"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,

says...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


[snip]


Now, about EPA overreach and the dishwasher detergent
regulations:
They
aren't from EPA at all. It's 16 individual states that
enacted
the
near-ban
in 2009 and 2010.

The question is what prompted them.

And if the EPA had declared dishwasher detergent phosphate
use
as
de
minimus, the states would not have argued. Actually, they
could
not
have argued, by federal preemption. So, we are back in
Washington.

Uh, I'm not sure where preemption enters this. EPA did not
dictate
to
the
states what they had to do. They supplied research and
analysis.

There was a recent Supreme Court case on just this. If the
Feds
have
entered an area, the states have to back off.

For instance http://www.faegre.com/13445.

There may be others, but I wasn't paying attention at the
time.

Joe Gwinn

Yeah, I'm aware of the law regarding federal preemption, but I
have
seen
no
evidence that it applies in this case. If the EPA wrote a
regulation
on
it
and if a state tried to oppose it, there would be a preemption
case.

Again, I have not come across any such issue in the little
reading
I've
done
about it.

I believe that he's saying that IF the EPA had declared
phosphates
in
dishwasher detergent to be ACCEPTABLE then the states could not
have
banned it.

If that's what he's saying, that's not the case. On the other hand,
if
the
EPA banned it, and a state tried to legalize it, preemption would
have
kicked in.

That's the case with lots of laws. Unless there's a 14th Amendment
issue
involved (regarding a "fundamental right"), or some specific
federal
authorization, states can make more restrictive laws than the
related
federal ones. Those issues have been involved, with the resolution
still
to
be determined, over immigration. Likewise, even after a
constitutional
Amendment legalizing alcohol, states can regulate it, and can
authorize
municipalities to outlaw its sale.

I didn't follow this dishwasher-detergent/phosphate law to the end
of
the
line, but it looks like the EPA wasn't involved in the bans. It
appears
that
it's all state law. I could be mistaken, but I didn't see any
federal
administrative law involved in it.

I don't recall that the EPA did anything explicit either, which is
the
point. The EPA could have prevented extension to dishwasher
detergents
with a word, but chose not to. (One assumes that there were lots of
private discussions.)

In other words, if the EPA had said that a dishwashing detergent
phosphate ban was unnecessary, it would have undermined efforts in
the
states to legislate or by regulation impose such a ban, and no such
bans
would have happened.

Joe Gwinn

I have no way to know if that's the case, but, assuming it is, I'd
still
want to see some up-to-date reports that analyze these challenged
rivers
and
estuaries before making a judgment. I'm not convinced that the cost of
eliminating phosphates is greater than the cost of not doing so.

Notice the slide here, from dishwashing detergents (which struggle to
be
a 0.5% problem) to all phosphates (95% of which are used in
agriculture,
and thus are largely out of reach).

Joe, do you remember the numbers from that report I cited? Point-source
outflows were measured as 80% of the phosphate source in this river.
Since
there is no tertiary recovery, the conclusion is that almost all of that
comes from detergents.

I don't doubt that in Delaware, the point sources were significant (it's
an outlier, but never mind), but there is no way that such a study can
tell dishwasher detergent from clothes washer detergent from human
effluent. Phosphate is phosphate.

And the point remains that dishwasher detergent struggles to be 0.5% of
the problem, and probably far less.


If you want, I'll post a link to the study. It's long and dull, but, hey,
that's my life. d8-)

Sure. Life has been too interesting. As in the ancient Chinese curse
"may you live in interesting times". Which would be false advertising
in this case, the part about interesting, but never mind.

Ok, you asked for it. Here's a quick summary of what has happened in the
Delaware Basin:

http://www.wra.udel.edu/node/43

There also are some others that are specific to the municipal outflow
problems, which used to be horrific, but this one will keep you busy. It's
an interesting type of study:

http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/CMS/tchurch...31-160/151.pdf

I lost the discussion and timeline about phosphates from Rutgers Univ.
again, but I found the original data from which it was written. Take a look
at the graph in Figure 3-6, page 16 of the PDF:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf

The total phosophus levels drepped from roughly 32 mu-M in 1969 to about 12
in 1975, and then to 4 by 1982. The dramatic fall in the early '70s
corresponds with the elmination of detergent phosphates here at that time,
when New York State outlawed it, NJ and PA threatened it, and the detergent
makers pulled it out on their own because the market wouldn't support two
versions (and we were being bombarded with PSAs to use non-phosphate
detergents). If you want to see the discussion, I'll try to find it again.

If you really get into the whole Delaware situation, here is an extremely
detailed report. But I can't recommend it . It's 200 pages long: g

http://www.wr.udel.edu/publications/...t_07042008.pdf



And as for dead rivers in Delaware and NJ, the claim is being made that
these rivers were restored by the phosphate ban. Forgotten is all the
cleanups of the chemical industry that happened at the same time. (I
lived in NJ in the late 1950s, and do remember the smell of the
chemical
plants.) So which cleanup caused which good effect? Or, was it the
aggregate of all the cleanups?

What chemical industry are you talking about? The only chemical industry
on
the Delaware is around Philadelphia, just before it dumps into the bay.

Huh? The big smell was close to NYC. I lived in the Philadelphia
suburbs, and the smell wasn't so large. Or I was inured to it.
Whatever.

You're talking about the refineries and petrochemical plants around
Elizabeth. They dump into the Newark Bay and Hudson estuary. That's the
opposite side of the state from the Delaware, and there is no connection.


The whole middle Delaware and much of the upper Delaware were dead when I
was a kid. Completely dead. It was not the chemical industry. There
wasn't
any up there.

Umm. I think deeper research is indicated here. Polluters need not be
chemical industry, and NJ is and was heavily industrial.

Mostly on the eastern side of the state, Joe. Again, that has nothing to do
with the Delaware.

And the issue with the Delaware has always been oxygen deplation from
excessive nutrient loads, not from chemical toxicity. The chemical problems
are on my side of the state, in the Passaic River, the Raritan River, Newark
Bay and the Hudson estuary.

National Lead damned near paved the bottom of the Raritan before it was shut
down.



You may be thinking of the Raritan or the Passaic Rivers. They both have
serious chemical problems. In the case of the Raritan, a lot of it comes
from the closed John's Manville and National Lead plants, plus two others
that dumped heavy metals and paint chemicals. The Hudson's problem is
PCBs.
I don't know specifically what the Passaic's problem is.

Doesn't this prove my point?

Huh? You aren't following the issue, or you need to look more closely at the
geography. The chemcial pollution problems we have on the Atlantic side of
NJ are unrelated to the oxygen-depletion and eutrification issues in the
Deleware.



Again, that report gave a pretty good analysis of before-and-after
phosphate
loads on the Delaware before and after the original ban, at numerous
points
along the river, so the evidence is not trivial. I'm not going to try to
judge its veracity; I don't do chemistry. But the evidence does seem
pretty
clear.

Well, I'd like to read the report.

Have fun with the above. g I'd recommend a quick look at Figure 3-6 in
this report first, which I also listed above. It dramatically shows what the
phosphate history is. Because it's based on actual water samples, rather
than sediment samples, the dates reflect the actual status of the water at
those times:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf


Joe Gwinn

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
[snip]


If you want, I'll post a link to the study. It's long and dull, but, hey,
that's my life. d8-)

Sure. Life has been too interesting. As in the ancient Chinese curse
"may you live in interesting times". Which would be false advertising
in this case, the part about interesting, but never mind.

Ok, you asked for it. Here's a quick summary of what has happened in the
Delaware Basin:

http://www.wra.udel.edu/node/43

There also are some others that are specific to the municipal outflow
problems, which used to be horrific, but this one will keep you busy. It's
an interesting type of study:

http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/CMS/tchurch/TMCWebPage/pdfweb131-160/151.pdf

I lost the discussion and timeline about phosphates from Rutgers Univ.
again, but I found the original data from which it was written. Take a look
at the graph in Figure 3-6, page 16 of the PDF:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf

The total phosophus levels drepped from roughly 32 mu-M in 1969 to about 12
in 1975, and then to 4 by 1982. The dramatic fall in the early '70s
corresponds with the elmination of detergent phosphates here at that time,
when New York State outlawed it, NJ and PA threatened it, and the detergent
makers pulled it out on their own because the market wouldn't support two
versions (and we were being bombarded with PSAs to use non-phosphate
detergents). If you want to see the discussion, I'll try to find it again.

If you really get into the whole Delaware situation, here is an extremely
detailed report. But I can't recommend it . It's 200 pages long: g

http://www.wr.udel.edu/publications/DRBC/DRBCStateoftheBasinReport_07042008.pdf



And as for dead rivers in Delaware and NJ, the claim is being made that
these rivers were restored by the phosphate ban. Forgotten is all the
cleanups of the chemical industry that happened at the same time. (I
lived in NJ in the late 1950s, and do remember the smell of the
chemical
plants.) So which cleanup caused which good effect? Or, was it the
aggregate of all the cleanups?

What chemical industry are you talking about? The only chemical industry
on
the Delaware is around Philadelphia, just before it dumps into the bay.

Huh? The big smell was close to NYC. I lived in the Philadelphia
suburbs, and the smell wasn't so large. Or I was inured to it.
Whatever.

You're talking about the refineries and petrochemical plants around
Elizabeth. They dump into the Newark Bay and Hudson estuary. That's the
opposite side of the state from the Delaware, and there is no connection.


The whole middle Delaware and much of the upper Delaware were dead when I
was a kid. Completely dead. It was not the chemical industry. There
wasn't
any up there.

Umm. I think deeper research is indicated here. Polluters need not be
chemical industry, and NJ is and was heavily industrial.

Mostly on the eastern side of the state, Joe. Again, that has nothing to do
with the Delaware.

And the issue with the Delaware has always been oxygen deplation from
excessive nutrient loads, not from chemical toxicity. The chemical problems
are on my side of the state, in the Passaic River, the Raritan River, Newark
Bay and the Hudson estuary.

National Lead damned near paved the bottom of the Raritan before it was shut
down.

Look at the bright side - you now can mine the riverbottom.


You may be thinking of the Raritan or the Passaic Rivers. They both have
serious chemical problems. In the case of the Raritan, a lot of it comes
from the closed John's Manville and National Lead plants, plus two others
that dumped heavy metals and paint chemicals. The Hudson's problem is
PCBs.
I don't know specifically what the Passaic's problem is.

Doesn't this prove my point?

Huh? You aren't following the issue, or you need to look more closely at the
geography. The chemcial pollution problems we have on the Atlantic side of
NJ are unrelated to the oxygen-depletion and eutrification issues in the
Deleware.

NJ is a small state, and Delaware is even smaller.


Again, that report gave a pretty good analysis of before-and-after
phosphate
loads on the Delaware before and after the original ban, at numerous
points
along the river, so the evidence is not trivial. I'm not going to try to
judge its veracity; I don't do chemistry. But the evidence does seem
pretty
clear.

Well, I'd like to read the report.

Have fun with the above. g I'd recommend a quick look at Figure 3-6 in
this report first, which I also listed above. It dramatically shows what the
phosphate history is. Because it's based on actual water samples, rather
than sediment samples, the dates reflect the actual status of the water at
those times:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf


Thanks for all the pointers. I'll rummage around a while.

And the pinch of TSP in the dishwasher is working wonders.

Joe Gwinn

On Jul 21, 9:15*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
*"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Huh? You aren't following the issue, or you need to look more closely at the
geography. The chemcial pollution problems we have on the Atlantic side of
NJ are unrelated to the oxygen-depletion and eutrification issues in the
Deleware.

NJ is a small state, and Delaware is even smaller. *

You're confusing the Delaware river with the state of Delaware. Most
of the eastern side of NJ is bordered by the Atlantic ocean. Most of
the western side of NJ is bordered by the Delaware river. The state of
Delaware is actually south of NJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_River

HTH

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
[snip]


If you want, I'll post a link to the study. It's long and dull, but,
hey,
that's my life. d8-)

Sure. Life has been too interesting. As in the ancient Chinese curse
"may you live in interesting times". Which would be false advertising
in this case, the part about interesting, but never mind.

Ok, you asked for it. Here's a quick summary of what has happened in the
Delaware Basin:

http://www.wra.udel.edu/node/43

There also are some others that are specific to the municipal outflow
problems, which used to be horrific, but this one will keep you busy.
It's
an interesting type of study:

http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/CMS/tchurch/TMCWebPage/pdfweb131-160/151.pdf

I lost the discussion and timeline about phosphates from Rutgers Univ.
again, but I found the original data from which it was written. Take a
look
at the graph in Figure 3-6, page 16 of the PDF:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf

The total phosophus levels drepped from roughly 32 mu-M in 1969 to about
12
in 1975, and then to 4 by 1982. The dramatic fall in the early '70s
corresponds with the elmination of detergent phosphates here at that
time,
when New York State outlawed it, NJ and PA threatened it, and the
detergent
makers pulled it out on their own because the market wouldn't support two
versions (and we were being bombarded with PSAs to use non-phosphate
detergents). If you want to see the discussion, I'll try to find it
again.

If you really get into the whole Delaware situation, here is an extremely
detailed report. But I can't recommend it . It's 200 pages long: g

http://www.wr.udel.edu/publications/DRBC/DRBCStateoftheBasinReport_07042008.pdf



And as for dead rivers in Delaware and NJ, the claim is being made
that
these rivers were restored by the phosphate ban. Forgotten is all
the
cleanups of the chemical industry that happened at the same time.
(I
lived in NJ in the late 1950s, and do remember the smell of the
chemical
plants.) So which cleanup caused which good effect? Or, was it the
aggregate of all the cleanups?

What chemical industry are you talking about? The only chemical
industry
on
the Delaware is around Philadelphia, just before it dumps into the
bay.

Huh? The big smell was close to NYC. I lived in the Philadelphia
suburbs, and the smell wasn't so large. Or I was inured to it.
Whatever.

You're talking about the refineries and petrochemical plants around
Elizabeth. They dump into the Newark Bay and Hudson estuary. That's the
opposite side of the state from the Delaware, and there is no connection.


The whole middle Delaware and much of the upper Delaware were dead
when I
was a kid. Completely dead. It was not the chemical industry. There
wasn't
any up there.

Umm. I think deeper research is indicated here. Polluters need not be
chemical industry, and NJ is and was heavily industrial.

Mostly on the eastern side of the state, Joe. Again, that has nothing to
do
with the Delaware.

And the issue with the Delaware has always been oxygen deplation from
excessive nutrient loads, not from chemical toxicity. The chemical
problems
are on my side of the state, in the Passaic River, the Raritan River,
Newark
Bay and the Hudson estuary.

National Lead damned near paved the bottom of the Raritan before it was
shut
down.

Look at the bright side - you now can mine the riverbottom.


You may be thinking of the Raritan or the Passaic Rivers. They both
have
serious chemical problems. In the case of the Raritan, a lot of it
comes
from the closed John's Manville and National Lead plants, plus two
others
that dumped heavy metals and paint chemicals. The Hudson's problem is
PCBs.
I don't know specifically what the Passaic's problem is.

Doesn't this prove my point?

Huh? You aren't following the issue, or you need to look more closely at
the
geography. The chemcial pollution problems we have on the Atlantic side
of
NJ are unrelated to the oxygen-depletion and eutrification issues in the
Deleware.

NJ is a small state, and Delaware is even smaller.


Again, that report gave a pretty good analysis of before-and-after
phosphate
loads on the Delaware before and after the original ban, at numerous
points
along the river, so the evidence is not trivial. I'm not going to try
to
judge its veracity; I don't do chemistry. But the evidence does seem
pretty
clear.

Well, I'd like to read the report.

Have fun with the above. g I'd recommend a quick look at Figure 3-6 in
this report first, which I also listed above. It dramatically shows what
the
phosphate history is. Because it's based on actual water samples, rather
than sediment samples, the dates reflect the actual status of the water
at
those times:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf


Thanks for all the pointers. I'll rummage around a while.

And the pinch of TSP in the dishwasher is working wonders.

I've tried it twice now since you recommended it. Since then, no smell. I'm
going to hold up on the TSP unless and until I detect the odor again, and,
if so, I'll try the TSP again. That should nail it down.

You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the copmany that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the phosphate out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with the fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products. That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back; the one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP. We'll see
if I can get an answer.

--
Ed Huntress



Joe Gwinn

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
[snip]


If you want, I'll post a link to the study. It's long and dull, but,
hey,
that's my life. d8-)

Sure. Life has been too interesting. As in the ancient Chinese curse
"may you live in interesting times". Which would be false advertising
in this case, the part about interesting, but never mind.

Ok, you asked for it. Here's a quick summary of what has happened in the
Delaware Basin:

http://www.wra.udel.edu/node/43

There also are some others that are specific to the municipal outflow
problems, which used to be horrific, but this one will keep you busy.
It's
an interesting type of study:

http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/CMS/tchurch/TMCWebPage/pdfweb131-160/151.pdf

I lost the discussion and timeline about phosphates from Rutgers Univ.
again, but I found the original data from which it was written. Take a
look
at the graph in Figure 3-6, page 16 of the PDF:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf

The total phosophus levels drepped from roughly 32 mu-M in 1969 to about
12
in 1975, and then to 4 by 1982. The dramatic fall in the early '70s
corresponds with the elmination of detergent phosphates here at that
time,
when New York State outlawed it, NJ and PA threatened it, and the
detergent
makers pulled it out on their own because the market wouldn't support two
versions (and we were being bombarded with PSAs to use non-phosphate
detergents). If you want to see the discussion, I'll try to find it
again.

If you really get into the whole Delaware situation, here is an extremely
detailed report. But I can't recommend it . It's 200 pages long: g

http://www.wr.udel.edu/publications/...Report_0704200
8.pdf



And as for dead rivers in Delaware and NJ, the claim is being made
that
these rivers were restored by the phosphate ban. Forgotten is all
the
cleanups of the chemical industry that happened at the same time.
(I
lived in NJ in the late 1950s, and do remember the smell of the
chemical
plants.) So which cleanup caused which good effect? Or, was it the
aggregate of all the cleanups?

What chemical industry are you talking about? The only chemical
industry
on
the Delaware is around Philadelphia, just before it dumps into the
bay.

Huh? The big smell was close to NYC. I lived in the Philadelphia
suburbs, and the smell wasn't so large. Or I was inured to it.
Whatever.

You're talking about the refineries and petrochemical plants around
Elizabeth. They dump into the Newark Bay and Hudson estuary. That's the
opposite side of the state from the Delaware, and there is no connection.


The whole middle Delaware and much of the upper Delaware were dead
when I
was a kid. Completely dead. It was not the chemical industry. There
wasn't
any up there.

Umm. I think deeper research is indicated here. Polluters need not be
chemical industry, and NJ is and was heavily industrial.

Mostly on the eastern side of the state, Joe. Again, that has nothing to
do
with the Delaware.

And the issue with the Delaware has always been oxygen deplation from
excessive nutrient loads, not from chemical toxicity. The chemical
problems
are on my side of the state, in the Passaic River, the Raritan River,
Newark
Bay and the Hudson estuary.

National Lead damned near paved the bottom of the Raritan before it was
shut
down.

Look at the bright side - you now can mine the riverbottom.


You may be thinking of the Raritan or the Passaic Rivers. They both
have
serious chemical problems. In the case of the Raritan, a lot of it
comes
from the closed John's Manville and National Lead plants, plus two
others
that dumped heavy metals and paint chemicals. The Hudson's problem is
PCBs.
I don't know specifically what the Passaic's problem is.

Doesn't this prove my point?

Huh? You aren't following the issue, or you need to look more closely at
the
geography. The chemcial pollution problems we have on the Atlantic side
of
NJ are unrelated to the oxygen-depletion and eutrification issues in the
Deleware.

NJ is a small state, and Delaware is even smaller.


Again, that report gave a pretty good analysis of before-and-after
phosphate
loads on the Delaware before and after the original ban, at numerous
points
along the river, so the evidence is not trivial. I'm not going to try
to
judge its veracity; I don't do chemistry. But the evidence does seem
pretty
clear.

Well, I'd like to read the report.

Have fun with the above. g I'd recommend a quick look at Figure 3-6 in
this report first, which I also listed above. It dramatically shows what
the
phosphate history is. Because it's based on actual water samples, rather
than sediment samples, the dates reflect the actual status of the water
at
those times:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf


Thanks for all the pointers. I'll rummage around a while.

And the pinch of TSP in the dishwasher is working wonders.

I've tried it twice now since you recommended it. Since then, no smell. I'm
going to hold up on the TSP unless and until I detect the odor again, and,
if so, I'll try the TSP again. That should nail it down.

You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the company that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the phosphate out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with the fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products. That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back; the one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP. We'll see
if I can get an answer.

This could prove interesting.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
says...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
[snip]


If you want, I'll post a link to the study. It's long and dull, but,
hey,
that's my life. d8-)

Sure. Life has been too interesting. As in the ancient Chinese curse
"may you live in interesting times". Which would be false advertising
in this case, the part about interesting, but never mind.

Ok, you asked for it. Here's a quick summary of what has happened in the
Delaware Basin:

http://www.wra.udel.edu/node/43

There also are some others that are specific to the municipal outflow
problems, which used to be horrific, but this one will keep you busy.
It's
an interesting type of study:

http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/CMS/tchurch/TMCWebPage/pdfweb131-160/151.pdf

I lost the discussion and timeline about phosphates from Rutgers Univ.
again, but I found the original data from which it was written. Take a
look
at the graph in Figure 3-6, page 16 of the PDF:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf

The total phosophus levels drepped from roughly 32 mu-M in 1969 to about
12
in 1975, and then to 4 by 1982. The dramatic fall in the early '70s
corresponds with the elmination of detergent phosphates here at that
time,
when New York State outlawed it, NJ and PA threatened it, and the
detergent
makers pulled it out on their own because the market wouldn't support two
versions (and we were being bombarded with PSAs to use non-phosphate
detergents). If you want to see the discussion, I'll try to find it
again.

If you really get into the whole Delaware situation, here is an extremely
detailed report. But I can't recommend it . It's 200 pages long: g

http://www.wr.udel.edu/publications/DRBC/DRBCStateoftheBasinReport_07042008.pdf



And as for dead rivers in Delaware and NJ, the claim is being made
that
these rivers were restored by the phosphate ban. Forgotten is all
the
cleanups of the chemical industry that happened at the same time.
(I
lived in NJ in the late 1950s, and do remember the smell of the
chemical
plants.) So which cleanup caused which good effect? Or, was it the
aggregate of all the cleanups?

What chemical industry are you talking about? The only chemical
industry
on
the Delaware is around Philadelphia, just before it dumps into the
bay.

Huh? The big smell was close to NYC. I lived in the Philadelphia
suburbs, and the smell wasn't so large. Or I was inured to it.
Whatever.

You're talking about the refineries and petrochemical plants around
Elizabeth. They dump into the Newark Bay and Hudson estuary. That's the
opposite side of the state from the Delaware, and there is no connection.


The whole middle Delaware and much of the upper Delaware were dead
when I
was a kid. Completely dead. It was not the chemical industry. There
wasn't
any up there.

Umm. I think deeper research is indicated here. Polluters need not be
chemical industry, and NJ is and was heavily industrial.

Mostly on the eastern side of the state, Joe. Again, that has nothing to
do
with the Delaware.

And the issue with the Delaware has always been oxygen deplation from
excessive nutrient loads, not from chemical toxicity. The chemical
problems
are on my side of the state, in the Passaic River, the Raritan River,
Newark
Bay and the Hudson estuary.

National Lead damned near paved the bottom of the Raritan before it was
shut
down.

Look at the bright side - you now can mine the riverbottom.


You may be thinking of the Raritan or the Passaic Rivers. They both
have
serious chemical problems. In the case of the Raritan, a lot of it
comes
from the closed John's Manville and National Lead plants, plus two
others
that dumped heavy metals and paint chemicals. The Hudson's problem is
PCBs.
I don't know specifically what the Passaic's problem is.

Doesn't this prove my point?

Huh? You aren't following the issue, or you need to look more closely at
the
geography. The chemcial pollution problems we have on the Atlantic side
of
NJ are unrelated to the oxygen-depletion and eutrification issues in the
Deleware.

NJ is a small state, and Delaware is even smaller.


Again, that report gave a pretty good analysis of before-and-after
phosphate
loads on the Delaware before and after the original ban, at numerous
points
along the river, so the evidence is not trivial. I'm not going to try
to
judge its veracity; I don't do chemistry. But the evidence does seem
pretty
clear.

Well, I'd like to read the report.

Have fun with the above. g I'd recommend a quick look at Figure 3-6 in
this report first, which I also listed above. It dramatically shows what
the
phosphate history is. Because it's based on actual water samples, rather
than sediment samples, the dates reflect the actual status of the water
at
those times:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf


Thanks for all the pointers. I'll rummage around a while.

And the pinch of TSP in the dishwasher is working wonders.

I've tried it twice now since you recommended it. Since then, no smell. I'm
going to hold up on the TSP unless and until I detect the odor again, and,
if so, I'll try the TSP again. That should nail it down.

TSP isn't the only phosphate used in detergents. The pre-ban
dishwashing detergents for which I've been able to find MSDS use Sodium
tripolyphosphate (aka STPP). Dunno whether it works better than TSP in
that application or not. It's certainly harder to find. Used to be a
major component of Calgon water softener but they've taken it out of the
US version.

You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the copmany that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the phosphate out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with the fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products. That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back; the one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP. We'll see
if I can get an answer.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,
says...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
[snip]


If you want, I'll post a link to the study. It's long and dull,
but,
hey,
that's my life. d8-)

Sure. Life has been too interesting. As in the ancient Chinese
curse
"may you live in interesting times". Which would be false
advertising
in this case, the part about interesting, but never mind.

Ok, you asked for it. Here's a quick summary of what has happened in
the
Delaware Basin:

http://www.wra.udel.edu/node/43

There also are some others that are specific to the municipal outflow
problems, which used to be horrific, but this one will keep you busy.
It's
an interesting type of study:

http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/CMS/tchurch/TMCWebPage/pdfweb131-160/151.pdf

I lost the discussion and timeline about phosphates from Rutgers Univ.
again, but I found the original data from which it was written. Take a
look
at the graph in Figure 3-6, page 16 of the PDF:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf

The total phosophus levels drepped from roughly 32 mu-M in 1969 to
about
12
in 1975, and then to 4 by 1982. The dramatic fall in the early '70s
corresponds with the elmination of detergent phosphates here at that
time,
when New York State outlawed it, NJ and PA threatened it, and the
detergent
makers pulled it out on their own because the market wouldn't support
two
versions (and we were being bombarded with PSAs to use non-phosphate
detergents). If you want to see the discussion, I'll try to find it
again.

If you really get into the whole Delaware situation, here is an
extremely
detailed report. But I can't recommend it . It's 200 pages long: g

http://www.wr.udel.edu/publications/DRBC/DRBCStateoftheBasinReport_07042008.pdf



And as for dead rivers in Delaware and NJ, the claim is being
made
that
these rivers were restored by the phosphate ban. Forgotten is
all
the
cleanups of the chemical industry that happened at the same time.
(I
lived in NJ in the late 1950s, and do remember the smell of the
chemical
plants.) So which cleanup caused which good effect? Or, was it
the
aggregate of all the cleanups?

What chemical industry are you talking about? The only chemical
industry
on
the Delaware is around Philadelphia, just before it dumps into the
bay.

Huh? The big smell was close to NYC. I lived in the Philadelphia
suburbs, and the smell wasn't so large. Or I was inured to it.
Whatever.

You're talking about the refineries and petrochemical plants around
Elizabeth. They dump into the Newark Bay and Hudson estuary. That's
the
opposite side of the state from the Delaware, and there is no
connection.


The whole middle Delaware and much of the upper Delaware were dead
when I
was a kid. Completely dead. It was not the chemical industry. There
wasn't
any up there.

Umm. I think deeper research is indicated here. Polluters need not
be
chemical industry, and NJ is and was heavily industrial.

Mostly on the eastern side of the state, Joe. Again, that has nothing
to
do
with the Delaware.

And the issue with the Delaware has always been oxygen deplation from
excessive nutrient loads, not from chemical toxicity. The chemical
problems
are on my side of the state, in the Passaic River, the Raritan River,
Newark
Bay and the Hudson estuary.

National Lead damned near paved the bottom of the Raritan before it
was
shut
down.

Look at the bright side - you now can mine the riverbottom.


You may be thinking of the Raritan or the Passaic Rivers. They both
have
serious chemical problems. In the case of the Raritan, a lot of it
comes
from the closed John's Manville and National Lead plants, plus two
others
that dumped heavy metals and paint chemicals. The Hudson's problem
is
PCBs.
I don't know specifically what the Passaic's problem is.

Doesn't this prove my point?

Huh? You aren't following the issue, or you need to look more closely
at
the
geography. The chemcial pollution problems we have on the Atlantic
side
of
NJ are unrelated to the oxygen-depletion and eutrification issues in
the
Deleware.

NJ is a small state, and Delaware is even smaller.


Again, that report gave a pretty good analysis of before-and-after
phosphate
loads on the Delaware before and after the original ban, at
numerous
points
along the river, so the evidence is not trivial. I'm not going to
try
to
judge its veracity; I don't do chemistry. But the evidence does
seem
pretty
clear.

Well, I'd like to read the report.

Have fun with the above. g I'd recommend a quick look at Figure 3-6
in
this report first, which I also listed above. It dramatically shows
what
the
phosphate history is. Because it's based on actual water samples,
rather
than sediment samples, the dates reflect the actual status of the
water
at
those times:

http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/regs/MONa.pdf


Thanks for all the pointers. I'll rummage around a while.

And the pinch of TSP in the dishwasher is working wonders.

I've tried it twice now since you recommended it. Since then, no smell.
I'm
going to hold up on the TSP unless and until I detect the odor again,
and,
if so, I'll try the TSP again. That should nail it down.

TSP isn't the only phosphate used in detergents. The pre-ban
dishwashing detergents for which I've been able to find MSDS use Sodium
tripolyphosphate (aka STPP). Dunno whether it works better than TSP in
that application or not. It's certainly harder to find. Used to be a
major component of Calgon water softener but they've taken it out of the
US version.

I have no clue about the chemistry itself, but I did see tripolyphosphate
mentioned in one or two of those references I passed on to Joe.

Some of the reports talk about total phosphorus, and some talk about
phosphates. Another one distinguished between "free" phosphorus and
phosphorus that somehow was chemically bound, and a much smaller problem for
phytoplankton growth.

It's an interesting field. I wish I knew more about it, but without a
chemistry background, all but the results are going to have to remain out of
my reach.

--
Ed Huntress





You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the copmany
that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the phosphate
out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the
reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with the
fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products. That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable
waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back; the
one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP. We'll
see
if I can get an answer.

Where did you get TSP?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

Thanks for all the pointers. I'll rummage around a while.

And the pinch of TSP in the dishwasher is working wonders.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Where did you get TSP?

Best place is a paint store. I bought Savogran brand.

Be sure you are getting Trisodium Phosphate. Be aware that "TSP" is not
definite, and sodium silicate is sometimes sold as TSP. Sodium silicate
will not work, and may etch glass.

http://www.amazon.com/Savogran-10622...SP/dp/B000AXE7
CY

Read the first review.

Joe Gwinn

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,
says...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Where did you get TSP?

Best place is a paint store. I bought Savogran brand.

Be sure you are getting Trisodium Phosphate. Be aware that "TSP" is
not
definite, and sodium silicate is sometimes sold as TSP. Sodium
silicate
will not work, and may etch glass.

http://www.amazon.com/Savogran-10622...SP/dp/B000AXE7
CY

Read the first review.

Joe Gwinn

Also, you often can't find out what you have from the package label.
That's
when it's time to check online for the MSDS.

For example, the Savogran brand that Joe mentions, which I also bought
last
time, is 75% - 80% real TSP, which you can only learn from the MSDS.

But I don't know if all Savogran products labeled "TSP" are the same.
There
are several. You need the product number, too, which you can get off of
the
box. Mine is 10621. I bought it at Home Depot, which is not as reliable
as
getting it from a paint store.

The stuff I got at Home Despot says that it contains trisodium phosphate
and sodium carbonate, and that it is 6 percent phosphorus. Pure TSP
would be about 18 percent so it's mostly something else other than TSP.

Note that you can get photographic grade TSP from B&H photo for
$4.50/pound and shipping.

That's good to know. The critical use I have for it is in a brush-type
electrolytic rust/corrosion cleaning formula:

http://metalworking.com/Dropbox/_199...es/E-CLEAN.TXT

It's a multi-part formula and I don't know *how* critical it is, but it
works great with the 75% - 80% Savogran.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Where did you get TSP?

Best place is a paint store. I bought Savogran brand.

Be sure you are getting Trisodium Phosphate. Be aware that "TSP" is not
definite, and sodium silicate is sometimes sold as TSP. Sodium silicate
will not work, and may etch glass.

http://www.amazon.com/Savogran-10622...SP/dp/B000AXE7
CY

Read the first review.

Joe Gwinn

Also, you often can't find out what you have from the package label. That's
when it's time to check online for the MSDS.

For example, the Savogran brand that Joe mentions, which I also bought last
time, is 75% - 80% real TSP, which you can only learn from the MSDS.

But I don't know if all Savogran products labeled "TSP" are the same. There
are several. You need the product number, too, which you can get off of the
box. Mine is 10621. I bought it at Home Depot, which is not as reliable as
getting it from a paint store.

The stuff I got at Home Despot says that it contains trisodium phosphate
and sodium carbonate, and that it is 6 percent phosphorus. Pure TSP
would be about 18 percent so it's mostly something else other than TSP.

Note that you can get photographic grade TSP from B&H photo for
$4.50/pound and shipping.

The Savogran TSP seems to work just fine, and is easy to get.

I did look the MSDS up, and the other component is an anti-caking
ingredient.

I would not have thought of B&H Photo.

What was used in detergents was Sodium Triphosphate, a related chemical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_triphosphate

Joe Gwinn

You can also order it from www.mcmaster.com - put tsp in the search box,
about $4-5/lb depending on qty.

-----
Regards,
Carl Ijames
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ...


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,
says...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Where did you get TSP?

Best place is a paint store. I bought Savogran brand.

Be sure you are getting Trisodium Phosphate. Be aware that "TSP" is
not
definite, and sodium silicate is sometimes sold as TSP. Sodium
silicate
will not work, and may etch glass.

http://www.amazon.com/Savogran-10622...SP/dp/B000AXE7
CY

Read the first review.

Joe Gwinn

Also, you often can't find out what you have from the package label.
That's
when it's time to check online for the MSDS.

For example, the Savogran brand that Joe mentions, which I also bought
last
time, is 75% - 80% real TSP, which you can only learn from the MSDS.

But I don't know if all Savogran products labeled "TSP" are the same.
There
are several. You need the product number, too, which you can get off of
the
box. Mine is 10621. I bought it at Home Depot, which is not as reliable
as
getting it from a paint store.

The stuff I got at Home Despot says that it contains trisodium phosphate
and sodium carbonate, and that it is 6 percent phosphorus. Pure TSP
would be about 18 percent so it's mostly something else other than TSP.

Note that you can get photographic grade TSP from B&H photo for
$4.50/pound and shipping.

That's good to know. The critical use I have for it is in a brush-type
electrolytic rust/corrosion cleaning formula:

http://metalworking.com/Dropbox/_199...es/E-CLEAN.TXT

It's a multi-part formula and I don't know *how* critical it is, but it
works great with the 75% - 80% Savogran.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
says...

In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Where did you get TSP?

Best place is a paint store. I bought Savogran brand.

Be sure you are getting Trisodium Phosphate. Be aware that "TSP" is not
definite, and sodium silicate is sometimes sold as TSP. Sodium silicate
will not work, and may etch glass.

http://www.amazon.com/Savogran-10622...SP/dp/B000AXE7
CY

Read the first review.

Joe Gwinn

Also, you often can't find out what you have from the package label. That's
when it's time to check online for the MSDS.

For example, the Savogran brand that Joe mentions, which I also bought last
time, is 75% - 80% real TSP, which you can only learn from the MSDS.

But I don't know if all Savogran products labeled "TSP" are the same. There
are several. You need the product number, too, which you can get off of the
box. Mine is 10621. I bought it at Home Depot, which is not as reliable as
getting it from a paint store.

The stuff I got at Home Despot says that it contains trisodium phosphate
and sodium carbonate, and that it is 6 percent phosphorus. Pure TSP
would be about 18 percent so it's mostly something else other than TSP.

Note that you can get photographic grade TSP from B&H photo for
$4.50/pound and shipping.

The Savogran TSP seems to work just fine, and is easy to get.

I did look the MSDS up, and the other component is an anti-caking
ingredient.

I would not have thought of B&H Photo.

What was used in detergents was Sodium Triphosphate, a related chemical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_triphosphate

FWIW, I've got some of that on order and plan to give it a try when it
arrives and see how it works.

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the company
that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the phosphate
out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the
reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with the
fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products. That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable
waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back; the
one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP. We'll
see
if I can get an answer.

This could prove interesting.

Joe Gwinn

Ok, I got the story from a guy who sat on legislative committee meetings
while the state laws were being hashed out. It was an hour-long
conversation, so I won't try to tell the whole thing, but the discussion did
involve a lot about Pflueger cane fly rods and fishing for cutthroat trout
in Montana, lake trout in Canada's N.W.T., oysters in the Raritan Bay, and
so on. g

Blame Washington State. And the EPA. It started with tightening of national
point-source effluent standards from EPA. That's industrial and municipal
waste discharges.

Many states were able to meet them with old-style (alum flocculent) tertiary
treatment, and new-style tertiary treatment (microbes), but Washington
allowed the overbuilding of residences around the Spokane River, and the
phosphates were filtering down through a porous geological cap, getting into
drinking water, and overloading the sewage treatment. The stage beyond
tertiary is a microfiltering screen process and it costs like hell.

So it was a cost issue for the State of Washington -- and many others. The
Washington legislators sat down with the industry association, the American
Cleaning Institute (ACI) and told them how much cheaper it would be to just
pull the phosphates out of dishwasher detergent (remember, this is a
point-source regulation). That was in 2006. They wanted it done in two
years. The industry said they couldn't do it that fast. They asked for 4-1/2
years. The legislators said Ok.

The industry in Europe had tried non-phosphate dishwasher detergents back in
the '90s, but they didn't work well and customers stayed away in droves. In
2006, they still didn't have a solution. By 2010, the whole industry did,
and it worked very well. There are now 17 states that have blocked the
manufacture and sale -- but not the use -- of phosphate dishwasher
detergents. The ACI and its members, once they had a solution that works,
supported the legislation in the other 16 states.

I didn't ask him about the stink - time was short and I was more interested
in his choices of fly rods for cutthroats g -- but that's where the change
came from.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the company
that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the phosphate
out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the
reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with the
fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products. That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable
waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back; the
one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP. We'll
see
if I can get an answer.

This could prove interesting.

Joe Gwinn

Ok, I got the story from a guy who sat on legislative committee meetings
while the state laws were being hashed out. It was an hour-long
conversation, so I won't try to tell the whole thing, but the discussion
did involve a lot about Pflueger cane fly rods and fishing for cutthroat
trout in Montana, lake trout in Canada's N.W.T., oysters in the Raritan
Bay, and so on. g

Blame Washington State. And the EPA. It started with tightening of
national point-source effluent standards from EPA. That's industrial and
municipal waste discharges.

Many states were able to meet them with old-style (alum flocculent)
tertiary treatment, and new-style tertiary treatment (microbes), but
Washington allowed the overbuilding of residences around the Spokane
River, and the phosphates were filtering down through a porous geological
cap, getting into drinking water, and overloading the sewage treatment.
The stage beyond tertiary is a microfiltering screen process and it costs
like hell.

So it was a cost issue for the State of Washington -- and many others. The
Washington legislators sat down with the industry association, the
American Cleaning Institute (ACI) and told them how much cheaper it would
be to just pull the phosphates out of dishwasher detergent (remember, this
is a point-source regulation). That was in 2006. They wanted it done in
two years. The industry said they couldn't do it that fast. They asked for
4-1/2 years. The legislators said Ok.

The industry in Europe had tried non-phosphate dishwasher detergents back
in the '90s, but they didn't work well and customers stayed away in
droves. In 2006, they still didn't have a solution. By 2010, the whole
industry did, and it worked very well. There are now 17 states that have
blocked the manufacture and sale -- but not the use -- of phosphate
dishwasher detergents. The ACI and its members, once they had a solution
that works, supported the legislation in the other 16 states.

I didn't ask him about the stink - time was short and I was more
interested in his choices of fly rods for cutthroats g -- but that's
where the change came from.

--
Ed Huntress

Oh, one thing I didn't explain: Many, or most, of those newer houses near
Spokane have septic systems, which is how the phosphate is getting into the
aquifer. But the drinking water supplies municipal areas where they have
municipal sewers. Some big engineering firm figured out the route.

The ACI says that detergent phosphates, which now is mostly dishwasher
detergent, can be up to 25% of the phosphate load from municipal
point-source discharges.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:11:03 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:38:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the company
that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the phosphate
out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the
reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with the
fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products. That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable
waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back; the
one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP. We'll
see
if I can get an answer.

This could prove interesting.

Joe Gwinn

Ok, I got the story from a guy who sat on legislative committee meetings
while the state laws were being hashed out. It was an hour-long
conversation, so I won't try to tell the whole thing, but the discussion
did involve a lot about Pflueger cane fly rods and fishing for cutthroat
trout in Montana, lake trout in Canada's N.W.T., oysters in the Raritan
Bay, and so on. g

Blame Washington State. And the EPA. It started with tightening of
national point-source effluent standards from EPA. That's industrial and
municipal waste discharges.

Many states were able to meet them with old-style (alum flocculent)
tertiary treatment, and new-style tertiary treatment (microbes), but
Washington allowed the overbuilding of residences around the Spokane
River, and the phosphates were filtering down through a porous geological
cap, getting into drinking water, and overloading the sewage treatment.
The stage beyond tertiary is a microfiltering screen process and it costs
like hell.

So it was a cost issue for the State of Washington -- and many others. The
Washington legislators sat down with the industry association, the
American Cleaning Institute (ACI) and told them how much cheaper it would
be to just pull the phosphates out of dishwasher detergent (remember, this
is a point-source regulation). That was in 2006. They wanted it done in
two years. The industry said they couldn't do it that fast. They asked for
4-1/2 years. The legislators said Ok.

The industry in Europe had tried non-phosphate dishwasher detergents back
in the '90s, but they didn't work well and customers stayed away in
droves. In 2006, they still didn't have a solution. By 2010, the whole
industry did, and it worked very well. There are now 17 states that have
blocked the manufacture and sale -- but not the use -- of phosphate
dishwasher detergents. The ACI and its members, once they had a solution
that works, supported the legislation in the other 16 states.

I didn't ask him about the stink - time was short and I was more
interested in his choices of fly rods for cutthroats g -- but that's
where the change came from.

--
Ed Huntress

Oh, one thing I didn't explain: Many, or most, of those newer houses near
Spokane have septic systems, which is how the phosphate is getting into the
aquifer. But the drinking water supplies municipal areas where they have
municipal sewers. Some big engineering firm figured out the route.

The ACI says that detergent phosphates, which now is mostly dishwasher
detergent, can be up to 25% of the phosphate load from municipal
point-source discharges.
Greetings Ed,
I live on an island in the Salish Sea (formerly Puget Sound) and used
to live on one of the beaches. There were several houses on the beach
that were originally only accessible by boat. These old houses had
small septic systems. Many of them had drain fields that were back
from the beach and the sea wall and were below mean high tide. Others
had drain fields that were between the houses and the beach. Now most
of these houses can be driven to and are occupied full time instead of
just summers. And they have been remodeled into large homes. The
septic systems are all grandfathered in. When walking down the beach
at low tide you can smell some of the failing systems. And the beach
in front of many homes has lots of extra sea weed. Especially the ones
with failing drain fields. This sea weed crowds out some types of sea
grasses that protect baby salmon when they come down the streams. So
Island County really wants these septic systems to stop leaching
nutrients into the water.
Eric
That's an easy fix. No weeping tiles. Holding tanks only - pumped on a
regular basis and deliverd to municipal water treatment plants - and
taxed accordingly.

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:39:05 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:11:03 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:38:36 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the company
that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the phosphate
out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the
reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with the
fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products. That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable
waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back; the
one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP. We'll
see
if I can get an answer.

This could prove interesting.

Joe Gwinn

Ok, I got the story from a guy who sat on legislative committee meetings
while the state laws were being hashed out. It was an hour-long
conversation, so I won't try to tell the whole thing, but the discussion
did involve a lot about Pflueger cane fly rods and fishing for cutthroat
trout in Montana, lake trout in Canada's N.W.T., oysters in the Raritan
Bay, and so on. g

Blame Washington State. And the EPA. It started with tightening of
national point-source effluent standards from EPA. That's industrial and
municipal waste discharges.

Many states were able to meet them with old-style (alum flocculent)
tertiary treatment, and new-style tertiary treatment (microbes), but
Washington allowed the overbuilding of residences around the Spokane
River, and the phosphates were filtering down through a porous geological
cap, getting into drinking water, and overloading the sewage treatment.
The stage beyond tertiary is a microfiltering screen process and it costs
like hell.

So it was a cost issue for the State of Washington -- and many others. The
Washington legislators sat down with the industry association, the
American Cleaning Institute (ACI) and told them how much cheaper it would
be to just pull the phosphates out of dishwasher detergent (remember, this
is a point-source regulation). That was in 2006. They wanted it done in
two years. The industry said they couldn't do it that fast. They asked for
4-1/2 years. The legislators said Ok.

The industry in Europe had tried non-phosphate dishwasher detergents back
in the '90s, but they didn't work well and customers stayed away in
droves. In 2006, they still didn't have a solution. By 2010, the whole
industry did, and it worked very well. There are now 17 states that have
blocked the manufacture and sale -- but not the use -- of phosphate
dishwasher detergents. The ACI and its members, once they had a solution
that works, supported the legislation in the other 16 states.

I didn't ask him about the stink - time was short and I was more
interested in his choices of fly rods for cutthroats g -- but that's
where the change came from.

--
Ed Huntress

Oh, one thing I didn't explain: Many, or most, of those newer houses near
Spokane have septic systems, which is how the phosphate is getting into the
aquifer. But the drinking water supplies municipal areas where they have
municipal sewers. Some big engineering firm figured out the route.

The ACI says that detergent phosphates, which now is mostly dishwasher
detergent, can be up to 25% of the phosphate load from municipal
point-source discharges.
Greetings Ed,
I live on an island in the Salish Sea (formerly Puget Sound) and used
to live on one of the beaches. There were several houses on the beach
that were originally only accessible by boat. These old houses had
small septic systems. Many of them had drain fields that were back
from the beach and the sea wall and were below mean high tide. Others
had drain fields that were between the houses and the beach. Now most
of these houses can be driven to and are occupied full time instead of
just summers. And they have been remodeled into large homes. The
septic systems are all grandfathered in. When walking down the beach
at low tide you can smell some of the failing systems. And the beach
in front of many homes has lots of extra sea weed. Especially the ones
with failing drain fields. This sea weed crowds out some types of sea
grasses that protect baby salmon when they come down the streams. So
Island County really wants these septic systems to stop leaching
nutrients into the water.
Eric
That's an easy fix. No weeping tiles. Holding tanks only - pumped on a
regular basis and deliverd to municipal water treatment plants - and
taxed accordingly.
The problem is basically political. If allowed, the county would
change the laws. There are many places where the liquid is pumped into
a sewer system and the solids collected in septic tanks. This solution
requires much smaller pipes and is way cheaper to install. Having just
one holding tank that is pumped regularly would mean a huge tank or
very frequent pumping. A better solution would be a sand filter mound
system. Cheaper too over the long run. The county would like all new
systems to be pressurised sand filter mound systems. But once again
there is not the support of the citizens for this. And I'm one of 'em.
I live far away from the water and have a standard gravity fed system.
From the research I did before I installed the system a standard
gravity fed system with the new infiltrator type drain field does not
pose a pollution hazard at farther than a 100 foot radius. However, I
don't know about the phosphate problem because I didn't look into it
as I don't use detergents with phosphates. Phosphates may well leach
out of infiltrator type systems and travel in ground water for miles.
I just don't know, which is one of the reasons I avoid them.
Eric

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the company
that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the phosphate
out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the
reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with the
fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products. That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable
waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back; the
one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP. We'll
see
if I can get an answer.

This could prove interesting.

Joe Gwinn

Ok, I got the story from a guy who sat on legislative committee meetings
while the state laws were being hashed out. It was an hour-long
conversation, so I won't try to tell the whole thing, but the discussion
did involve a lot about Pflueger cane fly rods and fishing for cutthroat
trout in Montana, lake trout in Canada's N.W.T., oysters in the Raritan
Bay, and so on. g

It's the news reporter genes coming to the fore. Very interesting.


Blame Washington State. And the EPA. It started with tightening of
national point-source effluent standards from EPA. That's industrial and
municipal waste discharges.

We knew it! There had to be an EPA conspiracy!


Many states were able to meet them with old-style (alum flocculent)
tertiary treatment, and new-style tertiary treatment (microbes), but
Washington allowed the overbuilding of residences around the Spokane
River, and the phosphates were filtering down through a porous geological
cap, getting into drinking water, and overloading the sewage treatment.
The stage beyond tertiary is a microfiltering screen process and it costs
like hell.

So it was a cost issue for the State of Washington -- and many others. The
Washington legislators sat down with the industry association, the
American Cleaning Institute (ACI) and told them how much cheaper it would
be to just pull the phosphates out of dishwasher detergent (remember, this
is a point-source regulation). That was in 2006. They wanted it done in
two years. The industry said they couldn't do it that fast. They asked for
4-1/2 years. The legislators said Ok.

The industry in Europe had tried non-phosphate dishwasher detergents back
in the '90s, but they didn't work well and customers stayed away in
droves. In 2006, they still didn't have a solution. By 2010, the whole
industry did, and it worked very well. There are now 17 states that have
blocked the manufacture and sale -- but not the use -- of phosphate
dishwasher detergents. The ACI and its members, once they had a solution
that works, supported the legislation in the other 16 states.

If there is a workable solution, where is it? The whole point of this
thread is precisely that people are having one problem after another,
starting with the stink and the cloudy dirty just-washed glassware. More
to the point, what do they mean by a "solution that works"? There may
be some dispute about the definition of "works". This deserves a
follow-up question.

There have always been very good dishwasher detergents for scientific
glassware, but these detergents are expensive, about six times the cost
per ounce of grocery-store detergents, although the cost per wash may be
almost the same if the lab stuff is more concentrated.

The traditional and biggest name is Alconox:
http://www.alconox.com/static/section_top/gen_catalog.asp. Hmm, better
check the MSDS. Aha! Its secret sauce is two phosphorus compounds that
together comprise about half the total.


I didn't ask him about the stink - time was short and I was more
interested in his choices of fly rods for cutthroats g -- but that's
where the change came from.

--
Ed Huntress

Oh, one thing I didn't explain: Many, or most, of those newer houses near
Spokane have septic systems, which is how the phosphate is getting into the
aquifer. But the drinking water supplies municipal areas where they have
municipal sewers. Some big engineering firm figured out the route.

The ACI says that detergent phosphates, which now is mostly dishwasher
detergent, can be up to 25% of the phosphate load from municipal
point-source discharges.

Given that clothes washing detergent is now non-phosphate, I can believe
that dishwasher detergent now competes only with the resident humans,
who thus must account for 75% of the point-source load.

Hmm. Maybe the 75% includes commercial establishments, chiefly
restaurants and the like. They are still permitted to buy phosphate
containing detergent.

Anyway, this brings me to two questions. First, is the 25% reduction
worthwhile? Second, how does the 100% compare with ongoing agricultural
use?


Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take
my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the
company
that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the
phosphate
out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the
reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with
the
fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products.
That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable
waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back;
the
one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what
the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP.
We'll
see
if I can get an answer.

This could prove interesting.

Joe Gwinn

Ok, I got the story from a guy who sat on legislative committee
meetings
while the state laws were being hashed out. It was an hour-long
conversation, so I won't try to tell the whole thing, but the
discussion
did involve a lot about Pflueger cane fly rods and fishing for
cutthroat
trout in Montana, lake trout in Canada's N.W.T., oysters in the Raritan
Bay, and so on. g

It's the news reporter genes coming to the fore. Very interesting.


Blame Washington State. And the EPA. It started with tightening of
national point-source effluent standards from EPA. That's industrial
and
municipal waste discharges.

We knew it! There had to be an EPA conspiracy!

I should add that the particular problem in the Spokane River was that baby
salmon weren't surviving because of the eutrification and low oxygen levels.



Many states were able to meet them with old-style (alum flocculent)
tertiary treatment, and new-style tertiary treatment (microbes), but
Washington allowed the overbuilding of residences around the Spokane
River, and the phosphates were filtering down through a porous
geological
cap, getting into drinking water, and overloading the sewage treatment.
The stage beyond tertiary is a microfiltering screen process and it
costs
like hell.

So it was a cost issue for the State of Washington -- and many others.
The
Washington legislators sat down with the industry association, the
American Cleaning Institute (ACI) and told them how much cheaper it
would
be to just pull the phosphates out of dishwasher detergent (remember,
this
is a point-source regulation). That was in 2006. They wanted it done in
two years. The industry said they couldn't do it that fast. They asked
for
4-1/2 years. The legislators said Ok.

The industry in Europe had tried non-phosphate dishwasher detergents
back
in the '90s, but they didn't work well and customers stayed away in
droves. In 2006, they still didn't have a solution. By 2010, the whole
industry did, and it worked very well. There are now 17 states that
have
blocked the manufacture and sale -- but not the use -- of phosphate
dishwasher detergents. The ACI and its members, once they had a
solution
that works, supported the legislation in the other 16 states.

If there is a workable solution, where is it? The whole point of this
thread is precisely that people are having one problem after another,
starting with the stink and the cloudy dirty just-washed glassware. More
to the point, what do they mean by a "solution that works"? There may
be some dispute about the definition of "works". This deserves a
follow-up question.

ACI notes that there are some performance issues, which can be solved by
observing these points: 1) Make sure your water temp is at least 120 F (mine
is 140 at the dishwasher). 2) Don't use too much detergent. If you have an
old dishwasher, about half as much as the cups will hold is about right. 3)
If you have water spots, chances are your water is hard. The guy I talked to
told me he'd just returned from Ireland, where the water is very hard and
they have water softeners *built in* to the dishwashers.

If you have accumulated cloudiness, you may need to do a periodic vinegar
treatment. Here's how they describe it:

http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/cle...detergent.aspx

You may also be interested in this:

http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/cle...e rgents.aspx



There have always been very good dishwasher detergents for scientific
glassware, but these detergents are expensive, about six times the cost
per ounce of grocery-store detergents, although the cost per wash may be
almost the same if the lab stuff is more concentrated.

The traditional and biggest name is Alconox:
http://www.alconox.com/static/section_top/gen_catalog.asp. Hmm, better
check the MSDS. Aha! Its secret sauce is two phosphorus compounds that
together comprise about half the total.

Fortunately, there probably isn't enough used to cause any problems.

Note that the ACI FAQ, I think, mentions that there are not laws against
*using* the stuff. The laws mostly regulate retail sale. My contact guy said
that all big detergent manufacturers took phosphates out, but there may be
some local ones in the states that don't regulate it, selling to the local
market.




I didn't ask him about the stink - time was short and I was more
interested in his choices of fly rods for cutthroats g -- but that's
where the change came from.

--
Ed Huntress

Oh, one thing I didn't explain: Many, or most, of those newer houses near
Spokane have septic systems, which is how the phosphate is getting into
the
aquifer. But the drinking water supplies municipal areas where they have
municipal sewers. Some big engineering firm figured out the route.

The ACI says that detergent phosphates, which now is mostly dishwasher
detergent, can be up to 25% of the phosphate load from municipal
point-source discharges.

Given that clothes washing detergent is now non-phosphate, I can believe
that dishwasher detergent now competes only with the resident humans,
who thus must account for 75% of the point-source load.

Hmm. Maybe the 75% includes commercial establishments, chiefly
restaurants and the like. They are still permitted to buy phosphate
containing detergent.

Anyway, this brings me to two questions. First, is the 25% reduction
worthwhile? Second, how does the 100% compare with ongoing agricultural
use?

Nationwide, the ag use is by far the dominant source of phosphorus in rivers
and streams. In heavily built-up areas, like around my beloved Delaware,
residential cleaning use is the dominant source, with the Delaware
apparently being an extreme, but not actually an outlying, example.

My contact guy is an exec. with ACI in charge of this subject there, with
over 20 years of industry experience. I think that further questions would
have to be directed to the EPA. I know that there is some detailed research
available that they used in their analysis. I just don't know what it is.

And, without a paying article to write about it, my work is done here. d8-)
It is quite interesting. Having followed water pollution issues in my area,
I always find it interesting, because the real research so often refutes the
conventional wisdom. And it's a consequential subject.

Which reminds me that it's time to get out my son's microscope and do a
species count of plankton in a local pond again. When he was in middle
school, he did a science project that was based on some scientific data that
ranks water quality on the basis of relative species counts. Local
water-quality officials were very interested. Too few paramecia and too many
cyclops, and you have trouble. g

--
Ed Huntress



Joe Gwinn

On Jul 27, 11:28*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

ACI notes that there are some performance issues, which can be solved by
observing these points: 1) Make sure your water temp is at least 120 F (mine
is 140 at the dishwasher). 2) Don't use too much detergent. If you have an
old dishwasher, about half as much as the cups will hold is about right. 3)
If you have water spots, chances are your water is hard. The guy I talked to
told me he'd just returned from Ireland, where the water is very hard and
they have water softeners *built in* to the dishwashers.

Coming into this a little late, but... I use "Cascade Complete"
liquid, which is phosphate free (and ridiculously expensive). I use
the "extra heat" setting on my dishwasher, which preheats the water.
My dishes (and glasses) are very clean.

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to take
my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the
company
that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the
phosphate
out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And the
reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with
the
fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products.
That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors navigable
waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back;
the
one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or what
the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP.
We'll
see
if I can get an answer.

This could prove interesting.

Joe Gwinn

Ok, I got the story from a guy who sat on legislative committee
meetings
while the state laws were being hashed out. It was an hour-long
conversation, so I won't try to tell the whole thing, but the
discussion
did involve a lot about Pflueger cane fly rods and fishing for
cutthroat
trout in Montana, lake trout in Canada's N.W.T., oysters in the Raritan
Bay, and so on. g

It's the news reporter genes coming to the fore. Very interesting.


Blame Washington State. And the EPA. It started with tightening of
national point-source effluent standards from EPA. That's industrial
and
municipal waste discharges.

We knew it! There had to be an EPA conspiracy!

I should add that the particular problem in the Spokane River was that baby
salmon weren't surviving because of the eutrification and low oxygen levels.

Was this due to dishwashers, or farmers?


Many states were able to meet them with old-style (alum flocculent)
tertiary treatment, and new-style tertiary treatment (microbes), but
Washington allowed the overbuilding of residences around the Spokane
River, and the phosphates were filtering down through a porous
geological
cap, getting into drinking water, and overloading the sewage treatment.
The stage beyond tertiary is a microfiltering screen process and it
costs
like hell.

So it was a cost issue for the State of Washington -- and many others.
The
Washington legislators sat down with the industry association, the
American Cleaning Institute (ACI) and told them how much cheaper it
would
be to just pull the phosphates out of dishwasher detergent (remember,
this
is a point-source regulation). That was in 2006. They wanted it done in
two years. The industry said they couldn't do it that fast. They asked
for
4-1/2 years. The legislators said Ok.

The industry in Europe had tried non-phosphate dishwasher detergents
back
in the '90s, but they didn't work well and customers stayed away in
droves. In 2006, they still didn't have a solution. By 2010, the whole
industry did, and it worked very well. There are now 17 states that
have
blocked the manufacture and sale -- but not the use -- of phosphate
dishwasher detergents. The ACI and its members, once they had a
solution
that works, supported the legislation in the other 16 states.

If there is a workable solution, where is it? The whole point of this
thread is precisely that people are having one problem after another,
starting with the stink and the cloudy dirty just-washed glassware. More
to the point, what do they mean by a "solution that works"? There may
be some dispute about the definition of "works". This deserves a
follow-up question.

ACI notes that there are some performance issues, which can be solved by
observing these points: 1) Make sure your water temp is at least 120 F (mine
is 140 at the dishwasher). 2) Don't use too much detergent. If you have an
old dishwasher, about half as much as the cups will hold is about right. 3)
If you have water spots, chances are your water is hard. The guy I talked to
told me he'd just returned from Ireland, where the water is very hard and
they have water softeners *built in* to the dishwashers.

If you have accumulated cloudiness, you may need to do a periodic vinegar
treatment. Here's how they describe it:

http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/clean_living/faqs_phosphate_and_dishwasher_detergent.aspx

You may also be interested in this:

http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/clean_living/cm_novdec2010_changes_in_automatic_dishwasher_dete rgents.aspx

More weekend reading.

All of the above ACI advice was mentioned on the various blogs I read
when researching the stink problem, although I don't recall that people
knew where the advice came from. I did all of those things, including
the vinegar, to little avail.

The built-in water softener makes sense. The big variable in reports of
trouble in the US is how hard the local water is, and a major purpose of
the phosphate was precisely to handle hard water.

But I wonder what chemicals are used in the built-in softeners.


There have always been very good dishwasher detergents for scientific
glassware, but these detergents are expensive, about six times the cost
per ounce of grocery-store detergents, although the cost per wash may be
almost the same if the lab stuff is more concentrated.

The traditional and biggest name is Alconox:
http://www.alconox.com/static/section_top/gen_catalog.asp. Hmm, better
check the MSDS. Aha! Its secret sauce is two phosphorus compounds that
together comprise about half the total.

Fortunately, there probably isn't enough used to cause any problems.

Note that the ACI FAQ, I think, mentions that there are not laws against
*using* the stuff. The laws mostly regulate retail sale. My contact guy said
that all big detergent manufacturers took phosphates out, but there may be
some local ones in the states that don't regulate it, selling to the local
market.

Most likely because there are far more users than sellers, so policing
sellers is easier.


I didn't ask him about the stink - time was short and I was more
interested in his choices of fly rods for cutthroats g -- but that's
where the change came from.

--
Ed Huntress

Oh, one thing I didn't explain: Many, or most, of those newer houses near
Spokane have septic systems, which is how the phosphate is getting into
the
aquifer. But the drinking water supplies municipal areas where they have
municipal sewers. Some big engineering firm figured out the route.

The ACI says that detergent phosphates, which now is mostly dishwasher
detergent, can be up to 25% of the phosphate load from municipal
point-source discharges.

Given that clothes washing detergent is now non-phosphate, I can believe
that dishwasher detergent now competes only with the resident humans,
who thus must account for 75% of the point-source load.

Hmm. Maybe the 75% includes commercial establishments, chiefly
restaurants and the like. They are still permitted to buy phosphate
containing detergent.

Anyway, this brings me to two questions. First, is the 25% reduction
worthwhile? Second, how does the 100% compare with ongoing agricultural
use?

Nationwide, the ag use is by far the dominant source of phosphorus in rivers
and streams. In heavily built-up areas, like around my beloved Delaware,
residential cleaning use is the dominant source, with the Delaware
apparently being an extreme, but not actually an outlying, example.

My contact guy is an exec. with ACI in charge of this subject there, with
over 20 years of industry experience. I think that further questions would
have to be directed to the EPA. I know that there is some detailed research
available that they used in their analysis. I just don't know what it is.

And, without a paying article to write about it, my work is done here. d8-)
It is quite interesting. Having followed water pollution issues in my area,
I always find it interesting, because the real research so often refutes the
conventional wisdom. And it's a consequential subject.

And we were trying to give meaning to your life, a focus, something to
aspire to.


Which reminds me that it's time to get out my son's microscope and do a
species count of plankton in a local pond again. When he was in middle
school, he did a science project that was based on some scientific data that
ranks water quality on the basis of relative species counts. Local
water-quality officials were very interested. Too few paramecia and too many
cyclops, and you have trouble. g

Think globally, act locally? But the trend would be interesting.


Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to
take
my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the
company
that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the
phosphate
out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And
the
reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with
the
fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products.
That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors
navigable
waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back;
the
one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or
what
the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP.
We'll
see
if I can get an answer.

This could prove interesting.

Joe Gwinn

Ok, I got the story from a guy who sat on legislative committee
meetings
while the state laws were being hashed out. It was an hour-long
conversation, so I won't try to tell the whole thing, but the
discussion
did involve a lot about Pflueger cane fly rods and fishing for
cutthroat
trout in Montana, lake trout in Canada's N.W.T., oysters in the
Raritan
Bay, and so on. g

It's the news reporter genes coming to the fore. Very interesting.


Blame Washington State. And the EPA. It started with tightening of
national point-source effluent standards from EPA. That's industrial
and
municipal waste discharges.

We knew it! There had to be an EPA conspiracy!

I should add that the particular problem in the Spokane River was that
baby
salmon weren't surviving because of the eutrification and low oxygen
levels.

Was this due to dishwashers, or farmers?

I'll leave that for your research to uncover. Remember, nationwide figures
don't tell you much about individual rivers, as I've learned through this
exercise.




Many states were able to meet them with old-style (alum flocculent)
tertiary treatment, and new-style tertiary treatment (microbes), but
Washington allowed the overbuilding of residences around the Spokane
River, and the phosphates were filtering down through a porous
geological
cap, getting into drinking water, and overloading the sewage
treatment.
The stage beyond tertiary is a microfiltering screen process and it
costs
like hell.

So it was a cost issue for the State of Washington -- and many
others.
The
Washington legislators sat down with the industry association, the
American Cleaning Institute (ACI) and told them how much cheaper it
would
be to just pull the phosphates out of dishwasher detergent
(remember,
this
is a point-source regulation). That was in 2006. They wanted it done
in
two years. The industry said they couldn't do it that fast. They
asked
for
4-1/2 years. The legislators said Ok.

The industry in Europe had tried non-phosphate dishwasher detergents
back
in the '90s, but they didn't work well and customers stayed away in
droves. In 2006, they still didn't have a solution. By 2010, the
whole
industry did, and it worked very well. There are now 17 states that
have
blocked the manufacture and sale -- but not the use -- of phosphate
dishwasher detergents. The ACI and its members, once they had a
solution
that works, supported the legislation in the other 16 states.

If there is a workable solution, where is it? The whole point of this
thread is precisely that people are having one problem after another,
starting with the stink and the cloudy dirty just-washed glassware.
More
to the point, what do they mean by a "solution that works"? There may
be some dispute about the definition of "works". This deserves a
follow-up question.

ACI notes that there are some performance issues, which can be solved by
observing these points: 1) Make sure your water temp is at least 120 F
(mine
is 140 at the dishwasher). 2) Don't use too much detergent. If you have
an
old dishwasher, about half as much as the cups will hold is about right.
3)
If you have water spots, chances are your water is hard. The guy I talked
to
told me he'd just returned from Ireland, where the water is very hard and
they have water softeners *built in* to the dishwashers.

If you have accumulated cloudiness, you may need to do a periodic vinegar
treatment. Here's how they describe it:

http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/clean_living/faqs_phosphate_and_dishwasher_detergent.aspx

You may also be interested in this:

http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/clean_living/cm_novdec2010_changes_in_automatic_dishwasher_dete rgents.aspx

More weekend reading.

Those are short.



All of the above ACI advice was mentioned on the various blogs I read
when researching the stink problem, although I don't recall that people
knew where the advice came from. I did all of those things, including
the vinegar, to little avail.

The built-in water softener makes sense. The big variable in reports of
trouble in the US is how hard the local water is, and a major purpose of
the phosphate was precisely to handle hard water.

But I wonder what chemicals are used in the built-in softeners.

My contact said "salt," so I assume it's similar to the water softeners we
have here.




There have always been very good dishwasher detergents for scientific
glassware, but these detergents are expensive, about six times the cost
per ounce of grocery-store detergents, although the cost per wash may
be
almost the same if the lab stuff is more concentrated.

The traditional and biggest name is Alconox:
http://www.alconox.com/static/section_top/gen_catalog.asp. Hmm,
better
check the MSDS. Aha! Its secret sauce is two phosphorus compounds
that
together comprise about half the total.

Fortunately, there probably isn't enough used to cause any problems.

Note that the ACI FAQ, I think, mentions that there are not laws against
*using* the stuff. The laws mostly regulate retail sale. My contact guy
said
that all big detergent manufacturers took phosphates out, but there may
be
some local ones in the states that don't regulate it, selling to the
local
market.

Most likely because there are far more users than sellers, so policing
sellers is easier.

Well, that, and that is the way that many such regulations are handled. You
go for the source and you don't want to stick consumers with the problem of
what to do with what they already have. Retailers had plenty of time to
clear their inventory.

Keep in mind, too, that many environmental regulations are based on
percentages, and there are loopholes all over the place for people who need
to use something that is banned, with the recognition that a few motivated
and determined users of most troublesome chemicals are not the problem. It's
the mass markets that are the problem.




I didn't ask him about the stink - time was short and I was more
interested in his choices of fly rods for cutthroats g -- but
that's
where the change came from.

--
Ed Huntress

Oh, one thing I didn't explain: Many, or most, of those newer houses
near
Spokane have septic systems, which is how the phosphate is getting
into
the
aquifer. But the drinking water supplies municipal areas where they
have
municipal sewers. Some big engineering firm figured out the route.

The ACI says that detergent phosphates, which now is mostly dishwasher
detergent, can be up to 25% of the phosphate load from municipal
point-source discharges.

Given that clothes washing detergent is now non-phosphate, I can
believe
that dishwasher detergent now competes only with the resident humans,
who thus must account for 75% of the point-source load.

Hmm. Maybe the 75% includes commercial establishments, chiefly
restaurants and the like. They are still permitted to buy phosphate
containing detergent.

Anyway, this brings me to two questions. First, is the 25% reduction
worthwhile? Second, how does the 100% compare with ongoing
agricultural
use?

Nationwide, the ag use is by far the dominant source of phosphorus in
rivers
and streams. In heavily built-up areas, like around my beloved Delaware,
residential cleaning use is the dominant source, with the Delaware
apparently being an extreme, but not actually an outlying, example.

My contact guy is an exec. with ACI in charge of this subject there, with
over 20 years of industry experience. I think that further questions
would
have to be directed to the EPA. I know that there is some detailed
research
available that they used in their analysis. I just don't know what it is.

And, without a paying article to write about it, my work is done here.
d8-)
It is quite interesting. Having followed water pollution issues in my
area,
I always find it interesting, because the real research so often refutes
the
conventional wisdom. And it's a consequential subject.

And we were trying to give meaning to your life, a focus, something to
aspire to.

Uh, it's more a habit of mind developed from several decades of research. I
don't like not knowing things that are important to know.



Which reminds me that it's time to get out my son's microscope and do a
species count of plankton in a local pond again. When he was in middle
school, he did a science project that was based on some scientific data
that
ranks water quality on the basis of relative species counts. Local
water-quality officials were very interested. Too few paramecia and too
many
cyclops, and you have trouble. g

Think globally, act locally? But the trend would be interesting.

The relative plankton measures are an indirect way to measure overall water
quality. It's quick and it corresponds well to some broad indexes --
particularly dissolved oxygen, but also some common toxins. You don't have
to count organisms per unit volume of water, only their relative incidence.
So sampling and preparation of samples is simple and cheap.

It makes a great science project for a kid who's reached the stage where
they can follow the connections.

--
Ed Huntress




Joe Gwinn

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

snip


You got me going on this again. Darn you. g It was too hot to
take
my
usual walk after lunch so I made some calls. First I called the
company
that
makes Finish dishwasher detergent. They said they pulled the
phosphate
out
on July 1, 2010, along with all of the other major producers. And
the
reason
was, indeed, the 16 states who suddenly outlawed it, combined with
the
fact
that they didn't want to make and market two different products.
That's
similar to what happened years ago with laundry detergent.

The other call was to the NJ office of USGS, who monitors
navigable
waters
here. The key researcher in this area is supposed to call me back;
the
one I
talked to didn't know the issues with dishwasher detergent, or
what
the
basis was for those states (which does not include NJ) to ban TSP.
We'll
see
if I can get an answer.

This could prove interesting.

Joe Gwinn

Ok, I got the story from a guy who sat on legislative committee
meetings
while the state laws were being hashed out. It was an hour-long
conversation, so I won't try to tell the whole thing, but the
discussion
did involve a lot about Pflueger cane fly rods and fishing for
cutthroat
trout in Montana, lake trout in Canada's N.W.T., oysters in the
Raritan
Bay, and so on. g

It's the news reporter genes coming to the fore. Very interesting.


Blame Washington State. And the EPA. It started with tightening of
national point-source effluent standards from EPA. That's industrial
and
municipal waste discharges.

We knew it! There had to be an EPA conspiracy!

I should add that the particular problem in the Spokane River was that
baby
salmon weren't surviving because of the eutrification and low oxygen
levels.

Was this due to dishwashers, or farmers?

I'll leave that for your research to uncover. Remember, nationwide figures
don't tell you much about individual rivers, as I've learned through this
exercise.

Well, based on what I have already found,that 95% goes into agriculture,
I'm going with farmers.


Many states were able to meet them with old-style (alum flocculent)
tertiary treatment, and new-style tertiary treatment (microbes), but
Washington allowed the overbuilding of residences around the Spokane
River, and the phosphates were filtering down through a porous
geological
cap, getting into drinking water, and overloading the sewage
treatment.
The stage beyond tertiary is a microfiltering screen process and it
costs
like hell.

So it was a cost issue for the State of Washington -- and many
others.
The
Washington legislators sat down with the industry association, the
American Cleaning Institute (ACI) and told them how much cheaper it
would
be to just pull the phosphates out of dishwasher detergent
(remember,
this
is a point-source regulation). That was in 2006. They wanted it done
in
two years. The industry said they couldn't do it that fast. They
asked
for
4-1/2 years. The legislators said Ok.

The industry in Europe had tried non-phosphate dishwasher detergents
back
in the '90s, but they didn't work well and customers stayed away in
droves. In 2006, they still didn't have a solution. By 2010, the
whole
industry did, and it worked very well. There are now 17 states that
have
blocked the manufacture and sale -- but not the use -- of phosphate
dishwasher detergents. The ACI and its members, once they had a
solution
that works, supported the legislation in the other 16 states.

If there is a workable solution, where is it? The whole point of this
thread is precisely that people are having one problem after another,
starting with the stink and the cloudy dirty just-washed glassware.
More
to the point, what do they mean by a "solution that works"? There may
be some dispute about the definition of "works". This deserves a
follow-up question.

ACI notes that there are some performance issues, which can be solved by
observing these points: 1) Make sure your water temp is at least 120 F
(mine
is 140 at the dishwasher). 2) Don't use too much detergent. If you have
an
old dishwasher, about half as much as the cups will hold is about right.
3)
If you have water spots, chances are your water is hard. The guy I talked
to
told me he'd just returned from Ireland, where the water is very hard and
they have water softeners *built in* to the dishwashers.

If you have accumulated cloudiness, you may need to do a periodic vinegar
treatment. Here's how they describe it:

http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/cle..._and_dishwashe
r_detergent.aspx

You may also be interested in this:

http://www.cleaninginstitute.org/cle...changes_in_aut
omatic_dishwasher_detergents.aspx

More weekend reading.

Those are short.

But not sweet.


All of the above ACI advice was mentioned on the various blogs I read
when researching the stink problem, although I don't recall that people
knew where the advice came from. I did all of those things, including
the vinegar, to little avail.

The built-in water softener makes sense. The big variable in reports of
trouble in the US is how hard the local water is, and a major purpose of
the phosphate was precisely to handle hard water.

But I wonder what chemicals are used in the built-in softeners.

My contact said "salt," so I assume it's similar to the water softeners we
have here.

Salt is certainly plausible. But the ion exchange process cannot
destroy calcium and magnesium, so these are going into the effluent.
But it may not matter.


There have always been very good dishwasher detergents for scientific
glassware, but these detergents are expensive, about six times the cost
per ounce of grocery-store detergents, although the cost per wash may
be
almost the same if the lab stuff is more concentrated.

The traditional and biggest name is Alconox:
http://www.alconox.com/static/section_top/gen_catalog.asp. Hmm,
better
check the MSDS. Aha! Its secret sauce is two phosphorus compounds
that
together comprise about half the total.

Fortunately, there probably isn't enough used to cause any problems.

Note that the ACI FAQ, I think, mentions that there are not laws against
*using* the stuff. The laws mostly regulate retail sale. My contact guy
said
that all big detergent manufacturers took phosphates out, but there may
be
some local ones in the states that don't regulate it, selling to the
local
market.

Most likely because there are far more users than sellers, so policing
sellers is easier.

Well, that, and that is the way that many such regulations are handled. You
go for the source and you don't want to stick consumers with the problem of
what to do with what they already have. Retailers had plenty of time to
clear their inventory.

Keep in mind, too, that many environmental regulations are based on
percentages, and there are loopholes all over the place for people who need
to use something that is banned, with the recognition that a few motivated
and determined users of most troublesome chemicals are not the problem. It's
the mass markets that are the problem.

But isn't this the key question? In other words, why chase 0.5%?


I didn't ask him about the stink - time was short and I was more
interested in his choices of fly rods for cutthroats g -- but
that's
where the change came from.

--
Ed Huntress

Oh, one thing I didn't explain: Many, or most, of those newer houses
near
Spokane have septic systems, which is how the phosphate is getting
into
the
aquifer. But the drinking water supplies municipal areas where they
have
municipal sewers. Some big engineering firm figured out the route.

The ACI says that detergent phosphates, which now is mostly dishwasher
detergent, can be up to 25% of the phosphate load from municipal
point-source discharges.

Given that clothes washing detergent is now non-phosphate, I can
believe
that dishwasher detergent now competes only with the resident humans,
who thus must account for 75% of the point-source load.

Hmm. Maybe the 75% includes commercial establishments, chiefly
restaurants and the like. They are still permitted to buy phosphate
containing detergent.

Anyway, this brings me to two questions. First, is the 25% reduction
worthwhile? Second, how does the 100% compare with ongoing
agricultural
use?

Nationwide, the ag use is by far the dominant source of phosphorus in
rivers
and streams. In heavily built-up areas, like around my beloved Delaware,
residential cleaning use is the dominant source, with the Delaware
apparently being an extreme, but not actually an outlying, example.

My contact guy is an exec. with ACI in charge of this subject there, with
over 20 years of industry experience. I think that further questions
would
have to be directed to the EPA. I know that there is some detailed
research
available that they used in their analysis. I just don't know what it is.

And, without a paying article to write about it, my work is done here.
d8-)
It is quite interesting. Having followed water pollution issues in my
area,
I always find it interesting, because the real research so often refutes
the
conventional wisdom. And it's a consequential subject.

And we were trying to give meaning to your life, a focus, something to
aspire to.

Uh, it's more a habit of mind developed from several decades of research. I
don't like not knowing things that are important to know.

We're here to help...


Which reminds me that it's time to get out my son's microscope and do a
species count of plankton in a local pond again. When he was in middle
school, he did a science project that was based on some scientific data
that
ranks water quality on the basis of relative species counts. Local
water-quality officials were very interested. Too few paramecia and too
many
cyclops, and you have trouble. g

Think globally, act locally? But the trend would be interesting.

The relative plankton measures are an indirect way to measure overall water
quality. It's quick and it corresponds well to some broad indexes --
particularly dissolved oxygen, but also some common toxins. You don't have
to count organisms per unit volume of water, only their relative incidence.
So sampling and preparation of samples is simple and cheap.

It makes a great science project for a kid who's reached the stage where
they can follow the connections.

I don't know how it works with paramecia and cyclops, but a big
discovery in the last decade or two is that ocean bacteria are largely
limited by bacteriophages, which are viruses that infect bacteria. If
it were not for the phages, the bacteria would cover the Earth with goo.


Joe Gwinn

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:40:03 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

......


Was this due to dishwashers, or farmers?

I'll leave that for your research to uncover. Remember, nationwide figures
don't tell you much about individual rivers, as I've learned through this
exercise.

Well, based on what I have already found,that 95% goes into agriculture,
I'm going with farmers.



But this says little about how much P gets into water bodies.
Virtually all the P in detergents leaves the point of use via
wastewater. The farmers' interest lies in maximizing uptake of P by
plants and minimizing loss by leaching or erosion.

.........



Keep in mind, too, that many environmental regulations are based on
percentages, and there are loopholes all over the place for people who need
to use something that is banned, with the recognition that a few motivated
and determined users of most troublesome chemicals are not the problem. It's
the mass markets that are the problem.

But isn't this the key question? In other words, why chase 0.5%?

Where's this .5% come from?

BTW, we found the new Cascade formulas lacking, but a generic brand
(Home 360?) from the local Hannaford works fine.

--
Ned Simmons

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:40:03 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

.....


Was this due to dishwashers, or farmers?

I'll leave that for your research to uncover. Remember, nationwide figures
don't tell you much about individual rivers, as I've learned through this
exercise.

Well, based on what I have already found,that 95% goes into agriculture,
I'm going with farmers.



But this says little about how much P gets into water bodies.
Virtually all the P in detergents leaves the point of use via
wastewater. The farmers' interest lies in maximizing uptake of P by
plants and minimizing loss by leaching or erosion.

All true, but farmers use tons of fertilizer, while homes use pounds of
detergent.


Keep in mind, too, that many environmental regulations are based on
percentages, and there are loopholes all over the place for people who
need
to use something that is banned, with the recognition that a few motivated
and determined users of most troublesome chemicals are not the problem.
It's
the mass markets that are the problem.

But isn't this the key question? In other words, why chase 0.5%?

Where's this 0.5% come from?

You might wish to read the beginning of the thread. It's all there.



BTW, we found the new Cascade formulas lacking, but a generic brand
(Home 360?) from the local Hannaford works fine.

Hmm. There is a Hannaford nearby.

What I've been using is plain old Cascade plus a pinch of TSP, and this
does work.


Joe Gwinn

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:22:42 -0400
Joseph Gwinn wrote:

snip
What I've been using is plain old Cascade plus a pinch of TSP, and this
does work.

Maybe you already found this (shrug), but...

http://www.amazon.com/Cascade-Automa...1967952&sr=8-1

or

http://www.restockit.com/cascade-aut...(34953pg).html

We have a walk-in/open to the public restaurant supplier in town that
claims to have it in stock. Thought it may give you some ideas to
ponder...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:22:42 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:40:03 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

.....


Was this due to dishwashers, or farmers?

I'll leave that for your research to uncover. Remember, nationwide figures
don't tell you much about individual rivers, as I've learned through this
exercise.

Well, based on what I have already found,that 95% goes into agriculture,
I'm going with farmers.



But this says little about how much P gets into water bodies.
Virtually all the P in detergents leaves the point of use via
wastewater. The farmers' interest lies in maximizing uptake of P by
plants and minimizing loss by leaching or erosion.

All true, but farmers use tons of fertilizer, while homes use pounds of
detergent.


Keep in mind, too, that many environmental regulations are based on
percentages, and there are loopholes all over the place for people who
need
to use something that is banned, with the recognition that a few motivated
and determined users of most troublesome chemicals are not the problem.
It's
the mass markets that are the problem.

But isn't this the key question? In other words, why chase 0.5%?

Where's this 0.5% come from?

You might wish to read the beginning of the thread. It's all there.



BTW, we found the new Cascade formulas lacking, but a generic brand
(Home 360?) from the local Hannaford works fine.

Hmm. There is a Hannaford nearby.

What I've been using is plain old Cascade plus a pinch of TSP, and this
does work.


Joe Gwinn
How big a "pinch"? I am adding about a teaspoon full - probably too
much!
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

In article ,
Gerald Miller wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:22:42 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 22:40:03 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

.....


Was this due to dishwashers, or farmers?

I'll leave that for your research to uncover. Remember, nationwide
figures
don't tell you much about individual rivers, as I've learned through
this
exercise.

Well, based on what I have already found,that 95% goes into agriculture,
I'm going with farmers.



But this says little about how much P gets into water bodies.
Virtually all the P in detergents leaves the point of use via
wastewater. The farmers' interest lies in maximizing uptake of P by
plants and minimizing loss by leaching or erosion.

All true, but farmers use tons of fertilizer, while homes use pounds of
detergent.


Keep in mind, too, that many environmental regulations are based on
percentages, and there are loopholes all over the place for people who
need
to use something that is banned, with the recognition that a few
motivated
and determined users of most troublesome chemicals are not the problem.
It's
the mass markets that are the problem.

But isn't this the key question? In other words, why chase 0.5%?

Where's this 0.5% come from?

You might wish to read the beginning of the thread. It's all there.



BTW, we found the new Cascade formulas lacking, but a generic brand
(Home 360?) from the local Hannaford works fine.

Hmm. There is a Hannaford nearby.

What I've been using is plain old Cascade plus a pinch of TSP, and this
does work.


Joe Gwinn
How big a "pinch"? I am adding about a teaspoon full - probably too
much!

I think I'm using about 1/4 teaspoon, but how much is needed will depend
on the local water, so experiment a bit.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
Leon Fisk wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:22:42 -0400
Joseph Gwinn wrote:

snip
What I've been using is plain old Cascade plus a pinch of TSP, and this
does work.

Maybe you already found this (shrug), but...

http://www.amazon.com/Cascade-Automatic-Dishwasher-Detergent-Powdered/dp/B000BC19Y8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311967952&sr=8-1

or

http://www.restockit.com/cascade-automatic-dishwasher-detergent-85-oz-(34953pg).html

We have a walk-in/open to the public restaurant supplier in town that
claims to have it in stock. Thought it may give you some ideas to
ponder...

Cascade with phosphate is available, but in large cartons.
restockit.com seemed to be the main internet source. The Amazon stuff
didn't actually say it contained phosphate.

I recall a different carton, which has "with Phosphates" in bold
letters, so I am unsure what these webpages are showing.

I live in the Boston area, and I have to believe that there is a local
restaurant supply house that has the real stuff over the counter.

Joe Gwinn

I am also curious to know.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Gerald Miller" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:22:42 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

What I've been using is plain old Cascade plus a pinch of
TSP, and this
does work.


Joe Gwinn
How big a "pinch"? I am adding about a teaspoon full -
probably too
much!
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks, t hat's a good start point.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
How big a "pinch"? I am adding about a teaspoon full -
probably too
much!

I think I'm using about 1/4 teaspoon, but how much is needed
will depend
on the local water, so experiment a bit.

Joe Gwinn