On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:32:54 -0800 (PST), DD_BobK
wrote:

On Feb 5, 8:49*am, bob haller wrote:
On Feb 5, 11:34*am, DD_BobK wrote:









On Feb 5, 12:25*am, Doc wrote:

Have a Hotpoint dishwasher from 1988. Still seems to run fine but does
a hit and miss job of cleaning. Leaves a noticeable film on glasses on
the top rack, is hit and miss on plates. Doesn't seem to matter what
detergent I use.

As far as I can tell there's still a strong jet of water getting
sprayed, gets plenty hot but it clearly seems to be less effective.
Any insights as to why this is?

Thanks

Obstruction internal to the water delivery system for the upper rack?
Water quality?

I have had good success rehabilitating older dishwashers using Finish
powdered detergent in the "pre-wash" soap holder and Lemi-Shine in the
main soap holder.

Over time, especially in machines with "heated wash" or "heated rinse"
or in harder water areas, hard water deposits can build up on machine
surfaces. *Lemi-Shine works to remove old deposits and keep new ones
from forming.

Lemi-Shine is a citric acid product.
As an aside, Lemi-Shine will brighten copper bottom pots & pans, by
eating off copper corrosion products (& possibly some of the copper?)

GIve Lemi-Shine a try * ..... *about $4 at the grocery store, also
available online.

cheers
Bob

FEDS REQUIRED DISHWASHER DETERGENT MAKERS TO REMOVE TSP, to prevent
excess algea growth in rivers and lakes.

the now reforumlated detergent doesnt clean as well.

TSP just a teaspoonfull works wonders, the inside of my machine was
scunge city. Much cleaner after just one load of TSP added detergent

So adding TSP to the dishwasher would contribute to "excess algae
growth in rivers and lakes", would it not?

cheers
Bob

Actually, it does not cause any increase. The current wastewater
treatment plants have no trouble handling this tiny additional load of
phosphates. There is a whole bunch of info about this on the web... I
googled it several months ago... the whole "eliminate the phosphates"
in dishwasher detergents turned out to be a solution to a non-problem.
But you know how gvt is.... Same reason no one uses DDT anymore even
though far more damage is done by malaria that is still not controlled
since the ban on DDT. Most of the DDT studies showing harm turned out
to be bogus. But you know how gvt is...

On 2/12/2012 5:31 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 20:32:54 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

So adding TSP to the dishwasher would contribute to "excess algae
growth in rivers and lakes", would it not?

cheers
Bob

Actually, it does not cause any increase. The current wastewater
treatment plants have no trouble handling this tiny additional load of
phosphates. There is a whole bunch of info about this on the web... I
googled it several months ago... the whole "eliminate the phosphates"
in dishwasher detergents turned out to be a solution to a non-problem.
But you know how gvt is.... Same reason no one uses DDT anymore even
though far more damage is done by malaria that is still not controlled
since the ban on DDT. Most of the DDT studies showing harm turned out
to be bogus. But you know how gvt is...


Got any *credible* links to support your factoids?

Ashton Crusher writes:

Actually, it does not cause any increase. The current wastewater
treatment plants have no trouble handling this tiny additional load of
phosphates. There is a whole bunch of info about this on the web... I
googled it several months ago... the whole "eliminate the phosphates"
in dishwasher detergents turned out to be a solution to a non-problem.
But you know how gvt is.... Same reason no one uses DDT anymore even
though far more damage is done by malaria that is still not controlled
since the ban on DDT. Most of the DDT studies showing harm turned out
to be bogus. But you know how gvt is...

Hey Ashton, how's Demi?

As was previously posted in this thread, phosphate removal in a sewage
plant is expensive and causes other problems. I don't know how many
plants treat for phosphates. Do you?

As far as DDT, I'm thinking, you're nuts.
"Most studies"? Really? Show me.

No, show all of us.

--
Dan Espen

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:35:43 -0500, Dan Espen wrote:

Ashton Crusher writes:

Actually, it does not cause any increase. The current wastewater
treatment plants have no trouble handling this tiny additional load of
phosphates. There is a whole bunch of info about this on the web... I
googled it several months ago... the whole "eliminate the phosphates"
in dishwasher detergents turned out to be a solution to a non-problem.
But you know how gvt is.... Same reason no one uses DDT anymore even
though far more damage is done by malaria that is still not controlled
since the ban on DDT. Most of the DDT studies showing harm turned out
to be bogus. But you know how gvt is...

Hey Ashton, how's Demi?

As was previously posted in this thread, phosphate removal in a sewage
plant is expensive and causes other problems. I don't know how many
plants treat for phosphates. Do you?

As far as DDT, I'm thinking, you're nuts.
"Most studies"? Really? Show me.

No, show all of us.

DAGS: "DDT fraud"

Ted wrote:

Got any *credible* links to support your factoids?

Is the State of Minnisota *credible* enough?

From an Phosphorus Rule White Paper environmental study they commisioned in
2007:

Currently, mandatory 1 mg/L phosphorus limits are imposed whenever there are
direct discharges to lakes and reservoirs or when it can be demonstrated that
non-direct discharges affect a lake or reservoir. The mandate is scientifically
supportable because the adverse impacts of excessive nutrients on standing
waters are well understood and well documented.

The statewide 1 mg/L phosphorus limit proposed by the MPCA, however, would apply
to all point-source discharges in the state. The expanded phosphorous limit is
arbitrary and ignores the fact that the ability of phosphorus to create
environmental impairments in rivers is controlled by a variety of factors: water
temperature, turbidity detention time, tree canopy and rate of water flow. Each
of these factors can have a significant impact on the likelihood of an
environmental impairment.

Phosphorus removal is expensive. It consumes energy and resources, and involves
the use of chemicals that are environmentally damaging. In many cases,
phosphorus removal simply is not needed. The need for phosphorus removal should
be verified on a case-by-case basis as stated in the Phosphorus Strategy adopted
by the MPCA in 2000. Unless significantly altered, the proposed rule change will
wastefully mandate phosphorus removal without demonstrating environmental need,
even when it can be shown to be unnecessary.

Dan Espen wrote:

As far as DDT, I'm thinking, you're nuts.
"Most studies"? Really? Show me.

Do you mean that obviously crazy, conservative funded, United Nations sponsored
World Health Organization? And papers authored by professors from those crackpot
schools Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Cambridge
Massachussetts, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda,
Maryland and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine London?

http://www.malaria.org/attarannaturemed.html

"Malaria kills over one million people, mainly children, in the tropics each
year, and DDT remains one of the few affordable, effective tools against the
mosquitoes that transmit the disease. Attaran et al. explain that the scientific
literature on the need to withdraw DDT is unpersuasive, and the benefits of DDT
in saving lives from malaria are well worth the risks."