Detergent packs are kinda wishy-washy: Dishwashers Explained has been added as a related post - related requested by jimnms.

I like the Technology Connections video better.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Detergent-packs-are-kinda-wishy-washy-Dishwashers-Explained

Your video, Detergent packs are kinda wishy-washy: Dishwashers Explained, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Hydroxychloroquine, just like the "ingesting detergent" thing, I think we should just let these two play out.

Get that man some dish detergent.

you can solve that floating problem by applying a bit of detergent.

Sodium lauryl sulfate is there to make things foamy, but also:

"Like all detergent surfactants, sodium lauryl sulfate removes oils from the skin, and can cause skin and eye irritation. It has been shown to irritate the skin of the face, with prolonged and constant exposure (more than an hour) in young adults. SDS may worsen skin problems in individuals with chronic skin hypersensitivity, with some people being affected more than others."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_dodecyl_sulfate#Toxicology

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

@ChaosEngine

Comparing your joke to Jim Jeffries joke is a bit unfair, I think. @Chairman_woo gave an excellent analysis of why Jeffries's joke was masterfully crafted, with multiple levels of irony that all orchestrate beatifully together to subvert the listeners' expectations--even if you disagree with the subject matter of the joke.

Your joke, on the other hand, has none of that. It belongs in the same category as Dave Tosh's joke to the female heckler in the audience:

“Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?”

Tosh said that in anger and frustration. I see yours and newtboy's comments coming from the same place. Both are jokes filled with malice and lacking cleverness, and therefore I find them to be wholly unfunny and in fact disturbing. Of course, YMMV.

Now, as far as the rest of your post goes, I think you might have missed the point of my previous post: your anger is misguided because the gentleman who made the comment that outraged you said what he said because he was put under pressure to make a statement that opposes his own party's rhetoric at his party's national convention during a Presidential election year!

It's pretty easy to see how someone, knowing they were likely going to be on TV and seen by millions, might make an overzealous statement to show support for their party that in hindsight turns out to be asinine. In fact I'm sure that's what the show's producers were banking on when they originally came up with the idea for the segment. Whether this particular person--or really any person--will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs is unknown no matter what they may say in public. And their statement is especially suspect when being asked to give an unrehearsed response to a question on TV.

You say your are angry at "woolly thinking" but I think what you really mean is you are angry at ignorance. Personally, I agree with you that feigned ignorance is something to be angry at--politicians who know the facts but continue to say despicable things (i.e. Trump) that they know their people want to hear in order to further their own careers are most certainly deserving of our anger and possibly some form of appropriate punishment, such as being removed from office, if it can proven that they were being dishonest with the public.

But I can't be angry at actual ignorance--people don't know what they don't know. Or even worse, people who think they know when in fact they only have some (but not all) of the facts. Not everyone is lucky enough to grow up in an environment that values education, critical thinking, and seeking out multiple opinions. And even growing up in such an environment is no guarantee that a person is going take advantage of the priviledges presented and become a reasonable and reasoned adult. But my own personal belief is that all of us who are healthy individuals have the capacity to learn, grow, and change our minds given the proper environment and time, regardless of the current state of our knowledge or beliefs. All those things you mentioned--slavery, homophobia, the drug war, etc.--it's pretty clear we are in fact learning and moving on. The transition may be painful but it is happening.

One thing I find interesting about your thinking on this matter is how it exactly mirrors that of the Republicans presented in the video. You see "wholly thinkers" or ignorant people or whatever you'd like to call them exactly as these Republicans see Black Lives Matter activists--as some nefarious and dangerous group of "others" that should be distrusted. I prefer to see them as human beings who are, admittedly, flawed... as am I in a great many ways. I guess it just comes down to having a more optomistic view of humanity.

EDIT: "Would you reconsider in the face of new evidence?" is not a simple question at all. For example, I don't believe torture is an acceptable method of intelligence gathering. You could show me study after study "proving" its effectiveness and I still would never approve of it. On the other hand, if you showed me a study that found a competing laundry detergent got stains out better than the one I was using, I'd probably switch detergents the next time I went shopping.

Never understood the pulling of buckyballs. It shouldn't be a product's fault if it specifically warns in every possible method that children shouldn't be allowed to touch the them. It's like the pods issue going on now with detergent, kids are eating them because they look like candy. I say, blame the fucking parents for putting them in the reach of kids and for not teaching their children that they should ask before snacking on shit they don't know about.

Just for once it's chemistry and not marketing!

This article on a proposed replacement explains the use of Ag nanoparticles as an antibacterial agent. Google the term and you'll also find a lot of articles worrying about the safety of silver nanoparticles in clothing. The idea is that antibacterial clothing will smell less, but some people worry about the safety of this, and detergent tends to deactivate it anyway.

In the case of this book though, I would expect most of the silver to stay in the filter but even if not it's likely to be safer than drinking contaminated water.

Howdy - sorry for the delay, was traveling on business. The issue you are referring to below with regards to reusable water bottles is I believe related to the type of liner (thin coating of polymer based material that is coated on the inside of some but not all of these bottles). In most cases when polymers come in contact with food (incl. water) the concerns are usually not in the polymer itself, but in some of the additives (processing aids, plasticizers, anti-oxidants, UV stabilizers, pigments etc) that in some cases have negative impacts on some human metabolic processes. I would emphasize 'some'. The recent outrage over BPA is not supported unequivocally by scientific evidence, but there is enough uncertainty to move away from it as a plasticizer in PET bottles. If one was to use a food grade polyethylene or polypropylene water bottle, requiring no liner, and totally suitable as a water bottle, then there is no concern at all with the long term use of this material in water bottles. Next time you go through the grocery store, have a look at all the packaging - films on processed meets, stretch wrap on fresh meat cuts, all of your cold dairy products - the vast majority of these are made from one of either polyethylene or polypropylene, with a smattering of polystyrene and polyvinylidene chloride thrown in. All perfectly safe.

As for how the balls are made - these are blow molded. If you have a look at the plastic baseballs made for kids that come with a big fat plastic bat (or really any hard plastic ball that you might find at Wal Mart or Toys'R'Us, you'll see the small ridge that runs equatorially around the circumference of the ball (that's the parting line where the two mold halves come together) and somewhere on that line there will be either a little tiny hole or a small protruding knob that used to be the parison where the air was injected into the small plastic glob forcing it to the walls of the mold like an expanding balloon. This is the same type of molding that makes your liquid dishwashing detergent bottle, plastic ketchup and mustard containers, and plastic milk jugs. Hope this helps a bit. cheers

Or maybe to give a better and more accurate view on round-up toxicity, this summary from a scientific journal article prepared by The Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, link to full article follows:

Results from several investigations establish that
the acute toxicity and irritation potential of Roundup
herbicide in humans is low. Specifically, results from
controlled studies with Roundup showed that skin irritation
was similar to that of a baby shampoo and
lower than that observed with a dishwashing detergent
and an all-purpose cleaner; no dermal sensitization,
photoirritation, or photosensitization reactions were
148 WILLIAMS, KROES, AND MUNRO
observed. Furthermore, the incidence of occupationalrelated
cases involving Roundup is low given the widespread
use of the product. Data from these cases indicated
some potential for eye and skin irritation with
the concentrated product, but exposure to dilute spray
solutions rarely resulted in any significant adverse
effect. Most importantly, no lasting dermal or ocular
effects were noted, and significant systemic effects attributable
to contact with Roundup did not occur. Studies
of Roundup ingestion showed that death and other
serious effects occurred only when large amounts were
intentionally ingested for the purpose of committing
suicide. These data confirmed that the acute oral toxicity
in humans is low and consistent with that predicted
by the results of laboratory studies in animals.


http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Williams-Safety-Evaluation-Risk-Assessment-RR-2000.pdf

My secret shame.

I am a recovering aquarist (that's actually a word, says Google). I had tropical fish as a child, and started to get back into it after moving to my current city.

One thing I discovered was that changing 1/3 of the water weekly is a good way to keep fish healthy, but clean your filter only once every couple of months (and only squeeze out the sponge inside the filter - never use any detergent). It seems that the filter ends up full of 'good bacteria' which balances the tank ecosystem. I had been vigorously scrubbing the filter every week and wondering why my fish kept getting diseases. The guy at the shop gave me the above advice, and suggested cleaning the filter in tank water (not fresh water). That is, when you take 1/3 of the tank water out, clean the filter in that water. Worked a treat.

I really loved having the tank, but eventually grew tired of it. It just became a fortnightly chore (every week ended up too much).

Would be keen to see pics once you get it set up.

And they did all this without trying other simple methods of reducing water surface tension, like some kind of detergent, or shampoo? It might have been interesting to see the results, for shits and giggles.

Now I'm trying to remember a bit of comedy I heard a long time ago about using real poo instead of sham(fake) poo.