On Thursday, November 14, 2013 7:36:27 PM UTC-8, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:58:51 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03



I don't know about the "schmutz" factor nor your laziness claim, but

Consumer Reports says it's about the energy that's wasted when pre-rinsing.



http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...-job/index.htm



Not only do you waste water (6000 gallons per year?) but you waste the

energy required to heat it.





Consumer Reports uses the worst possible scenario figures. No reason to

heat the rinse water. Where did the 16 gallons a day come from? I bet I

don't use half a gallon on the worst day. I gave up reading CR decades

ago for just that reason. Can't trust them.



That why I added the ? after the 6000. Sounded outrageous high to me too.



However, the comments related to the wasting of water and energy if you use

hot water to rinse, as I'm sure many, many people do, is valid.

I need to find out whether you and Ed and others, when discussing pre-rinsing, mean RINSE CYCLE IN DW or (as I intend) QUICK RUN UNDER WATER FAUCET.

Would make vast differences in projected water usage.

(However, even when just "quick run under water faucet", must take into account energy used in heating water, so pref, use cold.)

We are only one modest-using household. But multiplied by millions, some more profligate, and given future water shortages in some areas of the country, it behooves us to define our terms. (One of the two buzzwords way back at university. The other was "what's your frame of reference". Both quite useful.)

HB