On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:02 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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?


In the past year or so, dishwasher detergent manufacturers, in obeisance to
the green gomers, stopped making detergent with phosphate. This condition
can be easily remedied by adding phosphates to your detergent (it's like
adding two fresh eggs to a cake mix).


And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?
Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere, but selfish ****heads don't care about the
problems they create for someone else as long as their dishes shine.

dgk writes:

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:02 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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?


In the past year or so, dishwasher detergent manufacturers, in obeisance to
the green gomers, stopped making detergent with phosphate. This condition
can be easily remedied by adding phosphates to your detergent (it's like
adding two fresh eggs to a cake mix).


And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?
Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere, but selfish ****heads don't care about the
problems they create for someone else as long as their dishes shine.

Don't you get it?

If you can ridicule a group ("green gomers"), then that group
is automatically wrong. No need to worry about consequences.

--
Dan Espen

On 2/7/2012 1:02 PM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:02 -0600,
wrote:

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?


In the past year or so, dishwasher detergent manufacturers, in obeisance to
the green gomers, stopped making detergent with phosphate. This condition
can be easily remedied by adding phosphates to your detergent (it's like
adding two fresh eggs to a cake mix).


And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?
Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere, but selfish ****heads don't care about the
problems they create for someone else as long as their dishes shine.

and mine dumps out on top the ground as it tee's into my lateral line
downstream of the septic tank, then daylights about a 100' feet out.
AND i'll keep putting TSP into my DW detergent whether you treehuggers
like it or not.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 2/7/2012 3:44 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/7/2012 1:02 PM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:02 -0600,
wrote:

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?


In the past year or so, dishwasher detergent manufacturers, in
obeisance to
the green gomers, stopped making detergent with phosphate. This
condition
can be easily remedied by adding phosphates to your detergent (it's
like
adding two fresh eggs to a cake mix).


And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?
Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere, but selfish ****heads don't care about the
problems they create for someone else as long as their dishes shine.

and mine dumps out on top the ground as it tee's into my lateral line
downstream of the septic tank, then daylights about a 100' feet out.
AND i'll keep putting TSP into my DW detergent whether you treehuggers
like it or not.


At least you are aware of a problem. I don't know how much of a fix that
is though.

On 2/7/2012 4:01 PM, Jim T wrote:
On 2/7/2012 3:44 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/7/2012 1:02 PM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:02 -0600,
wrote:

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?


In the past year or so, dishwasher detergent manufacturers, in
obeisance to
the green gomers, stopped making detergent with phosphate. This
condition
can be easily remedied by adding phosphates to your detergent (it's
like
adding two fresh eggs to a cake mix).


And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?
Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere, but selfish ****heads don't care about the
problems they create for someone else as long as their dishes shine.

and mine dumps out on top the ground as it tee's into my lateral line
downstream of the septic tank, then daylights about a 100' feet out.
AND i'll keep putting TSP into my DW detergent whether you treehuggers
like it or not.


At least you are aware of a problem. I don't know how much of a fix that
is though.

what problem?

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 2/7/2012 4:18 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/7/2012 4:01 PM, Jim T wrote:
On 2/7/2012 3:44 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/7/2012 1:02 PM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:02 -0600,
wrote:

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?


In the past year or so, dishwasher detergent manufacturers, in
obeisance to
the green gomers, stopped making detergent with phosphate. This
condition
can be easily remedied by adding phosphates to your detergent (it's
like
adding two fresh eggs to a cake mix).


And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?
Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere, but selfish ****heads don't care about the
problems they create for someone else as long as their dishes shine.

and mine dumps out on top the ground as it tee's into my lateral line
downstream of the septic tank, then daylights about a 100' feet out.
AND i'll keep putting TSP into my DW detergent whether you treehuggers
like it or not.


At least you are aware of a problem. I don't know how much of a fix that
is though.

what problem?


Have you ever seen this movie?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues...the_Salton_Sea

Informative and entertaining.

http://www.saltonsea.ca.gov/ourplan.html


"Controlling Euthrophication

Under contract with the Authority, Kent Sea Tech, the state’s
aquaculture company, has tested a process to reduce nutrients flowing to
the Sea. It involves diverting flows from the Whitewater River into
shallow ponds, growing algae and then harvesting the algae by mechanical
means and by tilapia that will graze on it. The intent behind a full
scale application of the process is to reduce nutrients flowing to the
sea, thereby reducing algal blooms, fish die-off and odors."

The real efforts to clean up the SS died with Sonny Bono.

dgk wrote:

And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?
Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere

No, they don't. Phosphate is a naturally occurring element and a fertilizer. The
amount of phosphates that come from naturally occurring runoff far exceeds what
comes from treated sewage or household use.

This whole problem traces back to some environmental activists in Spokane,
Washington. Spokane was under court order to upgrade their sewage treatment
plant. They didn't want to spend the money, so they banned the use of phosphate
detergents as a feel good way of not fixing the problem. A few more states
joined in. P&G said they couldn't maintain separate formulations on a state by
state basis, so they removed the phosphates nationwide. The other manufacturers
followed along.

On 2/7/2012 7:07 PM, Robert Neville wrote:
wrote:

And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?
Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere
No, they don't. Phosphate is a naturally occurring element and a fertilizer. The
amount of phosphates that come from naturally occurring runoff far exceeds what
comes from treated sewage or household use.

This whole problem traces back to some environmental activists in Spokane,
Washington. Spokane was under court order to upgrade their sewage treatment
plant. They didn't want to spend the money, so they banned the use of phosphate
detergents as a feel good way of not fixing the problem. A few more states
joined in. P&G said they couldn't maintain separate formulations on a state by
state basis, so they removed the phosphates nationwide. The other manufacturers
followed along.

Your stupidity is noted. Thanks for playing.

gonjah gonjah.net wrote:

Your stupidity is noted. Thanks for playing.

Classic - when you can't argue on merits, throw a tantrum. Here's an easily
understandable explanation of what happened.Excerpts follow:


In 2000, Washington state’s Department of Ecology finally got around to creating
a computer model for the Spokane River. ...The entire exercise was as much
computer-assisted speculation as actual science.

Spokane has a single water-treatment plant to handle both the city and the
surrounding county. As of 2001, the plant handled 40 million gallons of
wastewater per day. But because of growth, demand for the area was projected to
rise to 60 million gallons per day by 2020. To meet this demand, the county
wanted to build another treatment facility.

In 2003, the county completed its study for a new water-treatment plant,
culminating in a plan to build a $73.4 million facility. The state Department of
Ecology agreed to the scheme and indicated they would grant the requisite
permits. But a few months later, Ecology changed its mind. After being
threatened by a lawsuit from the Sierra Club, the department concluded that
building the new plant would be a violation of the Clean Water Act. It turns out
that the EPA considered the Spokane an “impaired” waterway. This may sound
drastic, but the EPA found 600 bodies of water to be impaired in Washington
state alone. And the EPA would not allow construction of any new plant until a
TMDL plan was put in place.

Jim Correll, of CH2M Hill, the engineering firm hired to build the new plant,
explained in 2006 that the state’s requirement was not scientifically possible.
“The technology does not yet exist to do anything like what we expect the DOE to
require,”

....no one knew for certain how much dishwasher detergent actually contributed to
the problem. Advocates of the ban claimed—without hard evidence—that 15 percent
to 20 percent of all the phosphorus entering Spokane’s water-treatment plant
came from dishwashers. But a 2003 study done in Minnesota concluded that only
1.9 percent of the phosphorus there was the byproduct of household dish
detergents.

To their credit, most of the folks pushing the detergent ban made clear that
getting rid of phosphates in detergent wasn’t going to fix the problem.
“Anything we can do is good,” said Jani Gilbert, a spokeswoman for the
Department of Ecology, “but I also want people to understand it’s not going to
solve the river’s problem.” Rick Eichstaedt, a lawyer representing the Sierra
Club in talks with the state and the EPA, admitted that “from a Spokane River
cleanup perspective, it’s not going to solve the problem, and in fact, it’s not
the major source of the problem.”

With the genie out of the bottle in Washington state, environmental activists in
other states began lining up to pass their own bans. By 2010, 15 other states
had passed bans, but that turned out to be mere environmental showmanship.
Because before the ink was even dry on the Washington law, the detergent
manufacturers quietly threw in the towel. Instead of manufacturing two sets of
product—one for Washington state and another for the rest of America—the
industry giants agreed among themselves to move to phosphate-free detergents
nationwide by July 2010.

The ban itself, it turns out, has helped the river very little. A year after it
went into effect, supporters conveniently forgot their promises of reductions in
the 15 percent to 20 percent range and trumpeted news that phosphorus flowing
into the city’s water-treatment plant had declined by 10.7 percent, to just 181
pounds per day. Buried in the accounts was a remark by the plant’s manager
admitting that because the new phosphorus filtration system was so efficient,
nearly all of the in-flowing phosphorus was getting filtered out anyway. So the
reduction of phosphorus actually making it into the river as a result of the
detergent ban is much, much smaller.

Last month the University of Washington released a study suggesting that some of
the phosphorus being discharged into the Spokane River never actually worked as
fertilizer for algae to begin with. It seems that not all phosphorus is alike.
Some of the effluents making their way into the river contained phosphorus in
complex molecular forms which are not bioavailable. Algae lack the enzymes
necessary to break down this phosphorus, meaning it is essentially harmless. The
study was a useful reminder that all science is settled. Until it’s not.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...62.html?page=3

On 2/7/2012 8:08 PM, Robert Neville wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net wrote:

Your stupidity is noted. Thanks for playing.
Classic - when you can't argue on merits, throw a tantrum. Here's an easily
understandable explanation of what happened.Excerpts follow:


In 2000, Washington state’s Department of Ecology finally got around to creating
a computer model for the Spokane River. ...The entire exercise was as much
computer-assisted speculation as actual science.

Spokane has a single water-treatment plant to handle both the city and the
surrounding county. As of 2001, the plant handled 40 million gallons of
wastewater per day. But because of growth, demand for the area was projected to
rise to 60 million gallons per day by 2020. To meet this demand, the county
wanted to build another treatment facility.

In 2003, the county completed its study for a new water-treatment plant,
culminating in a plan to build a $73.4 million facility. The state Department of
Ecology agreed to the scheme and indicated they would grant the requisite
permits. But a few months later, Ecology changed its mind. After being
threatened by a lawsuit from the Sierra Club, the department concluded that
building the new plant would be a violation of the Clean Water Act. It turns out
that the EPA considered the Spokane an “impaired” waterway. This may sound
drastic, but the EPA found 600 bodies of water to be impaired in Washington
state alone. And the EPA would not allow construction of any new plant until a
TMDL plan was put in place.

Jim Correll, of CH2M Hill, the engineering firm hired to build the new plant,
explained in 2006 that the state’s requirement was not scientifically possible.
“The technology does not yet exist to do anything like what we expect the DOE to
require,”

...no one knew for certain how much dishwasher detergent actually contributed to
the problem. Advocates of the ban claimed—without hard evidence—that 15 percent
to 20 percent of all the phosphorus entering Spokane’s water-treatment plant
came from dishwashers. But a 2003 study done in Minnesota concluded that only
1.9 percent of the phosphorus there was the byproduct of household dish
detergents.

To their credit, most of the folks pushing the detergent ban made clear that
getting rid of phosphates in detergent wasn’t going to fix the problem.
“Anything we can do is good,” said Jani Gilbert, a spokeswoman for the
Department of Ecology, “but I also want people to understand it’s not going to
solve the river’s problem.” Rick Eichstaedt, a lawyer representing the Sierra
Club in talks with the state and the EPA, admitted that “from a Spokane River
cleanup perspective, it’s not going to solve the problem, and in fact, it’s not
the major source of the problem.”

With the genie out of the bottle in Washington state, environmental activists in
other states began lining up to pass their own bans. By 2010, 15 other states
had passed bans, but that turned out to be mere environmental showmanship.
Because before the ink was even dry on the Washington law, the detergent
manufacturers quietly threw in the towel. Instead of manufacturing two sets of
product—one for Washington state and another for the rest of America—the
industry giants agreed among themselves to move to phosphate-free detergents
nationwide by July 2010.

The ban itself, it turns out, has helped the river very little. A year after it
went into effect, supporters conveniently forgot their promises of reductions in
the 15 percent to 20 percent range and trumpeted news that phosphorus flowing
into the city’s water-treatment plant had declined by 10.7 percent, to just 181
pounds per day. Buried in the accounts was a remark by the plant’s manager
admitting that because the new phosphorus filtration system was so efficient,
nearly all of the in-flowing phosphorus was getting filtered out anyway. So the
reduction of phosphorus actually making it into the river as a result of the
detergent ban is much, much smaller.

Last month the University of Washington released a study suggesting that some of
the phosphorus being discharged into the Spokane River never actually worked as
fertilizer for algae to begin with. It seems that not all phosphorus is alike.
Some of the effluents making their way into the river contained phosphorus in
complex molecular forms which are not bioavailable. Algae lack the enzymes
necessary to break down this phosphorus, meaning it is essentially harmless. The
study was a useful reminder that all science is settled. Until it’s not.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...62.html?page=3

LOL. The Weekly Standard. You're so ****ing stupid. ROTFLMAO!!!

Robert Neville writes:

The ban itself, it turns out, has helped the river very little. A year after it
went into effect, supporters conveniently forgot their promises of reductions in
the 15 percent to 20 percent range and trumpeted news that phosphorus flowing
into the citys water-treatment plant had declined by 10.7 percent, to just 181
pounds per day.

Cheaters or some other unidentified source?

Buried in the accounts was a remark by the plants manager
admitting that because the new phosphorus filtration system was so efficient,
nearly all of the in-flowing phosphorus was getting filtered out
anyway.

Looks like they spared no expense with the water treatment plant.
Removing phosphorus is expensive:

http://www.lenntech.com/phosphorous-removal.htm

Phosphate removal is currently achieved largely by chemical
precipitation, which is expensive and causes an increase of sludge
volume by up to 40%.


I have no dog in this. Our dishwasher cleans fine.

--
Dan Espen

On 2/7/2012 5:43 PM, gonjah wrote:
On 2/7/2012 4:18 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/7/2012 4:01 PM, Jim T wrote:
On 2/7/2012 3:44 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/7/2012 1:02 PM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:02 -0600,
wrote:

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?


In the past year or so, dishwasher detergent manufacturers, in
obeisance to
the green gomers, stopped making detergent with phosphate. This
condition
can be easily remedied by adding phosphates to your detergent (it's
like
adding two fresh eggs to a cake mix).


And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?
Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere, but selfish ****heads don't care about the
problems they create for someone else as long as their dishes shine.

and mine dumps out on top the ground as it tee's into my lateral line
downstream of the septic tank, then daylights about a 100' feet out.
AND i'll keep putting TSP into my DW detergent whether you treehuggers
like it or not.


At least you are aware of a problem. I don't know how much of a fix that
is though.

what problem?


Have you ever seen this movie?


nope



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues...the_Salton_Sea

Informative and entertaining.

http://www.saltonsea.ca.gov/ourplan.html


"Controlling Euthrophication

Under contract with the Authority, Kent Sea Tech, the state’s
aquaculture company, has tested a process to reduce nutrients flowing to
the Sea. It involves diverting flows from the Whitewater River into
shallow ponds, growing algae and then harvesting the algae by mechanical
means and by tilapia that will graze on it. The intent behind a full
scale application of the process is to reduce nutrients flowing to the
sea, thereby reducing algal blooms, fish die-off and odors."

The real efforts to clean up the SS died with Sonny Bono.





--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 2/7/2012 9:27 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Robert writes:

The ban itself, it turns out, has helped the river very little. A year after it
went into effect, supporters conveniently forgot their promises of reductions in
the 15 percent to 20 percent range and trumpeted news that phosphorus flowing
into the citys water-treatment plant had declined by 10.7 percent, to just 181
pounds per day.

Cheaters or some other unidentified source?

Buried in the accounts was a remark by the plants manager
admitting that because the new phosphorus filtration system was so efficient,
nearly all of the in-flowing phosphorus was getting filtered out
anyway.

Looks like they spared no expense with the water treatment plant.
Removing phosphorus is expensive:

http://www.lenntech.com/phosphorous-removal.htm

Phosphate removal is currently achieved largely by chemical
precipitation, which is expensive and causes an increase of sludge
volume by up to 40%.


I have no dog in this. Our dishwasher cleans fine.


which powder (or gel) do you use? and what is your water temp?

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Jim T wrote:

LOL. The Weekly Standard. You're so ****ing stupid. ROTFLMAO!!!

Just picked a source I thought you could understand. There's plenty of others.
Go ahead - make your well reasoned counter argument.


We're waiting.


Still.

On 2/7/2012 10:21 PM, Robert Neville wrote:
Jim wrote:

LOL. The Weekly Standard. You're so ****ing stupid. ROTFLMAO!!!
Just picked a source I thought you could understand. There's plenty of others.
Go ahead - make your well reasoned counter argument.


We're waiting.


Still.

Keep waiting. Clue: Use Google and don't go to biased news sources.
You're a riot! :-)

Thanks for the laugh!

Dan Espen wrote:

Cheaters or some other unidentified source?

As the article indicated, phosphates come from many sources and the original 15%
reduction number was pulled out of the air.

Looks like they spared no expense with the water treatment plant.
Removing phosphorus is expensive:

Not arguing that point. The reality is that those plant changes were required
for that one location only and noone is arguing that the residents of Spokane
aren't entitled to decide what kinds of detergent formulations they want sold.

The less efficient and more expensive detergent solution was imposed on the
entire country - and Spokane was still required to install the additional
treatment equipment.

A bit like when car emission checks were first made mandatory. Every study of
vehicles at the time showed that it took at least 5 years and usually over 10
before a car would drop out of spec for emissions. So why did everyone have to
have their car checked every year? Why not just those with vehicles over 5 or 10
years old?

The response was usually "Well, it wouldn't be fair to penalized those with
older vehicles." Eventually the argument became people were putting leaded gas
in unleaded vehicles. Funny thing though - even after leaded gas was phased out,
those annual checks hung around. And people who paid the additional cost of a
new vehicle still paid for unneeded annual emission checks.

At least in some states now they wait until 2 or 3 years before starting.

On 2/7/2012 10:33 PM, Robert Neville wrote:
Dan wrote:

Cheaters or some other unidentified source?

As the article indicated, phosphates come from many sources and the original 15%
reduction number was pulled out of the air.

Looks like they spared no expense with the water treatment plant.
Removing phosphorus is expensive:

Not arguing that point. The reality is that those plant changes were required
for that one location only and noone is arguing that the residents of Spokane
aren't entitled to decide what kinds of detergent formulations they want sold.

The less efficient and more expensive detergent solution was imposed on the
entire country - and Spokane was still required to install the additional
treatment equipment.

A bit like when car emission checks were first made mandatory. Every study of
vehicles at the time showed that it took at least 5 years and usually over 10
before a car would drop out of spec for emissions. So why did everyone have to
have their car checked every year? Why not just those with vehicles over 5 or 10
years old?

The response was usually "Well, it wouldn't be fair to penalized those with
older vehicles." Eventually the argument became people were putting leaded gas
in unleaded vehicles. Funny thing though - even after leaded gas was phased out,
those annual checks hung around. And people who paid the additional cost of a
new vehicle still paid for unneeded annual emission checks.

At least in some states now they wait until 2 or 3 years before starting.

and some states (thank us very much) don't have that bull**** at all.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:33:49 -0700, Robert Neville
wrote:




A bit like when car emission checks were first made mandatory. Every study of
vehicles at the time showed that it took at least 5 years and usually over 10
before a car would drop out of spec for emissions. So why did everyone have to
have their car checked every year? Why not just those with vehicles over 5 or 10
years old?

The response was usually "Well, it wouldn't be fair to penalized those with
older vehicles." Eventually the argument became people were putting leaded gas
in unleaded vehicles. Funny thing though - even after leaded gas was phased out,
those annual checks hung around. And people who paid the additional cost of a
new vehicle still paid for unneeded annual emission checks.

At least in some states now they wait until 2 or 3 years before starting.

The emissions check in CT was contracted to a private company.
Checking every car every year was a revenue enhancement. They changed
the system and now it is every two years and you get a pass on new
cars for three or four.

Dan Espen wrote:
dgk writes:

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 06:32:02 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

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?


In the past year or so, dishwasher detergent manufacturers, in
obeisance to the green gomers, stopped making detergent with
phosphate. This condition can be easily remedied by adding
phosphates to your detergent (it's like adding two fresh eggs to a
cake mix).


And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?
Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere, but selfish ****heads don't care about the
problems they create for someone else as long as their dishes shine.

Don't you get it?

If you can ridicule a group ("green gomers"), then that group
is automatically wrong. No need to worry about consequences.

You make a good point. Still, in this one case, the fools need to be held up
to the contempt and ridicule they so richly deserve. This was not an ad
hominem attack, merely a descriptive adjective. The post went on with
substantive information.

dgk wrote:

In the past year or so, dishwasher detergent manufacturers, in
obeisance to the green gomers, stopped making detergent with
phosphate. This condition can be easily remedied by adding
phosphates to your detergent (it's like adding two fresh eggs to a
cake mix).


And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?

Actually, yes. Or at least wanted them washed by hand. These folks are, in
the main, Luddites.

Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere, but selfish ****heads don't care about the
problems they create for someone else as long as their dishes shine.

If the problems were "phosphates in the sewer lines" what's the algae bloom
doing in an unnamed creek? Either the city's sanitary sewer service needs
some adjustment, or the folks who were dumping raw sewage into a rivulet of
a stream need someone to talk strong to them.

On 2/8/2012 7:34 AM, HeyBub wrote:
dgk wrote:

In the past year or so, dishwasher detergent manufacturers, in
obeisance to the green gomers, stopped making detergent with
phosphate. This condition can be easily remedied by adding
phosphates to your detergent (it's like adding two fresh eggs to a
cake mix).


And they did this terrible thing because they wanted dirtier dishes?

Actually, yes. Or at least wanted them washed by hand. These folks are, in
the main, Luddites.

Perhaps it was because shoving phosphates into the sewer causes
problems elsewhere, but selfish ****heads don't care about the
problems they create for someone else as long as their dishes shine.

If the problems were "phosphates in the sewer lines" what's the algae bloom
doing in an unnamed creek? Either the city's sanitary sewer service needs
some adjustment, or the folks who were dumping raw sewage into a rivulet of
a stream need someone to talk strong to them.



and the fact remains, they didn't remove the phosphates from commercial
DW compounds. I wonder who runs more dish water? A restaurant or a
house? Can you imagine the problems if they took it out of restaurant
dw compounds??

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:04 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:




At least you are aware of a problem. I don't know how much of a fix that
is though.

what problem?


Have you ever seen this movie?


nope


I don't understand Steve, please fill me in. Do you not believe the
science that ties phosphates to significant problems in the
environment, or do you just not care? I can understand a reasonable
disagreement over studies and such, although I'm not aware that any
disagreement over the action of phosphates.

I don't understand an attitude that wouldn't care algae blooms and
related issues of dead zones in bodies of water. I'm glad I don't know
you personally.

On 2/8/2012 7:47 AM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:04 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:




At least you are aware of a problem. I don't know how much of a fix that
is though.

what problem?


Have you ever seen this movie?


nope


I don't understand Steve, please fill me in. Do you not believe the
science that ties phosphates to significant problems in the
environment, or do you just not care? I can understand a reasonable
disagreement over studies and such, although I'm not aware that any
disagreement over the action of phosphates.

I don't understand an attitude that wouldn't care algae blooms and
related issues of dead zones in bodies of water. I'm glad I don't know
you personally.

no, i don't believe it. See the other posts pertaining to this
'alleged' problem. It never happened short of one isolated case that
was not proven to be DW compounds that caused it.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 2/8/2012 7:56 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/8/2012 7:47 AM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:04 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:




At least you are aware of a problem. I don't know how much of a
fix that
is though.

what problem?


Have you ever seen this movie?


nope


I don't understand Steve, please fill me in. Do you not believe the
science that ties phosphates to significant problems in the
environment, or do you just not care? I can understand a reasonable
disagreement over studies and such, although I'm not aware that any
disagreement over the action of phosphates.

I don't understand an attitude that wouldn't care algae blooms and
related issues of dead zones in bodies of water. I'm glad I don't know
you personally.

no, i don't believe it. See the other posts pertaining to this
'alleged' problem. It never happened short of one isolated case that
was not proven to be DW compounds that caused it.


LOL. I don't mind arguing but this is a waste of time.

Steve Barker writes:

R On 2/7/2012 9:27 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Robert writes:

The ban itself, it turns out, has helped the river very little. A year after it
went into effect, supporters conveniently forgot their promises of reductions in
the 15 percent to 20 percent range and trumpeted news that phosphorus flowing
into the citys water-treatment plant had declined by 10.7 percent, to just 181
pounds per day.

Cheaters or some other unidentified source?

Buried in the accounts was a remark by the plants manager
admitting that because the new phosphorus filtration system was so efficient,
nearly all of the in-flowing phosphorus was getting filtered out
anyway.

Looks like they spared no expense with the water treatment plant.
Removing phosphorus is expensive:

http://www.lenntech.com/phosphorous-removal.htm

Phosphate removal is currently achieved largely by chemical
precipitation, which is expensive and causes an increase of sludge
volume by up to 40%.


I have no dog in this. Our dishwasher cleans fine.


which powder (or gel) do you use? and what is your water temp?

Many different powders, right now cascade gel.

Recently had a problem with powders, they were clogging up the
steam vent. Read the machine instructions and found out we were
using 3x what was called for. The dispensers have three lips
for soft, medium, and hard water. Wife was going for full to the
brim.

Hot water tank is set at 140 and it looks to me like there is
a heating coil in the dishwasher.

The dishes come out so hot, I usually wait 15 minutes to a half
hour before trying to handle them. There's no doubt in my mind
the dishes are sterile from the heat. Plus they look clean.

This is just a decent model Kenmore.
Guests want to rinse the dishes before they load.
We tell them, just scrape off the large pieces and load them up.
Then they marvel at how clean the dishes are.
Not sure if it's crazy guests or a better machine than average.

Fairly soft water probably helps.

Just ordered new racks. The machine is around 15 years old and
the racks are starting to come part from rust.

--
Dan Espen

Robert Neville writes:

Jim T wrote:

LOL. The Weekly Standard. You're so ****ing stupid. ROTFLMAO!!!

Just picked a source I thought you could understand. There's plenty of others.
Go ahead - make your well reasoned counter argument.

Robert, that whole thing seemed to deal with the politics in Spokane.
I got the impression Spokane is willing to do just about anything to
keep their river pristine. Hell, if I had a house right on the river
you bet I'd feel the same way.

There are plenty of lakes and rivers with algae blooms. Some of those
blooms are entirely natural but many can be traced back to phosphate
release by humans. Farming is by far the largest culprit for
leaking phosphates.

Someone was just complaining about corporate farms.
I just read that corporate farms laser level their plots and computer
control their chemical applications. So they contribute less per
acre than the average farm.

When the government asks me to chip in and help, I'm willing to try.
My dishes are clean with off the shelf detergents so I have no
complaints.


--
Dan Espen

Ed Pawlowski writes:

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:33:49 -0700, Robert Neville
wrote:




A bit like when car emission checks were first made mandatory. Every study of
vehicles at the time showed that it took at least 5 years and usually over 10
before a car would drop out of spec for emissions. So why did everyone have to
have their car checked every year? Why not just those with vehicles over 5 or 10
years old?

The response was usually "Well, it wouldn't be fair to penalized those with
older vehicles." Eventually the argument became people were putting leaded gas
in unleaded vehicles. Funny thing though - even after leaded gas was phased out,
those annual checks hung around. And people who paid the additional cost of a
new vehicle still paid for unneeded annual emission checks.

At least in some states now they wait until 2 or 3 years before starting.

The emissions check in CT was contracted to a private company.
Checking every car every year was a revenue enhancement. They changed
the system and now it is every two years and you get a pass on new
cars for three or four.

NJ went private. Inspections got slightly faster.
Then they went every other year, inspection waits were gone.
Now you need no inspection until the car is 5 model years old.

A good example of a necessary government service being run in a business
like manner.

Yes, I do want cars billowing smoke repaired or taken off the road.

--
Dan Espen

On 2/8/2012 2:19 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Robert writes:

Jim wrote:

LOL. The Weekly Standard. You're so ****ing stupid. ROTFLMAO!!!
Just picked a source I thought you could understand. There's plenty of others.
Go ahead - make your well reasoned counter argument.
Robert, that whole thing seemed to deal with the politics in Spokane.
I got the impression Spokane is willing to do just about anything to
keep their river pristine. Hell, if I had a house right on the river
you bet I'd feel the same way.

There are plenty of lakes and rivers with algae blooms. Some of those
blooms are entirely natural but many can be traced back to phosphate
release by humans. Farming is by far the largest culprit for
leaking phosphates.

Someone was just complaining about corporate farms.
I just read that corporate farms laser level their plots and computer
control their chemical applications. So they contribute less per
acre than the average farm.

When the government asks me to chip in and help, I'm willing to try.
My dishes are clean with off the shelf detergents so I have no
complaints.




It's been my experience that algae thrives on VERY low amounts of
phosphates (they are measured in ppb, or parts-per-billion). I manage
salt water aquariums and a swimming pool so I have daily interaction
with phosphate and nitrate tests. Any small spike of phosphates can
cause a bloom so any amount of phosphate reduction is helpful. "Zero"
phosphates works the best in my experience.

gonjah gonjah.net writes:

On 2/8/2012 2:19 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Robert writes:

Jim wrote:

LOL. The Weekly Standard. You're so ****ing stupid. ROTFLMAO!!!
Just picked a source I thought you could understand. There's plenty of others.
Go ahead - make your well reasoned counter argument.
Robert, that whole thing seemed to deal with the politics in Spokane.
I got the impression Spokane is willing to do just about anything to
keep their river pristine. Hell, if I had a house right on the river
you bet I'd feel the same way.

There are plenty of lakes and rivers with algae blooms. Some of those
blooms are entirely natural but many can be traced back to phosphate
release by humans. Farming is by far the largest culprit for
leaking phosphates.

Someone was just complaining about corporate farms.
I just read that corporate farms laser level their plots and computer
control their chemical applications. So they contribute less per
acre than the average farm.

When the government asks me to chip in and help, I'm willing to try.
My dishes are clean with off the shelf detergents so I have no
complaints.

It's been my experience that algae thrives on VERY low amounts of
phosphates (they are measured in ppb, or parts-per-billion). I manage
salt water aquariums and a swimming pool so I have daily interaction
with phosphate and nitrate tests. Any small spike of phosphates can
cause a bloom so any amount of phosphate reduction is helpful. "Zero"
phosphates works the best in my experience.

Salt water tanks, way too much work.

I had freshwater for 25 years before I got it out of my system.
Algae was a constant issue but I grew plants in the tank so the
best control I found was snails.

Algae battles in the pool are something else I'm familiar with.
But I didn't know you could control phosphates, my kit doesn't
measure for that. I nuke the pool with chlorine if algae gets
out of hand otherwise the various algae control products seem
to work. The blue stuff appears to be copper, not sure what the
stuff that looks like oil is.

--
Dan Espen

On 2/8/2012 3:19 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net writes:

On 2/8/2012 2:19 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Robert writes:

Jim wrote:

LOL. The Weekly Standard. You're so ****ing stupid. ROTFLMAO!!!
Just picked a source I thought you could understand. There's plenty of others.
Go ahead - make your well reasoned counter argument.
Robert, that whole thing seemed to deal with the politics in Spokane.
I got the impression Spokane is willing to do just about anything to
keep their river pristine. Hell, if I had a house right on the river
you bet I'd feel the same way.

There are plenty of lakes and rivers with algae blooms. Some of those
blooms are entirely natural but many can be traced back to phosphate
release by humans. Farming is by far the largest culprit for
leaking phosphates.

Someone was just complaining about corporate farms.
I just read that corporate farms laser level their plots and computer
control their chemical applications. So they contribute less per
acre than the average farm.

When the government asks me to chip in and help, I'm willing to try.
My dishes are clean with off the shelf detergents so I have no
complaints.
It's been my experience that algae thrives on VERY low amounts of
phosphates (they are measured in ppb, or parts-per-billion). I manage
salt water aquariums and a swimming pool so I have daily interaction
with phosphate and nitrate tests. Any small spike of phosphates can
cause a bloom so any amount of phosphate reduction is helpful. "Zero"
phosphates works the best in my experience.
Salt water tanks, way too much work.

I had freshwater for 25 years before I got it out of my system.
Algae was a constant issue but I grew plants in the tank so the
best control I found was snails.

Algae battles in the pool are something else I'm familiar with.
But I didn't know you could control phosphates, my kit doesn't
measure for that. I nuke the pool with chlorine if algae gets
out of hand otherwise the various algae control products seem
to work. The blue stuff appears to be copper, not sure what the
stuff that looks like oil is.


Sal****er tanks are pretty easy to maintain. I have soft corals and a
few fish. It's all about live rock. The more the better. Snails help a
lot too.

You can get a phosphate test at a aquarium place or a pool supply store
online. However, it's been my experience, it you have algae, you have
phosphates. Someone here turned me on to PR10000 for the pool. I can't
imagine a better phosphate remover for the price. You don't kill the
algae, you take away the source of it. Shocking is primarily for
sanitizing the pool. I don't use it at all for algae control because I
never get any to speak of anymore.

Find some PR10000 online and get your water tested at a pool store for
phosphates or get a test. I have a 10000 gal pool so if I see any algae,
or after a rain, I put in about 2 tbsp of
PR10000. Good Stuff. Phosphate test can be tricky and need to be done
carefully. False negatives are pretty common.

I don't know about the store but this is the stuff.

http://shop.aquaspas.com/browse.cfm/...over/4,87.html

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:27:45 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:



NJ went private. Inspections got slightly faster.
Then they went every other year, inspection waits were gone.
Now you need no inspection until the car is 5 model years old.

A good example of a necessary government service being run in a business
like manner.

Yes, I do want cars billowing smoke repaired or taken off the road.

Ever get behind a 50's or so car? Amazing the odor you get from the
exhaust. Hard to believe we accepted that as normal, but it was quite
common. Unleaded gas and cat converters are a big help to those of us
that breath to live.

gonjah gonjah.net writes:

On 2/8/2012 3:19 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
gonjahgonjah.net writes:

On 2/8/2012 2:19 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Robert writes:

Jim wrote:

LOL. The Weekly Standard. You're so ****ing stupid. ROTFLMAO!!!
Just picked a source I thought you could understand. There's plenty of others.
Go ahead - make your well reasoned counter argument.
Robert, that whole thing seemed to deal with the politics in Spokane.
I got the impression Spokane is willing to do just about anything to
keep their river pristine. Hell, if I had a house right on the river
you bet I'd feel the same way.

There are plenty of lakes and rivers with algae blooms. Some of those
blooms are entirely natural but many can be traced back to phosphate
release by humans. Farming is by far the largest culprit for
leaking phosphates.

Someone was just complaining about corporate farms.
I just read that corporate farms laser level their plots and computer
control their chemical applications. So they contribute less per
acre than the average farm.

When the government asks me to chip in and help, I'm willing to try.
My dishes are clean with off the shelf detergents so I have no
complaints.
It's been my experience that algae thrives on VERY low amounts of
phosphates (they are measured in ppb, or parts-per-billion). I manage
salt water aquariums and a swimming pool so I have daily interaction
with phosphate and nitrate tests. Any small spike of phosphates can
cause a bloom so any amount of phosphate reduction is helpful. "Zero"
phosphates works the best in my experience.
Salt water tanks, way too much work.

I had freshwater for 25 years before I got it out of my system.
Algae was a constant issue but I grew plants in the tank so the
best control I found was snails.

Algae battles in the pool are something else I'm familiar with.
But I didn't know you could control phosphates, my kit doesn't
measure for that. I nuke the pool with chlorine if algae gets
out of hand otherwise the various algae control products seem
to work. The blue stuff appears to be copper, not sure what the
stuff that looks like oil is.


Sal****er tanks are pretty easy to maintain. I have soft corals and a
few fish. It's all about live rock. The more the better. Snails help a
lot too.

I've always been impressed by people that will keep a salt tank.
A lot of knowledge and work is required.

As I said, I had my fresh water tank(s) over 25 years.
When I finally settled on 1 60 gallon long,
I got routine maintenance down to just a few minutes a day with an
automatic water changer, plants, and snails.

No way salt is that easy. Sure salt looks great but tell me if
you are still at it after 25 years. Well, you may have already been
at it 25 years, if so, more power to you.

I somewhat miss my friends the fish, and the new plants that would
grow and flower in the tank but there's only so much time I want
to devote to keeping fish and I've run out.

You can get a phosphate test at a aquarium place or a pool supply
store online. However, it's been my experience, it you have algae, you
have phosphates. Someone here turned me on to PR10000 for the
pool. I can't imagine a better phosphate remover for the price. You
don't kill the algae, you take away the source of it. Shocking is
primarily for sanitizing the pool. I don't use it at all for algae
control because I never get any to speak of anymore.

Find some PR10000 online and get your water tested at a pool store for
phosphates or get a test. I have a 10000 gal pool so if I see any
algae, or after a rain, I put in about 2 tbsp of
PR10000. Good Stuff. Phosphate test can be tricky and need to be done
carefully. False negatives are pretty common.

I don't know about the store but this is the stuff.

http://shop.aquaspas.com/browse.cfm/...over/4,87.html

I don't test water at pool stores. Experience has taught me it's too expensive.

Didn't know about PR-10000. They claim that they only reveal what
it's made of to a doctor in an emergency. After some reading it seems
very likely that it's Lanthanum.

I believe that is already present in most pool algaecides but I'll check
next time I buy some. If not, it sounds like a good idea.


--
Dan Espen

Ed Pawlowski writes:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:27:45 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:



NJ went private. Inspections got slightly faster.
Then they went every other year, inspection waits were gone.
Now you need no inspection until the car is 5 model years old.

A good example of a necessary government service being run in a business
like manner.

Yes, I do want cars billowing smoke repaired or taken off the road.

Ever get behind a 50's or so car? Amazing the odor you get from the
exhaust. Hard to believe we accepted that as normal, but it was quite
common. Unleaded gas and cat converters are a big help to those of us
that breath to live.

Not to mention asbestos flying off the brakes, and lead in the gas.

I remember the 50s.
(And probably a few things from the late 40s.)

Sure, we had lead paint, Carbona, DDT, all kinds of good stuff.
Funny thing though, even then, everybody knew cigarettes were bad
for you.

--
Dan Espen

On 2/8/2012 8:05 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

I've always been impressed by people that will keep a salt tank.
A lot of knowledge and work is required.

About 7 years ago I started with a 55 gal sw tank. I had a hard time
keeping the red algae down. After a lot of research and asking questions
I found a product called chem-clean. It kills red algae and doesn't kill
anything else "if" one follows the directions carefully.

Later I switched my 55 for a 75 gal. That's what I have now. I did a
crash course in sw tanks between reading, news groups and talking with
the guys at the aquarium stores. Back in the beginning I did have
problems with nitrates. I have the best protein skimmer on the market
for my tank but it takes more than that to keep nitrates down. I would
furiously do water changes until the guys in the ng and the aquarium
store said to put more live rock in and be patient. That was about 6.5
years ago. Yup, that's the trick. I run a Remora Protein Skimmer (*****
rated), a Eheim filter for charcoal and four Coralvue powerheads (for
current).

Usually, I don't even have to test the water because I know it's clean
and it's a waste of reagent. Just recently we tore the aquarium apart
and put it in another room of the house so I have to test for nitrates
daily. It's back under control and working well, again.

Here is a picture of the tank just before the move:

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._5467760_n.jpg

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._3208403_n.jpg

See all the live rock :-)? I'm telling you, that's the trick!

You're right. If you don't know what you're doing it would be difficult.

The maintenance on a stable tank like mine consists of:
25% sal****er changes every two weeks to keep the trace elements up
Once every two weeks cleaning the protein skimmer.
Once every 6 months replacing the charcoal and cleaning the charcoal filter.
Daily keeping the glass clean.

You do have to have a RO or a RO/DI water filter system that I change
the filters on once every 6 months,

Sounds like a lot but it isn't.

I ran a cichlid tank for awhile but I found that boring.



As I said, I had my fresh water tank(s) over 25 years.
When I finally settled on 1 60 gallon long,
I got routine maintenance down to just a few minutes a day with an
automatic water changer, plants, and snails.

No way salt is that easy. Sure salt looks great but tell me if
you are still at it after 25 years. Well, you may have already been
at it 25 years, if so, more power to you.

I somewhat miss my friends the fish, and the new plants that would
grow and flower in the tank but there's only so much time I want
to devote to keeping fish and I've run out.

You can get a phosphate test at a aquarium place or a pool supply
store online. However, it's been my experience, it you have algae, you
have phosphates. Someone here turned me on to PR10000for the
pool. I can't imagine a better phosphate remover for the price. You
don't kill the algae, you take away the source of it. Shocking is
primarily for sanitizing the pool. I don't use it at all for algae
control because I never get any to speak of anymore.

Find some PR10000 online and get your water tested at a pool store for
phosphates or get a test. I have a 10000 gal pool so if I see any
algae, or after a rain, I put in about 2 tbsp of
PR10000. Good Stuff. Phosphate test can be tricky and need to be done
carefully. False negatives are pretty common.

I don't know about the store but this is the stuff.

http://shop.aquaspas.com/browse.cfm/...over/4,87.html
I don't test water at pool stores. Experience has taught me it's too expensive.

I was sugesting to test your phosphates at the store if you didn't want
to buy the reagent The reagents for phosphate tests are relatively
expensive. Most stores don't routinely run them. I have a couple of
tests but after you get the phoshates down you really don't need to run
a test. Like I said, if you have algae, you have phoshates. Find the
level. Eliminate the phosphates. After that do maintaninace. When it
rains, or you have a heavy swim day, put *a little* PR-10000 in. The
test is probably going to be neg because your levels will be so low, but
you will have phosphates. That's what I was talking about with false
negatives. When the phosphates are real low they are difficult to
measure. They are with my tests anyway.

If you have any questions ask. I've probably dealt with it.



Didn't know about PR-10000. They claim that they only reveal what
it's made of to a doctor in an emergency. After some reading it seems
very likely that it's Lanthanum.

I believe that is already present in most pool algaecides but I'll check
next time I buy some. If not, it sounds like a good idea.



There is a guy here that did a price comparison and PR-10000 was much
much cheaper than the rest. The ingredient is proprietary. The company
claims it will do no harm to the environment and can even be used in
ponds and aquariums but I'm not going to test that. I am going to try it
in my goldfish pond this summer but the dose is going to be like 1 ml/60
gal.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:47:13 -0500, dgk wrote Re
Why is older dishwasher not washing well?:

I don't understand Steve, please fill me in. Do you not believe the
science that ties phosphates to significant problems in the
environment, or do you just not care?
snip

I don't know about Steve, but I personally don't care.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:19:42 -0500, Dan Espen
wrote:

gonjah gonjah.net writes:
....

Salt water tanks, way too much work.

I had freshwater for 25 years before I got it out of my system.
Algae was a constant issue but I grew plants in the tank so the
best control I found was snails.

Algae battles in the pool are something else I'm familiar with.
But I didn't know you could control phosphates, my kit doesn't
measure for that. I nuke the pool with chlorine if algae gets
out of hand otherwise the various algae control products seem
to work. The blue stuff appears to be copper, not sure what the
stuff that looks like oil is.

When I was 16 (was I ever 16?) I was hired to work as a lifeguard at
the Goldman Hotel in West Orange NJ - left behind when all the other
resorts moved to the Catskills. Huge pool, twice Olympic size. So it's
Fourth of July weekend. The head lifeguard tells me to put in some
soda ash and algicide.

I don't know anything so I haul a big bag (I recall it being 100 lbs)
of soda ash to the deep end and dump it in. Then I pour in a big jug
of algicide. A little while later the water jetting in from the sides
is turning orange. Shortly thereafter it starts bubbling. We're
looking at the pool turning orange and bubbling. The head lifeguard
asks what I did, laughs, and turns up the chlorine to counteract the
soda ash.

We told everyone that we wanted the pool red white and blue for the
holiday weekend. But I learned my lesson about how to balance the pH
in a swimming pool.

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:29:29 -0600, Vinny From NYC
wrote:

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:47:13 -0500, dgk wrote Re
Why is older dishwasher not washing well?:

I don't understand Steve, please fill me in. Do you not believe the
science that ties phosphates to significant problems in the
environment, or do you just not care?
snip

I don't know about Steve, but I personally don't care.

So stuff that affects other people and our planet doesn't matter to
you? Did you know that you're a sociopath? Look it up.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:56:39 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 2/8/2012 7:47 AM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:09:04 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:




At least you are aware of a problem. I don't know how much of a fix that
is though.

what problem?


Have you ever seen this movie?


nope


I don't understand Steve, please fill me in. Do you not believe the
science that ties phosphates to significant problems in the
environment, or do you just not care? I can understand a reasonable
disagreement over studies and such, although I'm not aware that any
disagreement over the action of phosphates.

I don't understand an attitude that wouldn't care algae blooms and
related issues of dead zones in bodies of water. I'm glad I don't know
you personally.

no, i don't believe it. See the other posts pertaining to this
'alleged' problem. It never happened short of one isolated case that
was not proven to be DW compounds that caused it.

Good, I have a hard time relating to people who just don't care. And
if you're right, that the whole thing is just overblown, then I'm
willing to change my mind. Read the actual article then:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/200...catching-more/

What this says to me is that getting phosphates out of dish detergent
is cutting down on the amount of phosphates entering the water
systems. Not just the one plant or river. Lots of areas near me aren't
on the sewer systems, so the untreated septic waste and such flow into
the local creeks and then into the larger water, well you know how
that works. I think it's clear that we're introducing a lot of
additional phosphates and throwing off the balance in the water
systems.

I was a bit confused about this whole thread because I remember the
ban on phosphates from way back and why is it news now? That one was
about laundry detergent, so now we're dealing with dish detergent. Ok,
got it. Well, if it made sense to ban it from laundry detergent,
doesn't it make sense to ban it from dish detergent? Goes into the
same place, no?

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:36:00 -0600, Jim T wrote:

On 2/8/2012 8:05 PM, Dan Espen wrote:

I've always been impressed by people that will keep a salt tank.
A lot of knowledge and work is required.

About 7 years ago I started with a 55 gal sw tank. I had a hard time
keeping the red algae down. After a lot of research and asking questions
I found a product called chem-clean. It kills red algae and doesn't kill
anything else "if" one follows the directions carefully.

Later I switched my 55 for a 75 gal. That's what I have now. I did a
crash course in sw tanks between reading, news groups and talking with
the guys at the aquarium stores. Back in the beginning I did have
problems with nitrates. I have the best protein skimmer on the market
for my tank but it takes more than that to keep nitrates down. I would
furiously do water changes until the guys in the ng and the aquarium
store said to put more live rock in and be patient. That was about 6.5
years ago. Yup, that's the trick. I run a Remora Protein Skimmer (*****
rated), a Eheim filter for charcoal and four Coralvue powerheads (for
current).

Usually, I don't even have to test the water because I know it's clean
and it's a waste of reagent. Just recently we tore the aquarium apart
and put it in another room of the house so I have to test for nitrates
daily. It's back under control and working well, again.

Here is a picture of the tank just before the move:

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._5467760_n.jpg

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._3208403_n.jpg

See all the live rock :-)? I'm telling you, that's the trick!

You're right. If you don't know what you're doing it would be difficult.


That's a great tank! My cats would love watching that.

On 2/9/2012 9:12 AM, dgk wrote:
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:19:42 -0500, Dan
wrote:

gonjahgonjah.net writes:
...
Salt water tanks, way too much work.

I had freshwater for 25 years before I got it out of my system.
Algae was a constant issue but I grew plants in the tank so the
best control I found was snails.

Algae battles in the pool are something else I'm familiar with.
But I didn't know you could control phosphates, my kit doesn't
measure for that. I nuke the pool with chlorine if algae gets
out of hand otherwise the various algae control products seem
to work. The blue stuff appears to be copper, not sure what the
stuff that looks like oil is.
When I was 16 (was I ever 16?) I was hired to work as a lifeguard at
the Goldman Hotel in West Orange NJ - left behind when all the other
resorts moved to the Catskills. Huge pool, twice Olympic size. So it's
Fourth of July weekend. The head lifeguard tells me to put in some
soda ash and algicide.

Algaecide is a backwards way to deal with the problem. It assumes there
is algae to kill. Remove the phosphates and you never have the algae to
kill. :-)


I don't know anything so I haul a big bag (I recall it being 100 lbs)
of soda ash to the deep end and dump it in. Then I pour in a big jug
of algicide. A little while later the water jetting in from the sides
is turning orange. Shortly thereafter it starts bubbling. We're
looking at the pool turning orange and bubbling. The head lifeguard
asks what I did, laughs, and turns up the chlorine to counteract the
soda ash.

We told everyone that we wanted the pool red white and blue for the
holiday weekend. But I learned my lesson about how to balance the pH
in a swimming pool.

Weird....