[vel0city]

> And frankly, I don't want to argue

Sure seems like you do with all your passive aggressive takes of asserting I'm confused or can't read or can't understand things and that I lack understanding the most basic scientific concepts like null hypothesis testing.

My question was simply:

> But how do you know your source of distilled water isn't also contaminated?

You could have just replied with "you don't, and it doesn't always matter depending on the questions being asked and the processes being used" but instead you've drawn it out to this many comments.

Instead you chose to say "you read the rest of my comment" instead of actually answering my question and then talk down to me over and over.

Some of the other comments seemed to be acting like running a blank is a fool proof way to just make sure you get a clean answer, and my point was to show there are still limits to "just run a blank". And that's shown by the sibling thread here with the other poster thinking if your blank has 100 particles and your test sample having 101 that means the test process obviously introduced the particles, which is a flawed understanding of the results of the test. The results are inconclusive, it did not prove the sample contained no particles to start.