazine *may* have been somewhat careless with their testing methods and possibly their conclusions as well. Wood magazine *may* have had an agenda or intent to what it wrote. However, I do not accuse them of that. It is also possible that Franklin *may* be giving serious thoughts to rewording the labels on the TBIII containers. I think they should make some appropriate changes to those labels to help avoid further confusion.
FWIIW, I stand with those of you who think that the word "waterproof" should mean exactly that and nothing less - with no caveats or a sub-set of conditions.
Hoyt W.