On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:51:39 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

Apparently, you wouldn't remember anyway.

Apparently, you have **** for brains.



-------

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
Never learned to quote properly eh? Pity.

When you figure it out, get back to me.

That way I dont have to try to puzzle out your posts

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

jim on Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:39:46 -0500
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:

I'd be interested how TMT figures that what gets flush will some
how windup up hill of the water intake.
Actually, I wouldn't.


Pumps would be the answer to your question.

If you have indoor plumbing the chances are good
that the water coming out of the faucet was
pumped from somewhere much lower down

Ah, so the sewer plant is upstream of the water plant?
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

Is that the best you can do is to act like a moron in a conversation? Why do
you bother even posting?

I can't say I wasn't warned... geeeeesh

---------
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
Apparently, you have **** for brains.

-----------------
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:51:39 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:
Apparently, you wouldn't remember anyway.

Classis "Forte Agent" user example again!


Nothing but confusion.

-----------

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
Apparently, you have **** for brains.

That way I dont have to try to puzzle out your posts

Gunner

You pay them good money for a reason.

We can't be right all the time.

-------------------
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ...
I don't think that this one example is "proof" of anything about the EPA.
The proof I'm most interested in is how effective they are, and there's
plenty of that. You can find people, I'm sure, who can discuss their
efficiency. You might even find one who knows enough to talk about it, but
don't count on that happening on Usenet. d8-)

My general take on the EPA is that they have a very big job, with
pathetically meager resources to do it. So they paint a lot of things with a
broad brush, out of necessity, and they're constrained in every direction by
our principles of equal treatment and so on. I don't envy their position. I
do admire many of their results.

--
Ed Huntress

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:

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

On 7/11/2011 7:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Joseph wrote in message
...
In ,
"Ed wrote:

[snip]


look at it this way - would you rather have healthy rivers and
cloudy
drinking glasses or nice clean drinking glasses and dead rivers?
I
choose the former. And, I wash by hand so there has never been an
issue
anyway.

This is a false dichotomy, and in addition fails
back-of-the-envelope
reasonableness calculations.

The false dichotomy is the claim that we can have either clean
rivers
or
clean glasses. Actually, there is no reason not to have both, as
discussed next.

The main use of phosphate chemicals is fertilizer: "About 95% of the
phosphate rock mined is used to produce fertilizers, animal feeds
and
pesticides." [1]

This leaves 5% for everything else, including dishwasher detergents.
Modern dishwashers use a few ounces of detergent per wash, while
farms
use phosphate fertilizer by the ton. The difference is thus orders
of
magnitude.

So even if we stopped washing dishes altogether, nothing much would
change.

Yeah, except when it does. Cumulative phosphate use from washing
clothes,
in
densly populated areas, can be a much higher percentage of the
phosphate
load on rivers. I haven't seen the numbers for a while but I recall
that
it
was a high percentage in the Delaware at one time. There isn't as much
ag
runoff in that river as in many others.

There are a few problems here.

First, we are talking about dishwashing, not clothes washing, which
makes for a big difference in detergent use, at least a factor of ten.

Right. I'm just comparing total househeld use versus the runoff. I didn't
even know there were phosphates in dishwasher detergent until you brought
it
up.


I don't know about others, but I have not been having any problems with
clothes washing detergents. The problem is with dishwashing
detergents.

I don't think I would have noticed except that I had Oakite as a client
while it was happening, and their engineers brought it up in discussion.
But
I noticed as soon as I tried adding some TSP, per their suggestion, to
really dirty loads of clothes.

Yes. A lot depends on the composition of the local water. People with
water softeners seem to have far less trouble.


Second, Delaware is an outlier, being a very small state with a very
large fraction of non-farming households. The Delaware River promptly
flows into the Atlantic Ocean, joining the outflow from the rest of the
Eastern Seaboard. What matters is the aggregate.

Ok. As I said, I'm involved with the Delaware Estuary Project (I wonder
what
the mailman thinks when he delivers my copy of _Delaware Estuary News_
every
month? g) The river has been important to me for most of my life. So
I'm
concerned specifically with the issues involved there.

Is the Delaware Estuary News that heavy?

g It's not the weight. It's the weirdness. Aside from people I've met at
meetings of the group, I've known only one other person who subscribes.
The mailman probably thinks I'm a card-carrying Green Peacer.

You will probably need to subscribe to Chemical Industry News, printed
with petroleum ink (the stuff with the perfect color rendition) on
glossy paper made from virgin-forest wood (I assume that such must
exist) just to redeem yourself.


Actually, I'm
just a fisherman and a boater who's watched the effects of pollution on my
favorite waters for about 58 years, up close and personal. It's gotten a LOT
better.

In New Jersey, I bet the problem was largely due to effluents from the
chemical industry. I lived in NJ in the 1950s, and still remember the
smell of the refineries.


We've had some discussion here about the fact that phosphates are
difficult
to remove in sewerage treatment, and I just followed up last night by
reading up on it, trying to refresh my slight memory of it and to learn
something. We apparently have poor sequestration of phosphates in much of
the Delaware watershed. And, as you say, it's an outlier, with very high
population in the watershed and relatively less agriculture. The lower
Hudson is in a similar situation.

I thought you lived in New Jersey.

I do. I'm between the middle Delaware and the lower Hudson. The mouth of the
Hudson estuary is about fifteen miles from where I'm sitting right now.

Two rivers to mind.


Third, animals (including humans) excrete phosphorus in their
excrement:
"However, where used, detergent phosphates contribute only 5 - 20% of
phosphates in sewage (most phosphate in sewage comes from human bodily
functions and food wastes), and sewage itself is only a minority source
of phosphate to the environment compared to agriculture." [2]

Overall, I don't doubt that.


To summarize, 95% of phosphate goes into agriculture, and thus to
phosphate runoff. Of the remaining 5%, detergents are a fraction of
that 5%. Of detergents, something like 90% was for clothes washing,
and
maybe 10% was for dishwashing. This was before the effort to remove
phosphates from detergents was undertaken, but even then only
(5%)(10%)=
0.5% went into dishwashing detergents. After the removal effort, this
has been reduced to a fraction of 0.5%.

The amelioration efforts in the Delaware watershed have been studied, and
isolated to the degree that was possible. As I stated earlier,
eliminating
phosphates in clothes-washing detergent had a (claimed) measurable effect
on
oxygen levels in the lower Delaware. Consumer education programs about
lawn
and garden fertilizing and runoff did not. Commercial agriculture efforts
and regulations also had a measurable effect.

Are these measurable effects also significant? We can measure such
things to parts per billion, orders of magnitude below anything worth
worrying about.

I don't know. I'm sure you could find out. As I said, I was remarking about
a couple of reports published years ago about eutrification of the lower
Delaware. They were measuring oxygen levels.


So, the focus would have to be on agriculture. The problem is that
crop
plants cannot be convinced that they don't need phosphorus to grow.

Not having any background in this, I can't address the individual issues.
But my understanding is that fertilizing timing is an issue; release
rates
are an issue; plowing practice is an issue; quantities are an issue. All
are
being addressed by one institution or another.

It's better than sitting around and sucking our thumbs, but I don't know
the
numbers.

Really? Given the considerable effort and cost yielding trivial impact,
perhaps the same effort would yield far greater return elsewhere.

Maybe. If you're interested enough, there's plenty of information around.
I'm mostly interested in the marine life in the local estuaries, and the
rivers above them. I don't follow the issues closely. I've only read a
couple of reports about local efforts to keep phosphates out of the
Delaware.


This is the proof that the EPA doesn't know when to stop.

I don't think that this one example is "proof" of anything about the EPA.
The proof I'm most interested in is how effective they are, and there's
plenty of that. You can find people, I'm sure, who can discuss their
efficiency. You might even find one who knows enough to talk about it, but
don't count on that happening on Usenet. d8-)

Spending all that effort and causing all that disruption for a measly
0.5% is a telling example. If the shareholders found out, a company
president doing such a grossly inefficient thing would soon be gone.


My general take on the EPA is that they have a very big job, with
pathetically meager resources to do it. So they paint a lot of things with a
broad brush, out of necessity, and they're constrained in every direction by
our principles of equal treatment and so on. I don't envy their position. I
do admire many of their results.

And this only buttresses my point. If one has too little money, one
does not usually bother with efforts with such an astoundingly low
cost/benefit ratio. There are better ways to use the resources.

Joe Gwinn

"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:

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

On 7/11/2011 7:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Joseph wrote in message
...
In ,
"Ed wrote:

[snip]


look at it this way - would you rather have healthy rivers and
cloudy
drinking glasses or nice clean drinking glasses and dead rivers?
I
choose the former. And, I wash by hand so there has never been
an
issue
anyway.

This is a false dichotomy, and in addition fails
back-of-the-envelope
reasonableness calculations.

The false dichotomy is the claim that we can have either clean
rivers
or
clean glasses. Actually, there is no reason not to have both, as
discussed next.

The main use of phosphate chemicals is fertilizer: "About 95% of
the
phosphate rock mined is used to produce fertilizers, animal feeds
and
pesticides." [1]

This leaves 5% for everything else, including dishwasher
detergents.
Modern dishwashers use a few ounces of detergent per wash, while
farms
use phosphate fertilizer by the ton. The difference is thus
orders
of
magnitude.

So even if we stopped washing dishes altogether, nothing much
would
change.

Yeah, except when it does. Cumulative phosphate use from washing
clothes,
in
densly populated areas, can be a much higher percentage of the
phosphate
load on rivers. I haven't seen the numbers for a while but I recall
that
it
was a high percentage in the Delaware at one time. There isn't as
much
ag
runoff in that river as in many others.

There are a few problems here.

First, we are talking about dishwashing, not clothes washing, which
makes for a big difference in detergent use, at least a factor of
ten.

Right. I'm just comparing total househeld use versus the runoff. I
didn't
even know there were phosphates in dishwasher detergent until you
brought
it
up.


I don't know about others, but I have not been having any problems
with
clothes washing detergents. The problem is with dishwashing
detergents.

I don't think I would have noticed except that I had Oakite as a
client
while it was happening, and their engineers brought it up in
discussion.
But
I noticed as soon as I tried adding some TSP, per their suggestion, to
really dirty loads of clothes.

Yes. A lot depends on the composition of the local water. People with
water softeners seem to have far less trouble.


Second, Delaware is an outlier, being a very small state with a very
large fraction of non-farming households. The Delaware River
promptly
flows into the Atlantic Ocean, joining the outflow from the rest of
the
Eastern Seaboard. What matters is the aggregate.

Ok. As I said, I'm involved with the Delaware Estuary Project (I
wonder
what
the mailman thinks when he delivers my copy of _Delaware Estuary News_
every
month? g) The river has been important to me for most of my life. So
I'm
concerned specifically with the issues involved there.

Is the Delaware Estuary News that heavy?

g It's not the weight. It's the weirdness. Aside from people I've met
at
meetings of the group, I've known only one other person who subscribes.
The mailman probably thinks I'm a card-carrying Green Peacer.

You will probably need to subscribe to Chemical Industry News, printed
with petroleum ink (the stuff with the perfect color rendition) on
glossy paper made from virgin-forest wood (I assume that such must
exist) just to redeem yourself.


Actually, I'm
just a fisherman and a boater who's watched the effects of pollution on
my
favorite waters for about 58 years, up close and personal. It's gotten a
LOT
better.

In New Jersey, I bet the problem was largely due to effluents from the
chemical industry. I lived in NJ in the 1950s, and still remember the
smell of the refineries.


We've had some discussion here about the fact that phosphates are
difficult
to remove in sewerage treatment, and I just followed up last night by
reading up on it, trying to refresh my slight memory of it and to
learn
something. We apparently have poor sequestration of phosphates in much
of
the Delaware watershed. And, as you say, it's an outlier, with very
high
population in the watershed and relatively less agriculture. The lower
Hudson is in a similar situation.

I thought you lived in New Jersey.

I do. I'm between the middle Delaware and the lower Hudson. The mouth of
the
Hudson estuary is about fifteen miles from where I'm sitting right now.

Two rivers to mind.


Third, animals (including humans) excrete phosphorus in their
excrement:
"However, where used, detergent phosphates contribute only 5 - 20%
of
phosphates in sewage (most phosphate in sewage comes from human
bodily
functions and food wastes), and sewage itself is only a minority
source
of phosphate to the environment compared to agriculture." [2]

Overall, I don't doubt that.


To summarize, 95% of phosphate goes into agriculture, and thus to
phosphate runoff. Of the remaining 5%, detergents are a fraction of
that 5%. Of detergents, something like 90% was for clothes washing,
and
maybe 10% was for dishwashing. This was before the effort to remove
phosphates from detergents was undertaken, but even then only
(5%)(10%)=
0.5% went into dishwashing detergents. After the removal effort,
this
has been reduced to a fraction of 0.5%.

The amelioration efforts in the Delaware watershed have been studied,
and
isolated to the degree that was possible. As I stated earlier,
eliminating
phosphates in clothes-washing detergent had a (claimed) measurable
effect
on
oxygen levels in the lower Delaware. Consumer education programs about
lawn
and garden fertilizing and runoff did not. Commercial agriculture
efforts
and regulations also had a measurable effect.

Are these measurable effects also significant? We can measure such
things to parts per billion, orders of magnitude below anything worth
worrying about.

I don't know. I'm sure you could find out. As I said, I was remarking
about
a couple of reports published years ago about eutrification of the lower
Delaware. They were measuring oxygen levels.


So, the focus would have to be on agriculture. The problem is that
crop
plants cannot be convinced that they don't need phosphorus to grow.

Not having any background in this, I can't address the individual
issues.
But my understanding is that fertilizing timing is an issue; release
rates
are an issue; plowing practice is an issue; quantities are an issue.
All
are
being addressed by one institution or another.

It's better than sitting around and sucking our thumbs, but I don't
know
the
numbers.

Really? Given the considerable effort and cost yielding trivial
impact,
perhaps the same effort would yield far greater return elsewhere.

Maybe. If you're interested enough, there's plenty of information around.
I'm mostly interested in the marine life in the local estuaries, and the
rivers above them. I don't follow the issues closely. I've only read a
couple of reports about local efforts to keep phosphates out of the
Delaware.


This is the proof that the EPA doesn't know when to stop.

I don't think that this one example is "proof" of anything about the EPA.
The proof I'm most interested in is how effective they are, and there's
plenty of that. You can find people, I'm sure, who can discuss their
efficiency. You might even find one who knows enough to talk about it,
but
don't count on that happening on Usenet. d8-)

Spending all that effort and causing all that disruption for a measly
0.5% is a telling example. If the shareholders found out, a company
president doing such a grossly inefficient thing would soon be gone.


My general take on the EPA is that they have a very big job, with
pathetically meager resources to do it. So they paint a lot of things
with a
broad brush, out of necessity, and they're constrained in every direction
by
our principles of equal treatment and so on. I don't envy their position.
I
do admire many of their results.

And this only buttresses my point. If one has too little money, one
does not usually bother with efforts with such an astoundingly low
cost/benefit ratio. There are better ways to use the resources.

Joe Gwinn

It may be a matter of the responsibilities that Congress has charged them
with. I'd have to look carefully at that, and at what EPA has done with it,
before I'd be critical.

--
Ed Huntress

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:

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

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

On 7/11/2011 7:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Joseph wrote in message
...
In ,
"Ed wrote:

[snip]

So, the focus would have to be on agriculture. The problem is that
crop
plants cannot be convinced that they don't need phosphorus to grow.

Not having any background in this, I can't address the individual
issues.
But my understanding is that fertilizing timing is an issue; release
rates
are an issue; plowing practice is an issue; quantities are an issue.
All
are
being addressed by one institution or another.

It's better than sitting around and sucking our thumbs, but I don't
know
the
numbers.

Really? Given the considerable effort and cost yielding trivial
impact,
perhaps the same effort would yield far greater return elsewhere.

Maybe. If you're interested enough, there's plenty of information around.
I'm mostly interested in the marine life in the local estuaries, and the
rivers above them. I don't follow the issues closely. I've only read a
couple of reports about local efforts to keep phosphates out of the
Delaware.


This is the proof that the EPA doesn't know when to stop.

I don't think that this one example is "proof" of anything about the EPA.
The proof I'm most interested in is how effective they are, and there's
plenty of that. You can find people, I'm sure, who can discuss their
efficiency. You might even find one who knows enough to talk about it,
but
don't count on that happening on Usenet. d8-)

Spending all that effort and causing all that disruption for a measly
0.5% is a telling example. If the shareholders found out, a company
president doing such a grossly inefficient thing would soon be gone.


My general take on the EPA is that they have a very big job, with
pathetically meager resources to do it. So they paint a lot of things
with a
broad brush, out of necessity, and they're constrained in every direction
by
our principles of equal treatment and so on. I don't envy their position.
I
do admire many of their results.

And this only buttresses my point. If one has too little money, one
does not usually bother with efforts with such an astoundingly low
cost/benefit ratio. There are better ways to use the resources.

Joe Gwinn

It may be a matter of the responsibilities that Congress has charged them
with. I'd have to look carefully at that, and at what EPA has done with it,
before I'd be critical.

Congress almost never gives that level of detail, expecting the EPA (in
this case) to write the relevant rules. And EPA could have adopted some
kind of de minimis rule, and would have been well advised to do so,
because cases like this do their larger agenda no good.

But certainly Congress has ultimate responsibility.

Joe Gwinn


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

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:30:19 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

Is that the best you can do is to act like a moron in a conversation? Why do
you bother even posting?

I can't say I wasn't warned... geeeeesh

Is that the best you can do? Act like a spitoon?

Why do you bother posting?

We cant say we werent warned...gack!



---------
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
Apparently, you have **** for brains.

-----------------
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 21:51:39 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:
Apparently, you wouldn't remember anyway.



--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:32:30 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

Classis "Forte Agent" user example again!

Classic Microsloth buffoon sets example again!

Nothing but buffoonery.


Nothing but confusion.

-----------

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
Apparently, you have **** for brains.

That way I dont have to try to puzzle out your posts

Gunner


--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

"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:

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

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article , "."

wrote:

On 7/11/2011 7:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Joseph wrote in message
...
In ,
"Ed wrote:

[snip]

So, the focus would have to be on agriculture. The problem is
that
crop
plants cannot be convinced that they don't need phosphorus to
grow.

Not having any background in this, I can't address the individual
issues.
But my understanding is that fertilizing timing is an issue;
release
rates
are an issue; plowing practice is an issue; quantities are an
issue.
All
are
being addressed by one institution or another.

It's better than sitting around and sucking our thumbs, but I don't
know
the
numbers.

Really? Given the considerable effort and cost yielding trivial
impact,
perhaps the same effort would yield far greater return elsewhere.

Maybe. If you're interested enough, there's plenty of information
around.
I'm mostly interested in the marine life in the local estuaries, and
the
rivers above them. I don't follow the issues closely. I've only read a
couple of reports about local efforts to keep phosphates out of the
Delaware.


This is the proof that the EPA doesn't know when to stop.

I don't think that this one example is "proof" of anything about the
EPA.
The proof I'm most interested in is how effective they are, and
there's
plenty of that. You can find people, I'm sure, who can discuss their
efficiency. You might even find one who knows enough to talk about it,
but
don't count on that happening on Usenet. d8-)

Spending all that effort and causing all that disruption for a measly
0.5% is a telling example. If the shareholders found out, a company
president doing such a grossly inefficient thing would soon be gone.


My general take on the EPA is that they have a very big job, with
pathetically meager resources to do it. So they paint a lot of things
with a
broad brush, out of necessity, and they're constrained in every
direction
by
our principles of equal treatment and so on. I don't envy their
position.
I
do admire many of their results.

And this only buttresses my point. If one has too little money, one
does not usually bother with efforts with such an astoundingly low
cost/benefit ratio. There are better ways to use the resources.

Joe Gwinn

It may be a matter of the responsibilities that Congress has charged them
with. I'd have to look carefully at that, and at what EPA has done with
it,
before I'd be critical.

Congress almost never gives that level of detail, expecting the EPA (in
this case) to write the relevant rules. And EPA could have adopted some
kind of de minimis rule, and would have been well advised to do so,
because cases like this do their larger agenda no good.

But certainly Congress has ultimate responsibility.

Joe Gwinn


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

Before I address that, I found the studies I had read several years ago. One
reports that the Delaware Estuary has the highest concentration of
phosphorus of any river or estuary in the United States, and one of the
highest in the world. What might be of more interest to you is that the
point-source phosphorus load is 4 times higher than the non-point-source
load. In other words, municipal outflows (treated wastewater) introduce 4
times as much phosphorus as the agricultural and residential use of
fertilizers, plus animal waste.

And this is one of the quotes I remembered, from "Marsh sediments as records
of sedimentation, eutrophication and
metal pollution in the urban Delaware Estuary," 2006:

"Recorded in the freshwater marsh sediment upstream is a dramatic increase
in total phosphorus (TP) starting in 1950 - 1960, and, as in the Delaware
River water, tracks the introduction of P detergent use. Although this might
include increased use of P fertilizers, there is a substantial decrease
after removal of the P detergent source in the mid-1970s."

And this:

"Starting in the second half of the century, there were coordinated studies
and a commission that resulted in stricter point source pollution,
particularly the institution of secondary sewage treatment. These
improvements in pollution and sewage control have expanded in recent
decades. The result is that since approximately 1980, there has been an 86%
reduction in both municipal and industrial chemical oxygen demand.
Phosphorus levels have dropped by a factor of five during this same period,
presumably from reduction in P detergent use, as tertiary treatment has not
been implemented."

So phosphate detergent is indeed a big issue here in the Delaware,
regardless of statistics on fertilizer and non-fertilizer sources in
general.

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.

--
Ed Huntress

Hard to "fight City Hall" isn't it?

Some take longer than others to get with the crowd or learn how to configure
their Farte'

----------

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
Classic Microsloth buffoon sets example again!

Nothing but buffoonery.

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:

"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 , "."

wrote:

On 7/11/2011 7:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Joseph wrote in message
...
In ,
"Ed wrote:

[snip]

So, the focus would have to be on agriculture. The problem is
that
crop
plants cannot be convinced that they don't need phosphorus to
grow.

Not having any background in this, I can't address the individual
issues.
But my understanding is that fertilizing timing is an issue;
release
rates
are an issue; plowing practice is an issue; quantities are an
issue.
All
are
being addressed by one institution or another.

It's better than sitting around and sucking our thumbs, but I don't
know
the
numbers.

Really? Given the considerable effort and cost yielding trivial
impact,
perhaps the same effort would yield far greater return elsewhere.

Maybe. If you're interested enough, there's plenty of information
around.
I'm mostly interested in the marine life in the local estuaries, and
the
rivers above them. I don't follow the issues closely. I've only read a
couple of reports about local efforts to keep phosphates out of the
Delaware.


This is the proof that the EPA doesn't know when to stop.

I don't think that this one example is "proof" of anything about the
EPA.
The proof I'm most interested in is how effective they are, and
there's
plenty of that. You can find people, I'm sure, who can discuss their
efficiency. You might even find one who knows enough to talk about it,
but
don't count on that happening on Usenet. d8-)

Spending all that effort and causing all that disruption for a measly
0.5% is a telling example. If the shareholders found out, a company
president doing such a grossly inefficient thing would soon be gone.


My general take on the EPA is that they have a very big job, with
pathetically meager resources to do it. So they paint a lot of things
with a
broad brush, out of necessity, and they're constrained in every
direction
by
our principles of equal treatment and so on. I don't envy their
position.
I
do admire many of their results.

And this only buttresses my point. If one has too little money, one
does not usually bother with efforts with such an astoundingly low
cost/benefit ratio. There are better ways to use the resources.

Joe Gwinn

It may be a matter of the responsibilities that Congress has charged them
with. I'd have to look carefully at that, and at what EPA has done with
it,
before I'd be critical.

Congress almost never gives that level of detail, expecting the EPA (in
this case) to write the relevant rules. And EPA could have adopted some
kind of de minimis rule, and would have been well advised to do so,
because cases like this do their larger agenda no good.

But certainly Congress has ultimate responsibility.

Joe Gwinn


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

Before I address that, I found the studies I had read several years ago. One
reports that the Delaware Estuary has the highest concentration of
phosphorus of any river or estuary in the United States, and one of the
highest in the world. What might be of more interest to you is that the
point-source phosphorus load is 4 times higher than the non-point-source
load. In other words, municipal outflows (treated wastewater) introduce 4
times as much phosphorus as the agricultural and residential use of
fertilizers, plus animal waste.

And this is one of the quotes I remembered, from "Marsh sediments as records
of sedimentation, eutrophication and
metal pollution in the urban Delaware Estuary," 2006:

"Recorded in the freshwater marsh sediment upstream is a dramatic increase
in total phosphorus (TP) starting in 1950 - 1960, and, as in the Delaware
River water, tracks the introduction of P detergent use. Although this might
include increased use of P fertilizers, there is a substantial decrease
after removal of the P detergent source in the mid-1970s."

And this:

"Starting in the second half of the century, there were coordinated studies
and a commission that resulted in stricter point source pollution,
particularly the institution of secondary sewage treatment. These
improvements in pollution and sewage control have expanded in recent
decades. The result is that since approximately 1980, there has been an 86%
reduction in both municipal and industrial chemical oxygen demand.
Phosphorus levels have dropped by a factor of five during this same period,
presumably from reduction in P detergent use, as tertiary treatment has not
been implemented."

So phosphate detergent is indeed a big issue here in the Delaware,
regardless of statistics on fertilizer and non-fertilizer sources in
general.

This would be for clothes washing detergent, although the cited articles
don't seem to make the distinction. And, Delaware is the outlier.


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.

Joe Gwinn

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Josepi" on Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:40:10 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Bull****!

They use less, if you like dirty clothes. Too many people have experienced
them and the trend is to go back to normalcy. Haven't you noticed how the
three and four times the price front loads are down to the same prices now?
The same thing happened in the 50-60s with front loads. This isn't the first
time the public has been conned by slick sales people, only to return to the
old way they came from with thinner wallets.

Tain't just slick sales people, it is Energy Star ratings. Seems
that the top loaders "just use too much water and electricity", so to
get their usage down. the manufacturers have gone to front loaders.
All things combined, they do not get clothes clean.
Consumer Reports has a recent article about this, that they have
been unable to recommend an top loader model, due to this failure to
get clothes clean. Which is a result of the EPA/et al mandate to
lower "energy usage".
It doesn't help if I have to wash clothes twice to get them half
clean.

Fortunately, I 'm a career bachelor. If they don't stand up by
themselves, or aren't a hazard to have in contact with the skin, "good
enough".
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

My front load tilt drum washer works very well, no problems getting
clothes clean. The high speed spin cycle sounds like the machine is
trying to go into orbit, but it gets the laundry quite dry before the
dryer and saves more energy.

"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:

"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 , "."

wrote:

On 7/11/2011 7:49 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Joseph wrote in message
...
In ,
"Ed wrote:

[snip]

So, the focus would have to be on agriculture. The problem is
that
crop
plants cannot be convinced that they don't need phosphorus to
grow.

Not having any background in this, I can't address the
individual
issues.
But my understanding is that fertilizing timing is an issue;
release
rates
are an issue; plowing practice is an issue; quantities are an
issue.
All
are
being addressed by one institution or another.

It's better than sitting around and sucking our thumbs, but I
don't
know
the
numbers.

Really? Given the considerable effort and cost yielding trivial
impact,
perhaps the same effort would yield far greater return elsewhere.

Maybe. If you're interested enough, there's plenty of information
around.
I'm mostly interested in the marine life in the local estuaries,
and
the
rivers above them. I don't follow the issues closely. I've only
read a
couple of reports about local efforts to keep phosphates out of the
Delaware.


This is the proof that the EPA doesn't know when to stop.

I don't think that this one example is "proof" of anything about
the
EPA.
The proof I'm most interested in is how effective they are, and
there's
plenty of that. You can find people, I'm sure, who can discuss
their
efficiency. You might even find one who knows enough to talk about
it,
but
don't count on that happening on Usenet. d8-)

Spending all that effort and causing all that disruption for a
measly
0.5% is a telling example. If the shareholders found out, a company
president doing such a grossly inefficient thing would soon be gone.


My general take on the EPA is that they have a very big job, with
pathetically meager resources to do it. So they paint a lot of
things
with a
broad brush, out of necessity, and they're constrained in every
direction
by
our principles of equal treatment and so on. I don't envy their
position.
I
do admire many of their results.

And this only buttresses my point. If one has too little money, one
does not usually bother with efforts with such an astoundingly low
cost/benefit ratio. There are better ways to use the resources.

Joe Gwinn

It may be a matter of the responsibilities that Congress has charged
them
with. I'd have to look carefully at that, and at what EPA has done
with
it,
before I'd be critical.

Congress almost never gives that level of detail, expecting the EPA (in
this case) to write the relevant rules. And EPA could have adopted
some
kind of de minimis rule, and would have been well advised to do so,
because cases like this do their larger agenda no good.

But certainly Congress has ultimate responsibility.

Joe Gwinn


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

Before I address that, I found the studies I had read several years ago.
One
reports that the Delaware Estuary has the highest concentration of
phosphorus of any river or estuary in the United States, and one of the
highest in the world. What might be of more interest to you is that the
point-source phosphorus load is 4 times higher than the non-point-source
load. In other words, municipal outflows (treated wastewater) introduce 4
times as much phosphorus as the agricultural and residential use of
fertilizers, plus animal waste.

And this is one of the quotes I remembered, from "Marsh sediments as
records
of sedimentation, eutrophication and
metal pollution in the urban Delaware Estuary," 2006:

"Recorded in the freshwater marsh sediment upstream is a dramatic
increase
in total phosphorus (TP) starting in 1950 - 1960, and, as in the Delaware
River water, tracks the introduction of P detergent use. Although this
might
include increased use of P fertilizers, there is a substantial decrease
after removal of the P detergent source in the mid-1970s."

And this:

"Starting in the second half of the century, there were coordinated
studies
and a commission that resulted in stricter point source pollution,
particularly the institution of secondary sewage treatment. These
improvements in pollution and sewage control have expanded in recent
decades. The result is that since approximately 1980, there has been an
86%
reduction in both municipal and industrial chemical oxygen demand.
Phosphorus levels have dropped by a factor of five during this same
period,
presumably from reduction in P detergent use, as tertiary treatment has
not
been implemented."

So phosphate detergent is indeed a big issue here in the Delaware,
regardless of statistics on fertilizer and non-fertilizer sources in
general.

This would be for clothes washing detergent, although the cited articles
don't seem to make the distinction.

Well, they COULDN'T make a distinction then, by testing the river itself.
Washington State has measured specific phosphorus loads before and after
phosphates were removed from dishwasher detergent, and it appears to be on
the order of 10% to 12% of the total detergent load.

Or it was, back then. Now, it's nearer to 100% of what's left.

And, Delaware is the outlier.

Yes, which I have repeated several times. Although I don't know if it's
actually an "outlier." More likely, is just an extreme, but just the end of
a continuous range of phosphorus levels.



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.

--
Ed Huntress

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

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Over the last year or so, my Bosch dishwasher (installed in 1999 or so)
started to smell skunky, although it still seemed to clean OK if not as
well as when new. This slowly worsened, and I started haunting the
appliance repair sites.

As someone that cleans metal really clean from time to time for evil 2nd Amendment
decorative purposes, I know about TSP not being TSP. TSP is an awesome cleaner/degreaser.

Government is working hard to make everything you use crap. I *wish* I had some original
tapmagic, that stuff almost make the tap screw itself into the hole on it's own.

Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"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.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Over the last year or so, my Bosch dishwasher (installed in 1999 or so)
started to smell skunky, although it still seemed to clean OK if not as
well as when new. This slowly worsened, and I started haunting the
appliance repair sites.

As someone that cleans metal really clean from time to time for evil 2nd
Amendment
decorative purposes, I know about TSP not being TSP. TSP is an awesome
cleaner/degreaser.

Government is working hard to make everything you use crap. I *wish* I
had some original
tapmagic, that stuff almost make the tap screw itself into the hole on
it's own.

I have half a can, sealed with a glob of silicone rubber and saved for
emergencies. I keep it next to my half-bottle of carbon tet, which is even
better with small taps. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Wes

--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 09:21:36 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:

Hard to "fight City Hall" isn't it?

Not at all.

Some take longer than others to get with the crowd or learn how to configure
their Farte'


And some never find the angles on configuring MicroSloth products.


----------

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
Classic Microsloth buffoon sets example again!

Nothing but buffoonery.

--
Maxim 12: A soft answer turneth away wrath.
Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head.

ROFL....well done!


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
And some never find the angles on configuring MicroSloth products.


On Sat, 16 Jul 2011 09:21:36 -0400, "Josepi"
wrote:
Some take longer than others to get with the crowd or learn how to configure
their Farte'

Hard to "fight City Hall" isn't it?

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.

"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.

--
Ed Huntress

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

In article ,
says...

"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.

This is how we got the mess we have with automobile emissions laws.
However Congress finally fixed that--after some year California can no
longer have different emission standards from the Federal government,
but I don't think that year has arrived yet.

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.

You're right that the Federal EPA wasn't involved, at least not
directly--they may have given some "aid and comfort". I'd like to see
Congress enact legislation that forbids the ban.

Its main effect is that it's taking us back to the Middle Ages when
people had to roll their own cleaning agents.

Somebody needs to open-source a formula for an effective phosphate-based
dishwasher detergent. I've looked for one and the only ones I can find
are phosphate-free Greenie crap.

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

"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.

This is how we got the mess we have with automobile emissions laws.
However Congress finally fixed that--after some year California can no
longer have different emission standards from the Federal government,
but I don't think that year has arrived yet.

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.

You're right that the Federal EPA wasn't involved, at least not
directly--they may have given some "aid and comfort". I'd like to see
Congress enact legislation that forbids the ban.

Its main effect is that it's taking us back to the Middle Ages when
people had to roll their own cleaning agents.

Somebody needs to open-source a formula for an effective phosphate-based
dishwasher detergent. I've looked for one and the only ones I can find
are phosphate-free Greenie crap.

This is not my turf -- nothing to do with chemistry is my turf -- but, as
I've mentioned, I have had some discussions about TSP with Oakite engineers,
when they were my client.

The takeaway was that TSP neatly solves a lot of little problems, but it's
not as good a detergent as some of the other options available today.
Reading about what they're doing in Europe, it appears that they have some
better formulations.

They are tricky and sometimes are more expensive. Now the question is
whether the externalized costs of using TSP in dishwasher detergent are less
than the cost of the new formulations.

That is, if all environmental issues are to be taken as a straight
dollars-and-cents proposition. "Externalized costs" is a fuzzy concept
because the costs in quality of life are always arguable.

On the whole, I've thrown my hat in with environmental protection. I don't
doubt that they've gone overboard in some areas, and I can see why they may
have had to in some of those instances. But 10% of the phosphate load from
detergents was never trivial, if a particular body of water is still
suffering oxygen depletion or eutrification. The lower Delaware, which has
always been one of my main interests in water-quality issues, had a 0%
oxygen level around Philadelphia in 1960. That was a dead river. It's come
back to life. I'll leave the details for those who want to fight it out, but
I like living rivers much more than dead ones. I saw the dead river when I
was a kid, starting in 1953. It's an ugly, depressing, and costly sight.
I'll err on the side of protection and I'm willing to pay the small price
for it. Water spots on my drinking glasses are not equateable to millions of
dead fish.

--
Ed Huntress

"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.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
says...

"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.

Who washes the dishes in your house and do they use a dishwasher?

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

"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.

Who washes the dishes in your house and do they use a dishwasher?

Me. Yes. Always.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Who washes the dishes in your house and do they use a dishwasher?

Me. Yes. Always.


Me, no, never.

(so alike, and yet so different!)
--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Who washes the dishes in your house and do they use a dishwasher?

Me. Yes. Always.


Me, no, never.

(so alike, and yet so different!)

Maybe I cook more elaborate meals. g My wife works late, I work at home,
and I like to cook. But gawd, do I make a mess in the kitchen.

Right now we have so damned much squash and so many tomatoes from the garden
that I'm running out of recipes. Not enough bluefish, though.

--
Ed Huntress

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Who washes the dishes in your house and do they use a dishwasher?
Me. Yes. Always.

Me, no, never.

(so alike, and yet so different!)

Maybe I cook more elaborate meals. g My wife works late, I work at home,
and I like to cook. But gawd, do I make a mess in the kitchen.

Right now we have so damned much squash and so many tomatoes from the garden
that I'm running out of recipes. Not enough bluefish, though.


Tomatoes and bluefish, we like.

Squash - we different!

I just don't make that big of a mess in the kitchen.
(Well, actually I do, but I clean up as I go)


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
m...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Who washes the dishes in your house and do they use a dishwasher?
Me. Yes. Always.

Me, no, never.

(so alike, and yet so different!)

Maybe I cook more elaborate meals. g My wife works late, I work at
home, and I like to cook. But gawd, do I make a mess in the kitchen.

Right now we have so damned much squash and so many tomatoes from the
garden that I'm running out of recipes. Not enough bluefish, though.


Tomatoes and bluefish, we like.

Squash - we different!

I've been grilling it outside, with olive oil and celantro. Very good, but
you can only go that well so many times.

--
Ed Huntress


I just don't make that big of a mess in the kitchen.
(Well, actually I do, but I clean up as I go)


--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

In article ,
says...

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

"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.

Who washes the dishes in your house and do they use a dishwasher?

Me. Yes. Always.

And you're not getting white crud all over everything?

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

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

"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.

Who washes the dishes in your house and do they use a dishwasher?

Me. Yes. Always.

And you're not getting white crud all over everything?


Nope. I'm using Finish powder, "phosphate-free."

I have no trouble with cleaning. My interest perked up when Joe mentioned
the stink. I have had some stink, but not all the time.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
says...

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

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

"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.

Who washes the dishes in your house and do they use a dishwasher?

Me. Yes. Always.

And you're not getting white crud all over everything?


Nope. I'm using Finish powder, "phosphate-free."

I have no trouble with cleaning. My interest perked up when Joe mentioned
the stink. I have had some stink, but not all the time.

I'll have to try Finish next time--Cascade just makes a mess. Didn't
used to before the phosphates were removed.

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

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

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

says...

"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.

Who washes the dishes in your house and do they use a dishwasher?

Me. Yes. Always.

And you're not getting white crud all over everything?


Nope. I'm using Finish powder, "phosphate-free."

I have no trouble with cleaning. My interest perked up when Joe
mentioned
the stink. I have had some stink, but not all the time.

I'll have to try Finish next time--Cascade just makes a mess. Didn't
used to before the phosphates were removed.

One issue that's come up recently is that most of us use too much. I think
someone mentioned it in this thread.

I reduced the amount to just over half of what the two little cups will
take. It cleans just as well, and I've had no spots since I did that.

Now I don't have to be embarrassed when I have the girls in for a cocktail.
d8-) It's worth a try.

--
Ed Huntress

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).

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?

Joe Gwinn

"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.

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



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.

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.

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.

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.

--
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:

"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.


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.


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.


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?


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.

Joe Gwinn