According to link provided, NOLS seems to be saying that the unclear benefits and the 2004 study - the one I pointed out flaws in - are the reasons for their shift in advice. So they don't seem to be really adding anything to the debate and they failed to note what I would think would be obvious criticisms of the tests that were done.

http://www.nols.edu/wmi/curriculum_updates/archive/041105_sawyer.shtml

I find it a shame that we really don't have good solid information on whether the device is really useful. Seems like a coin toss to me. Probably best to wear snake gators.