Published: Saturday, Feb. 12 2011 12:00 a.m. MST
And it's not just the fishing holes. The viability of every fresh water stream,
lake and pond to sustain life is at stake here. Self-importance at the expense
of others, seems to be a value instilled in many many Utahns like Sandstrom.
Dustin has missed the mark here. Sandstrom has proposed a phosphorus bill
because he is fed up with environmental terrorism.Too many states
have given in to left-wing extremists who demanded that phosphorus be removed
from dishwashing detergent. This has led to an epidemic of dirty dishes, which
in turn is causing greater levels of illness in American families.It
should be clear to everyone that when dishwashers are prevented from cleaning
properly, food remains on the dishes. This breeds bacteria, which in turn breeds
sickness among families.This problem is particularly silly in Utah,
where the water ends up in the Great Salt Lake. Is protecting brine shrimp from
an unestablished danger really worth harming the health of Utah's families?
In Utah, people who voice concern over environmental degradation are lambasted
as "extremists, nazis, kooks, tree-huggers, etc...Steven Sandstrom wants to
show all of us who care about the future environment who is boss. Good choice
of representation, hope all your kids understand.
Two thumbs up for this letter.
I don't agree with this bill either, but I understand it. Dingy clothes
surround us but we can ignore the environment because its protectors tend to be
Ignorance is bliss for people like John C.C. and Counter Intelligence. Why
don't you do a bit of research, it isn't just about your dingy clothes and
dishes. Phosphate in our waterways has real consequences, but that would
require you study some science.
I was puzzled about this bill from the beginning in that it seemed to have no
constituency. Then the Eagle Forum (of all people) spoke in favor of it. I
thought they might have favored it too removed smut and uncleanness from our
State. I suppose I should have suspected all along that there was a
partisan motive here all along...to show those liberals who is really in charge
in this State. How pathetic!
It's funny, Repubs cannot refute letters like these. All they can do is finger
point and insult. Repubs, here's a tip, REFUTE THE POINTS MADE IN
THE LETTER WITH FACTS!It's YOUR job to refute. It's YOUR job to
provide counter arguments and persuade others to see from your point of view.
Up until now, now solutions have been suggested. No refutes. No
facts. Just insults. Pathetic.
I'd appreciate it if someone could help me understand the impetus for Rep.
Stephen Sandstrom's phosphorus bill. As a licensed engineer and a city
councilman, I just can't see how this benefits anyone other than the engineers
that will be designing the upgrades to treatment plants and the contractors that
build them.Shaun DustinNibley=============== Shaun, Great letter, you obviously have the where-with-all
to know what you're talking about, -- but I think you answered it for
yourself.Rep. Stephen Sandstrom is no where near smart enough to
come up with an idea such as this -- so obviously someone else had to implant it
into his head for him. I would guess probably even wrote it all up for him
too.Now who on earth stands to gain $$$ from such a proposal???Like I said - you've answered it yourself.And thanks how the
Gaddiantons of business take control or "manage" our Government at all
Counter Intel: "phosphate... occurs naturally... nothing dangerous about
it and in proper use it is actually good... it was in fertilizer"Noting that something is natural does not preclude it from also being a
pollutant. It all depends on context and concentration. An American Beauty
rose bush in an English teagarden is a treasured flower. The same rose bush in
a corn field is a weed. A little NOx applied to your yard is fertilizer; coming
out of thousands of car exhaust pipes it is smog. Phosphate is a pollutant
precisely BECAUSE it is a fertilizer (as you point out). Phosphorous is
generally the limiting nutrient in aquatic systems, and when it is added to
lakes and streams it spawns algal blooms and causes eutrophication.
Phosphate-triggered eutrophication is what caused the "death" of Lake
Erie. Phoshate has been banned from detergents in Great Lakes states since the
1970s. Erie has recovered since then.You are correct in saying,
"in proper use it is actually good." The key is PROPER use.
Widespread use in households that drain into waterways is not proper use.JC Spring is a Poe, right? Doesn't merit response.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy everyone in the State that owns a dishwasher
a brush to clean their dishes?? Another benefit of this approach would be that
the contract for the brushes could be awarded to the highest bidder and the
money go into the campaign fund of the GOP.
I disagree with this letter. I think that the phosphate ban is environmental
overreach, and I find it very annoying. If it's okay for restaurants to still
use phosphates to get their dishes clean, then why is it so terrible for us
ordinary folks to do the same thing? Also, in an attempt to compensate for the
removal of phosphates, people are rightly adding all kinds of other cleaning
agents to their dishwashers, and this might unintentionally have a more
far-reaching effect than any phosphate issue.I hope Sandstrom's bill
(to eliminate the phosphate ban) comes up again and is successful this time. I
think the phosphate concern is overblown, and this phosphate ban smacks of the
same government-know-it-all arrogance as the upcoming ban on incandescent light
Why are repubs arguing over the phosphate ban? Don't we have better
things to argue about than dish soap?
Re: Real Maverick: This isnt merely an isolated, trivial argument about
dishwasher detergent. Its a debate about freedom. When regulation grows,
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments