[JerseyHighlander]

From someone I know who is working on a PhD in biology in the fauna of the Cheaspeake Bay waters, I got to say that non point source phosphate pollution in that watershed is now the number one pollutant in the region, right behind it is the point source phosphate from agriculture...

Between suburban lawn fertilizer and phosphates from the prior concoction of dishwater detergent, it was killing huge swathes of the Cheasapeake Bay.

Took scientists over 20 years of research to come to widely tested and accepted conclusions about phosphate and nitrogen levels in the Bay.

To the point, if you like to eat seafood caught off American shores, the easiest way for average Americans to maintain water quality in the tributaries and nurseries for seafood is to avoid phosphates in the kitchen and the yard.

I’ve switched over to colored glass in the kitchen, if you can’t see the spots it doesn’t affect your enjoyment of food and beverage.

Regards,

[TalonDJ]

I’ve switched over to colored glass in the kitchen, if you can’t see the spots it doesn’t affect your enjoyment of food and beverage.

I will do my part by not fertilizing my lawn. Keep your damn regulations out of my dishwasher.

[kidd]

While you correctly note that non-point sources are the number one source of phosphate in the Bay, I think you have it backwards regarding which source that dishwasher detergent falls into.

Point sources include those sources that have known and permitted phosphate discharges. These include industrial sources and waste water treatment plants. Urban area water is generally sourced to water treatment plants, thus nearly all dishwasher phosphates would be a point source (not a non-point source).

Non-point sources are from runoff. Non-point sources include agriculture, erosion, wildlife poo, etc.

(see http://www.water-research.net/phosphate.htm)

[Individual Rights in NJ]

non point source phosphate pollution in that watershed is now the number one pollutant in the region, right behind it is the point source phosphate from agriculture...

Okay, I believe the facts there, but those are relative by saying "the number 1, number 2". Well the no.1 may not be a problem at all just like my number 1 skin issue may be slight cracking by my finger nails, but thats not a huge issue nor really a problem worth worrying about!

What I defiantly do not buy is the the assertion later:

it was killing huge swathes of the Chesapeake Bay.

I don't believe that for a second "huge swathes." Yeah, something tells me we would have noticed that. And if it was, isn't it already "killed?" Killing means you can't come back to life, you're dead.

This is baloney of the first degree here.

Finally, ponder this... if bedbugs can beat our stuff and survive, and other pests, why can't sea life? ARE THEY SUPER DUPER SPECIAL?

Seems to be the life that can't beat whatever we are putting in there will go, and the resilient and better species will adapt and survive... oh the wonder!

You are from Jersey, you should know better than to be swayed by the "facts" of a doctoral student who decided to focus on environmental assessment. NO AGENDA THERE! /sarc

That is my true skeptic showing here and advanced apologies if your Ph.D friend is one of the rare "true conservatives" who would engage in that level "research" for an environmental cause/field (it could be possible)