Comments about ‘Readers' forum: Phosphorus bill’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Feb. 12 2011 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
embarrassed Utahn!
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

John Charity Spring
Alloway, NJ

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?

embarrassed Utahn!
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Two thumbs up for this letter.

John C. C.
Payson, UT

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 liberals.

embarrassed Utahn!
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

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!

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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 Dustin
Nibley

===============

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 levels.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

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 bulbs.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Why are repubs arguing over the phosphate ban?

Don't we have better things to argue about than dish soap?

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Real Maverick: This isnt merely an isolated, trivial argument about dishwasher detergent. Its a debate about freedom. When regulation grows, freedom shrinks.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments