I bet there's something wrong here...

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

thomasortega

Well-known member
Platinum Member
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
3,733
Location
El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora de Los Angeles de Por
Hey guys

I just watched this youtube video and there's something that's really odd to me.

It's nice to be environmental friendly, but come on... isn't there something wrong on that video? isn't she "saving" too much water?

Is it normal to dry the dishes without rinsing them? If so, Is that some kind of rinse free detergent or am I the "odd" that rinse everything with lots of water AFTER washing.

I'm not being sarcastic.

 
Yeah, that was weird. A long time ago (over 20 years or so), I've heard from friends who lived in Sweden for a while that they had dishwashing detergents that didn't need to be rinsed. I've never seen that in Brazil or US, I'm under the impression that one is supposed to always rinse. Granted, the way I was taught to rinse in Brazil was under lots of running water -- most people I know here in US do the same, but I've met a few that just dunk the dishes in two different sinks with rinse water and a couple that use only one sink full of water to dunk the dishes in. Maybe it's perfectly fine and safe, but it makes me think there's something wrong.

Not that I don't believe one can't rinse with a small amount of water, that's exactly what dishwashers do, but they (a) take longer than a couple of seconds and (b) use way hotter water. YMMV.
 
A lot of Dutch don't rinse afterwards too, but just dry it after washing. The difference is that the dishes are prerinsed very thoroughly so the dishes are almost clean when they go into the water. Just as in this video, you can see the water is almost clean.

I remember too a dish detergent that you could use to wash the dishes and afterwards you could put the dishes on a rack without rinsing them. It wasn't long on the market here in the Netherlands, I think it lasted a year or so.
 
Very normal in Britain not to rinse dishes after washing them. Think I'm the only one in family who does.

We're all still here nonetheless...wallowing in our own filth!
 
We are rinsaholics here. Every last bubble of soap must be gone and the dishes even have to feel well rinsed before we put them in the drying rack. The same is true of clothing being washed, floors being washed, cars being washed, etc.
We use the dishwasher all the time to overcome this preoccupation with rinsing.
 
Well my grandparents are from Britian and they tend to just rinse things out after they are done with them (not using ANY soiap to wash). That is so disgusting to me. It is like people who put the soap on a sponge and wash dishes that way. I prefer my dishes to be in a sinkful of soapy water in order for them to get clean.
 
I wonder if detergents in Europe use a different formulation than in the Americas. I know that most of them in North or South America are based on Sodium Lauryl Sulfate or Sodium Laureth Sulfate -- both of them can impart a pretty bad taste on stuff and at the very least Sodium Lauryl Sulfate used to be a suspected carcinogen when ingested.

So, it's not so much a case of the wash water looks (or is) clean because the dishes got rinsed before they got washed. It's more of a case of the dishes need to be rinsed after being washed to remove as much detergent as possible so (a) food doesn't taste bad and (b) you lower you chances of getting gastrointestinal cancer.
 
Rich, the jury is still out on this question, regardless of what the EPA claims. The primary use for SLS for many years was as a skin irritant (for certain medical testing, it's necessary to intentionally irritate a patch of skin). Also, a greatly increased incidence of canker sores in the mouth has been reported since toothpaste manufacturers began using SLS in their products. While a link to cancer has not yet been shown, it's basic common sense that anything which causes sores over prolonged periods could eventually cause cancer.
 
Not really, Jeff. The case would not be allowed in court because of a total lack of evidence.

Here's what one eminent doctor, a board certified pathologist, has to say on the matter:

Life has taught me not to attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity. This one's a misunderstanding. Here's the truth.

Sodium lauryl sulfate (the same as sodium dodecyl sulfate) is routinely used to solubilize chemicals used in cancer experiments prior to injecting them into test animals. Somebody read the list of substances injected, and mistook the solubilizer for the active ingredient.

I ran a search of the NIH database, and there is exactly no evidence that the detergent itself causes cancer. All the carcinogens (chemicals that clearly cause cancer) that I've heard of (and I follow this stuff) are electrophiles, protein-kinase C activators, chromosome-scramblers, and/or mitogens. I'd be extremely surprised if the simple sodium lauryl sulfate molecule is any of these things. There is an unreferenced claim attributed to a Tohuku group that lauryl sulfate causes mutations in bacteria. I could find no substantiation of this in the refereed literature. It may have been based on a misinterpretation of J. Bact. 125: 1180, 1976, in which lauryl sulfate was used in growth medium to select for bacteria which had been mutated by a standard mutagen.

Since the author of the E-mail campaign calls sodium lauryl sulfate "the cancer virus", he or she must be someone who's not gotten far in basic biology.

I have handled lauryl sulfate myself. It's a coarse powder, and a very good detergent. All soaps and detergents can irritate the eyes, and coarse powders can irritate the skin. In fact, sodium lauryl sulfate happens to be used in the standard model for skin contact dermatitis. (See the journal Contact Dermatitis 33: 1-7, 1995.) But the warnings cited for lauryl sulfate probably appear on your own powdered laundry detergent. This doesn't make either one a carcinogen.

Several anti-SLS sites mention "studies from the Medical College of Georgia" (or "The Medical College of Georgia says...") listing various supposed harmful effects of SLS on a host of tissues. The actual paper is in the obscure journal Lens & Eye Toxicity Research 6: 37-41, 1989. Several sites call this ten-year-old paper "recent research", and it actually makes no reference to any other supposed harms. Keith Green and his colleagues simply made the not-at-all-surprising observation that if there is already a chemical or physical injury to the cornea, a large concentration of the detergent slows down the healing. In his study, the group shaved pieces off the outer surface of the eyes of rabbits. Not surprisingly, pouring shampoo detergent into the eyes interfered with healing. What was more surprising is that all four of the other chemicals tested didn't.

There are now dozens anti-SLS sites online. They repeat much of the same information. As you visit them, you'll find references to a claim, twenty-one years ago, about contamination by nitrosamines; I could find nothing more current on this in the refereed literature. Since the sulfate moiety is an oxidizing agent, any nitrogen-containing compound might react to produce a tiny amount of nitrates, which in turn might react with something else to produce a nitrosamine. Your body itself produces far more sulfate just from daily metabolism, and it also produces its own nitrates. The claim on some sites that lauryl sulfate reacts with formaldehyde to produce "nitrosating agents" cannot possibly be true, since neither compound contains a nitrogen atom.

Sodium lauryl sulfate is indeed used in a model for cataract formation in the lens of the eye (J. Biol. Chem. 262: 8096-102, 1987). The experiments actually immersed the transparent lens proteins in concentrated solutions of detergent, as you would dip your own dirty clothes. It's not surprising that the proteins were altered and rendered translucent. But the lens is deep within the eye, and won't be exposed even if you splash some lauryl sulfate in your eyes. Either somebody misunderstood the work, or somebody is willfully deceiving the public.

I could not find any support in the refereed scientific literature for the allegations that lauryl sulfate prevents children's eyes from developing normally. I think that somebody just made this up.

I've spent years as part of the fight against tobacco, and have represented several plaintiffs who have been harmed by exposure to genuine industrial poisons. I become equally angry over people who expose others to substances that genuinely cause cancer, and people who make money selling books that peddle groundless fear.


 
GROSS!!!Hasn't this person heard of a DISHWASHER???If I would have eaten off of those dishes-I would get the RUNS!!!And what besides suds is in that dishcloth used to dry the dishes.If you must do the dishes by hand--at least RINSE them and set them in a dishrack to dry by themselves-throw out the nasty dish towels.The hose sprayer on most sinks works well to rinse dishes once they are in the drying basket on a drainboard by the sink.
 
Some old household hint books suggest that if you're washing glass or crystal, that you shouldn't rinse them, and dry them with the suds on them, and they'll come out sparkling.
 
Rich, thank you for posting that. Even if standard detergents are not carcinogenic, there's still plenty of reasons to rinse the dishes considering that most detergents made here in North and South America will make the food taste worse if not rinsed properly.

As for how these rumors start, it's not just malice or ignorance.

I has a lot to do with the difference between food, drugs and stuff (in this case janitorial supplies) that does not fall under the categories "food" or "drugs".

I can tell you how I got the supposed "knowledge". It was in the mid-1990's, either a web site (like That Home Site) or a Usenet newsgroup. People were talking about how to wash "delicate" things like embroidered clothes and/or quilts. A lot of people offered their favorite way to do the wash, and a few people offered that they used "Orvus Soap". Orvus(tm) is a paste sold to farmers and people who own horses and similar animals. It's basically Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, supposedly easy to use to wash animals. Several people offered their opinions on using Orvus for such laundry tasks, pros and cons. A few people offered the opinion that they wouldn't use Orvus to wash something that could be worn next to babies skin because it was carcinogenic.

To my surprise, I followed the links that they offered to the Orvus MSDS and sure enough, they claimed that SLS "was listed by the State of California as a suspected carcinogen when ingested".

What I've learned recently, when you posted your entry, is that when you google for it, you'll find that some time ago there was a scare that some SLS which was not used for food, drug or cosmetics had been found to be contaminated by traces of dioxin.

I don't know if even that is true or not. But it does point out how much of a failure it is to give partial information to the population. People need to understand that just like mechanical parts can be manufactured to different tolerances, chemical compounds are manufactured to different tolerances too -- antibiotics meant to be used as eyedrops are much more refined (both more pure and ground more finely) that antibiotics in skin ointments, even if the ingredients list looks the same. SLS meant for medicines will be more pure than stuff in shampoos, which in turn will be more pure than stuff meant to wash dishes, clothes etc. That may explain why some janitorial cleanser was once long ago put on a list of suspected carcinogens.

That information may be long out of date and even not true anymore, if it ever was true. But when people in charge believe that the population at large is incapable of dealing with "complex" information, that's the system we get. To this day, things that are completely false still survive even in forums like this one. Go back and count the times we've seen "No Metals in the Microwave", for example. Not only it's false, it's part of the reason why people fail at properly using a microwave oven to cook -- they have no idea how to shield parts of the dishes with foil, when they can do it, how much metal can be in the microwave etc. Someone, possibly even well intentioned, decided "heck, it's too hard to summarize in a couple of minutes, I'll just tell them to never do it" and now we have a nation that can only reheat some kinds of leftover and nuke popcorn. Microwaving a simple meatloaf from scratch is beyond them. I have had people *eat* my microwaved meatloaf and refuse to believe it was nuked because "you can't brown anything with a microwave", which is also not true. All I can tell you is that I've seen MSDS floating around on the net in the mid-nineties claiming that Orvus paste (which is basically SLS and water) claiming it was known to the State of California as a suspected carcinogen when ingested. I expect that eventually that info will die -- I, for one, will not be saying that anymore. But I expect it will take considerable effort and time to make the rumor disappear. We still have people claiming that spinach has way more iron that it actually does, for example, despite the fact that a few years ago they discovered it was an erroneous bit of info due to a misplaced decimal period.

Again, thanks for the info.
 
How weird, on the odd occasion I have washed up by hand namely Christmas day cos my wonderful Mother In Law to be dosnt have a dishwasher I always just get a bowl of the hottest water going, a squirt of Fairy (she likes Apple) and just get stuck in. No rinsing, well you dont have time after all that scrubbing and its really not needed.

I only rinse Glasses and glassware as this makes a huge difference in the shine.

All UK WUL is not needed to be rinsed off even the cheaper ones.
Have been using Tesco Standard Lemon for general kitchen cleaning along with the occasional dash of bleach and its lasted as long as a bottle of Fairy certainly would of lasted me.
Absolute bargain at 1/3 cost of my usual Fairy.

Leaves no residue and cleans a treat with no rinsing.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top