I, too, am a bit suspicious as the numbers seems to vary a lot and, with the exception of first 24h collection, the lead-content decreases while the time of exposure increases. But I wouldn't call the results meaningless.
You would presume. Still, the whole analysis now hinges on that one thing - what really was in that "spring water". Maybe some lead got in there in some way they didn't expect. Or maybe they're just lying and that spring water was really tap water. Or maybe it really was lead-free. Point is, this is a core thing that should've been tested, and not doing so implies either malice or laziness, neither of which instill confidence in the research.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
> Point is, this is a core thing that should've been tested, and not doing so implies either malice or laziness...
There was a case with cranberry juice in Australia (I think it was) where school kids tested store bought cranberry juice and found it contained zero vitamin C. Something about the way the juice was processed and bottled destroyed all the vitamin C but no one had ever bothered to test the juice after processing and bottling.