Chasing false premises

Tony Shelton

BS Detector, Esquire
How many millions are spent chasing sources of pollution that science proves aren't even a danger?

This paper is the result of over 30 years of continual testing regarding surfactants:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10739149.2013.803777

This paper brings together over 250 published and unpublished studies on the environmental properties, fate, and toxicity of the four major, high-volume surfactant classes and relevant feedstocks. The surfactants and feedstocks covered include alcohol sulfate or alcohol sulfate (AS), alcohol ethoxysulfate (AES), linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS), alcohol ethoxylate (AE), and long-chain alcohol (LCOH). These chemicals are used in a wide range of personal care and cleaning products. To date, this is the most comprehensive report on these substance's chemical structures, use, and volume information, physical/chemical properties, environmental fate properties such as biodegradation and sorption, monitoring studies through sewers, wastewater treatment plants and eventual release to the environment, aquatic and sediment toxicity, and bioaccumulation information. These data are used to illustrate the process for conducting both prospective and retrospective risk assessments for large-volume chemicals and categories of chemicals with wide dispersive use. Prospective risk assessments of AS, AES, AE, LAS, and LCOH demonstrate that these substances, although used in very high volume and widely released to the aquatic environment, have no adverse impact on the aquatic or sediment environments at current levels of use. The retrospective risk assessments of these same substances have clearly demonstrated that the conclusions of the prospective risk assessments are valid and confirm that these substances do not pose a risk to the aquatic or sediment environments.


Some in our own industry have jumped on the bandwagon of demonizing the very eco friendly products we use. See - "detergents" (first page) http://pwna.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/BMP-Cosmetic-Cleaning.pdf

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


It is our responsibility as an industry to keep up with the latest scientific discoveries. Especially when those discoveries rebut age old myths.

It always struck me as odd to see environmental cleanup crews cleaning ducks with dishwashing detergent after an oil spill, while at the same time banning even traces of surfactants from going into the storm drain (or sewer in some cases)

It also struck me as odd for some in our industry to argue against allowing sodium hydroxide into sewers claiming that "one drop" would damage the sewer when highly concentrated sodium hydroxide is sold nationwide as drain cleaner.

It's time to stop this ignorance and promote common sense rather than just going along with whatever "fear of the day" is on the environmentalists agenda.

A little bit of surfactant going in the drain as the side effect of regular cleaning beats leaving mother nature to wash oils, debris, trash and other garbage down the drains to clog up the MS4.

We are cleaners. There are tradeoffs in keeping our public environment clean. Let's all work together to show that those tradeoffs are worth it and we are a necessary industry for health and safety and not "c@smetic cleaners".
 
How many millions are spent chasing sources of pollution that science proves aren't even a danger?

This paper is the result of over 30 years of continual testing regarding surfactants:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10739149.2013.803777

This paper brings together over 250 published and unpublished studies on the environmental properties, fate, and toxicity of the four major, high-volume surfactant classes and relevant feedstocks. The surfactants and feedstocks covered include alcohol sulfate or alcohol sulfate (AS), alcohol ethoxysulfate (AES), linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS), alcohol ethoxylate (AE), and long-chain alcohol (LCOH). These chemicals are used in a wide range of personal care and cleaning products. To date, this is the most comprehensive report on these substance's chemical structures, use, and volume information, physical/chemical properties, environmental fate properties such as biodegradation and sorption, monitoring studies through sewers, wastewater treatment plants and eventual release to the environment, aquatic and sediment toxicity, and bioaccumulation information. These data are used to illustrate the process for conducting both prospective and retrospective risk assessments for large-volume chemicals and categories of chemicals with wide dispersive use. Prospective risk assessments of AS, AES, AE, LAS, and LCOH demonstrate that these substances, although used in very high volume and widely released to the aquatic environment, have no adverse impact on the aquatic or sediment environments at current levels of use. The retrospective risk assessments of these same substances have clearly demonstrated that the conclusions of the prospective risk assessments are valid and confirm that these substances do not pose a risk to the aquatic or sediment environments.


Some in our own industry have jumped on the bandwagon of demonizing the very eco friendly products we use. See - "detergents" (first page) http://pwna.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/BMP-Cosmetic-Cleaning.pdf

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


It is our responsibility as an industry to keep up with the latest scientific discoveries. Especially when those discoveries rebut age old myths.

It always struck me as odd to see environmental cleanup crews cleaning ducks with dishwashing detergent after an oil spill, while at the same time banning even traces of surfactants from going into the storm drain (or sewer in some cases)

It also struck me as odd for some in our industry to argue against allowing sodium hydroxide into sewers claiming that "one drop" would damage the sewer when highly concentrated sodium hydroxide is sold nationwide as drain cleaner.

It's time to stop this ignorance and promote common sense rather than just going along with whatever "fear of the day" is on the environmentalists agenda.

A little bit of surfactant going in the drain as the side effect of regular cleaning beats leaving mother nature to wash oils, debris, trash and other garbage down the drains to clog up the MS4.

We are cleaners. There are tradeoffs in keeping our public environment clean. Let's all work together to show that those tradeoffs are worth it and we are a necessary industry for health and safety and not "c@smetic cleaners".

Great post, good info... thanks Tony.
 
Spot On As Usual Tony!

The same misinformation is being spread about "Bleach". It's "Toxic".... yet if you're watching the news...people are washing their hands in it....all over the world.

Ever see the pictures from an oil spill? They're washing the wildlife in what???.....A De-greaser! Right On The Beach!
 
Last edited:
Great Post Tony

Lets not forget here in the east and mid west where snow is prevalent a few months a year all the salt (Calcium Chloride) the local & state DOT and Private contractors spread all over the roadways and sidewalks in parking lots, etc that eventually gets washed into the storm drains

Thanks for being at the forefront!
 
Just sickens my stomach every time I pull up their crap and there sit's the UAMCC Logo like we are in support of anything they do. We have asked nicely several times for it to be removed. Guess we need to sop being nice.
 
Oh great post tony. Thank you for your tireless efforts. You are truly, slowly but surely, changing our industry for the better, and for that we all you a debt of gratitude.
 
The information is worthless unless we retain it and use it locally. Like I said in the CWA class at the Vegas event, our rules are made up at the local level. We will make little progress until phrases like "Powerwashers are a Solution to pollution" become phrases regulators are familiar with. This only happens with local participation in your own local area. We don't have the funds to promote this at a national level yet and the "cosmetic cleaning" crowd has a 20+ year head start on us.

Maybe more droughts like the one in California will wake people up. We will have to locally explain that we are cleaners and that UAMCC sticker means something. If they want to shut down "cosmetic" cleaners all they have to do is look for PWNA stickers. It says so on their website.
 
Great info. Tony. I know there's little funds right now to get this message out nationally, but have we compiled any facts or literature to support the "Powerwashers are a Solution to pollution" movement? Maybe something we can each link on our websites or distribute to those in out markets who might have concerns? This is something I would love to share in my area and do my part to spread the word.
 
Maybe have brochures made and we can give them out at the local level.
 
I will have to take the presentation and put it in a brochure format.

This won't happen till after the new year.

I've got to spend the next month trying to see if I can help Shelly win an election, then I've got to get rolling on setting up new accounts for 2015.


The presentation is here: (it's not very good, I was just starting out with it back then)

 
Thanks for what you are doing for our industry Tony!
 
Back
Top