Why everything is dirtier | Hacker News Reader

Why everything is dirtier

mises.org

31 pointsgasull15 comments

Since I work for a producer of STPP (the phosphate ingredient in detergents, usually not TSP) I can agree on the whole with this article. Governments around the world are banning phosphates from domestic detergents to prevent water eutrophication (algal blooms etc.). However, domestic applications account for no more than 2% of the problem, the remaining 98% come from human waste (crap) and agriculture (both phosphate fertilizer and animal waste).

It is therefore rather "symbolic politics" with politicians trying to get a "greener image" on this issue, rather than actually fixing the environment.

What's more, sewage treatment plants could also reclaim phosphate from wastewater and collect it to be recycled, this would close the cycle.

But this probably won't happen, right now governments are looking at banning STPP from automatic dishwasher detergents as well, and industrial and institutional cleaners are next. So you can expect a lot dirtier dishes soon as well.

For more information you can check out http://www.ceep-phosphates.org/ which is the European lobby for phosphate producers. They have some good background information on this.

While it may be correct (I don't know) to say that the current problem is 2% detergents, the numbers were different 40 years ago when phosphate started getting banned, one source saying 50-70% of the problem being detergents [1]. One could say, on a percentage basis, it was successful.

[1] http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs...

> It is therefore rather "symbolic politics" with politicians trying to get a "greener image" on this issue, rather than actually fixing the environment.

I'd be surprised if this is actually the case. I haven't looked up the actual regulations/laws that control TSP, but I would guess that it's done through the EPA as executive regulations, rather than specific provisions in law. In that case, it seems unlikely to me that the political pressure on the President would significantly affect the EPA's findings on all but the most economically significant pollutants.

STPP is already being restricted in automatic dishwasher detergents as well now. Here is what Consumer Reports had to say:

"The good news is that while the low-phosphate products we tested for our last dishwasher-detergent report tended to perform worst overall, several low-phosphate products from different brands were very good this time around." (1)

[1] http://news.consumerreports.org/home/2010/07/phosphate-ban-d...

An anoying article. The author rants at length about how evul the gubmint is for banning clean shirts, calls "trisodium phosphate" "a natural element" which cannot be correct chemically correct, and falls for the "natural must be safe" falacy. He totally fails to even mention the reasoning that led, rightly or not, to this chemical compound being no longer used, never mind adding up pros and cons of it.

The first para at wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisodium_phosphate ) is more informative, which is a damning lack of reasearch.

While the article is so long and so wrong in the beginning that I can't blame you for not reading the whole thing, but he does mention the reason

The idea was to help the fish in their oxygen competition with algae

Oh look, it's there near the end in one dismissive sentence, and comes along with two wrong "facts":

1) the household contribution to algae creation is negligible - That would be the good result of this policy limiting the use of harmfull chemical, and not a reason to remove it.

2) the scientific evidence on the issue of algae's effect on fish runs in all directions Piles of dead fish are not a subtle effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

and the whole thing is filled with this bizarre idea that the sole purpose of governement regulation is to hurt people. I'm sure that there are lots of good, bad and trival drivers of policy, but pure sadism is unlikely to be among them. If anyone wants to understand what's actually going on (ecologically or politically) this article has absolutely nothing to offer.

Sorry, I thought this was Hacker News, not Libertarian Rants.

It's not a computer that's attempting to be hacked, it's you & I.

"Libertarian" think-tanks, funded by wealthy corporations and individuals, attempt to persuade people to act against their own best interests through clever arguments and lies. Is that not hacking?

When you add the tablespoon of TSP be sure to handle it carefully:

http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics1178.htm

Laundry detergent used to contain "STPP" TSP is not common https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Sodium_tripol...

I have a grandma in Jamaica that I spent a summer with. Since she handwashed all our clothes she got my white shirts really white. Like so white once I got back to the US everything else looked yellow. I was never able to find what she used at home once I came back to the US so I thought it was this, TSP. Turns out that adding a little bit of blue dye to whites makes them extra bright. And I do remember the blue box next to the wash.

So your clothes aren't dirtier, they are stained. They naturally stain since white isn't a natural color (just ask Apple).

Simples - just add some nice urea salts to your was and, hey presto, UV flourescence is your friend..

(BTW - even a 2% reduction in phosphates going into water is a Good Thing(TM) )

I'm not sure I buy the "government banned this to promote consumerism" argument, but I'm definitely interested in trying it out as an experiment.

I find this an interesting angle of attack.

I firmly believe that law and regulation are the only thing protecting the poor and the weak (and if you're reading this, that includes you) from the avarice of the rich and powerful. But I also thought, "Hmmm, why yes, I would like my whites whiter." So well done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com