wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:22:59 -0000, "Ophelia" > wrote:
>
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>> rossr35 wrote:
>>>> "Dee.Dee" wrote:
>>>>> Only suggestion I have is: when you have time, research comments
>>>>> about use of bleach products.
>>>>
>>>>> This may be an inacurrate observation on my part, but I seem to
>>>>> recall that bleach will play havoc with the little beasties that
>>>>> work on the deterioration of your waste.
>>>>
>>>>> Dee De
>>>>
>>>> Having lived in a home serviced by a septic system most of my life
>>>> (I'm now 73), and wishing to avoid any problems, I have probably
>>>> researched septic info more than the average person.
>>>> With regard to septic systems, here's what the makers of Clorox
>>>> have to say about using Clorox Regular for laundry. This is copied
>>>> and pasted from the Dr. Laundry section of the Clorox web
>>>> site.http://www.drlaundryblog.com/?cat=9 <Quote>
>>>> The recommended amount of Clorox Regular-Bleach is 3/4 cup for
>>>> regular
>>>> loads or 1 1/4 cup for large/heavily soiled loads.
>>>> As for the septic tank, you shouldn't worry about using the
>>>> recommended amount of bleach. The active ingredient, sodium
>>>> hypochlorite, is extremely reactive and nearly all is consumed in
>>>> the wash and reverts to mostly salt and water. The small amount
>>>> that may be un-reacted will encounter lots of organic soil in the
>>>> drain pipes and be consumed long before it reaches the septic tank.
>>>> <Unquote>
>>>>
>>>> Ross.
>>>
>>> Just a little detail; one cannot "unquote"... makes one appear
>>> uneducated ergo surplants one's credibility, especially when no
>>> reference is given for the quote... the correct term is *end of
>>> quote*.
>>
>> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh get him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This from the English
>> expert who uses 'youse'
>>
>
> I wouldn't waste my time O.
> Being chastised by rfc's expert on literally everything is almost like
> a badge of honour.

Indeed Ross! I wear it proudly)

Particularly when this expert's posts are rife with
> errors in spelling, grammar, semantics, syntax, etc., etc., not to
> mention they often contain incorrect information.
> Using the short paragraph shown above as an example, rather than try
> to use fancy words, I might say:
> Just a little detail; there is no such word as surplants (sic) and
> using such a non-word makes one appear uneducated and calls into
> question one's credibility.

Thank you for your kind post Ross!