House License ?!?!
Paul Mann
If supposed gun registration with your 2009 tax return got your
attention, read this�.
20091104 ECONOMY A License Required for Your HOUSE?!
I encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that
has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the
Senate. I am ready to join the next march on Washington ! This Congress
and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to
destroy the middle class of the USA ...
A License required for your house...no longer just for cars and mobile
homes....
Thinking about selling your house - A look at s(Cap and trade bill) This
is unbelievable!
Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be
able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy
and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade"
bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the
Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.
The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that
in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be
$6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes
feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax
refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus,
you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since
additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read)
has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year
from now you won't be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.
The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money
to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But,
if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are
included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home
without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission,
you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then
the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement
is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the
retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water
efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured
again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be
posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of
like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air
conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And,
the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year,
even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap &
Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009")
and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and
standards he alone determines to be in the government's best interest.
Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then
the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency
for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA
administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building
Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the
energy efficiency of all existing homes across America . Beginning 1
year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home
unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency
standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards
will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to
meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give
you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit
program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But,
wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to
receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as "can't have
an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more
than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (and
that's YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us
won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit
out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can
believe in." Sect. 204 Building Energy Performance Labeling Program
establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will
identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90
percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act."
This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S.
must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each
year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of
Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the
labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming
up with tougher standards each year..
Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required
to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be
allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your
car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so
often - maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of
measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200
each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when
they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was
when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection
and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling
program. Sect. 304 Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes
establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building
Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all
state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code
energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the
federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought
into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency
standards.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=A+License+required+for+your+home-+Cap+and+Trade&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/cap-and-trade-license-required-your-home-44750/
elmer
> I don't know how real this is ...but it's scary!!
>
>
> If supposed gun registration with your 2009 tax return got your
Hunter Hampton
wrote:
>I don't know how real this is ...but it's scary!!
>
>
>If supposed gun registration with your 2009 tax return got your
>attention, read this�.
You know the gun registration was false right? You admit don't know
how real this new thing is, you post it without OT....what are you
thinking?
Dennis, we got another one!!
Hunter
Technobarbarian
"Paul Mann" <pm...@airolink.com> wrote in message
news:HrudnTixoKaoB5XW...@giganews.com...
>I don't know how real this is ...but it's scary!!
>
>
> If supposed gun registration with your 2009 tax return got your attention,
> 20091104 ECONOMY A License Required for Your HOUSE?!
> I encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has
> passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. I
> am ready to join the next march on Washington ! This Congress and whoever
> on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle
> class of the USA ...
You don't know how real this is. Couldn't be bothered to check. And
posted it anyway? You're urging others to read this bill and you haven't
even glanced at a summary. Too funny. As expected it's completely fact free
BULLSHIT. The bill says no such thing. The CBO says no such thing. Here's a
link for the bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
You can read every damn last word of it sitting in your easy chair. Here's
the CBO report: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10262/hr2454.pdf Your
crap is just more scrapings from the bottom of the chaim email barrel. You
must just love the haunted houses during Halloween. They're scary too, and
just as real.
TB
Lone Haranguer
> I don't know how real this is ...but it's scary!!
>
>
> If supposed gun registration with your 2009 tax return got your
and this house has an R24 rating.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Yes or no?
H.R. 2454
Read the energy efficiency provision. All the authority the states need
are in there.
LZ
Albert
wrote:
>I don't know how real this is ...but it's scary!!
It's not real.
But this is and..... "very scary"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp
Licensing the right to own a firearm!!!???
>If supposed gun registration with your 2009 tax return got your
>attention, read this�.
Snipped
Lone Haranguer
The energy efficiency provision in the bill give the states all the
power they need to require energy compliance and this includes retrofitting.
Read it.
LZ
elmer
> Snipped
I don't think Cap And Trade is going anywhere.
richard
> I don't know how real this is ...but it's scary!!
>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=A+License+required+for+your+home-+Cap+and+Trade&btnG=Google+Search
> http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/cap-and-trade-license-required-your-home-44750/
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
Answered by a visitor on Nov 20, 2009 11:39 AM - No, of course this is not
true... just more lies and misinformation being spread as attempted scare
tactics.
As passed, the bill does not create a federal energy audit requirement for
real-estate property. It exempts existing homes and buildings from any
federal guidelines for new-construction energy labeling. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency will be prohibited from regulating carbon
emissions from residential and commercial buildings under the Clean Air
Act.
The bill would create a national building code with a goal of improving
energy efficiency for *new* construction. States would have a year to bring
their codes in compliance with the federal code.... Read More
Further, states would have the option of voluntarily participating in a
federal grant program (Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance ?
REEP) that homeowners could access for assistance with energy-efficiency
improvements to their homes.
Most of the people making these claims never even read the language in the
bill anyway. ;)
Lone Haranguer
I read it and it tells me that the bill gives the states the power to
mandate energy efficiency of both new homes and the retrofitting of
older homes.
It also requires replacement of older mobile homes. The states will
qualify for grants IF they follow the guidelines issued by the feds.
We all know how this works. The states won't turn down any money.
LZ
richard
Did you read the part where it says, "It was sent to the review
committee......and never voted on"?
Now read the 2nd amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Requiring a license is an infringement.
Technobarbarian
"Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7mrqfgF...@mid.individual.net...
The energy efficiency provision in the bill give the states all the
power they need to require energy compliance and this includes retrofitting.
#1 Do you have a cite?
#2 The States already have all the authority they need to do this. It
hasn't happened because it isn't practical and it would be politically
unpalatable.
TB
Lone Haranguer
So are most of the restrictive gun laws on the books. But they stay in
place because most have not been challenged by someone impacted by the
law and
willing to move it all the way to the USSC.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7mrqfgF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> The energy efficiency provision in the bill give the states all the
> power they need to require energy compliance and this includes retrofitting.
>
> #1 Do you have a cite?
It's in the bill. I thought you read it.
>
> #2 The States already have all the authority they need to do this.
But they aren't paid by the feds to do it.
It
> hasn't happened because it isn't practical and it would be politically
> unpalatable.
So was lowering the speed limit to 55. The feds dangle the money and
the states then have enough funds to enforce it.
Did you just fall off a turnip truck?
LZ
>
> TB
>
>
William Boyd
> Paul Mann wrote:
>> I don't know how real this is ...but it's scary!!
>>
>>
>> If supposed gun registration with your 2009 tax return got your
Are you saying I should not be paying extra principal on this mortgage?
--
BILL P.
&
DOG
I Have been to places and done
things that the average man has
only dreamed of.
Lone Haranguer
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
>> Paul Mann wrote:
>>> I don't know how real this is ...but it's scary!!
>>>
>>>
>>> If supposed gun registration with your 2009 tax return got your
before I die.
LZ
Technobarbarian
> Technobarbarian wrote:
>> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7mrqfgF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> The energy efficiency provision in the bill give the states all the
>> power they need to require energy compliance and this includes
>> retrofitting.
>>
>> #1 Do you have a cite?
>
> It's in the bill. I thought you read it.
How do you think I knew you were just blowing smoke again? You don't
have a cite because there is no provision requiring home owners to retrofit
or in any way encourage States to take it on themselves to require
retrofitting. Building codes will be changing for new construction, but even
there the bill requires that new provisions have to be cost effective. If
you change your wood or pellet burning stove you'll be required to replace
it with one that meets the new standards, but there's no provision requiring
anyone to replace their wood stove. In some instances the owners of
manufactured homes will be able to get a subsidy to help replace their home,
but there's no requirement that they take advantage of the subsidy. If you
don't have anything else you just start making things up or rambling on
about Bill Clinton.
TB
John Kinney
What's really funny to me is that to all extents and purposes, there
already is a "national code" that includes an energy code and deals with
things like your comments above. That's because nearly all the model codes
agencies consolidated their effort more than a decade ago and formed the
International Code Council (ooooo... International Code Conspiracy...
scary!). The National Fire Protection Association was pretty much the
only hold-out because among other things, they apparently didn't think the
new ICC codes were going to be strict enough. The first ICC model
building code was issued somewhere around 2000. Now, ten years later, I
believe nearly all states have adopted the ICC building code and most if
not all have adopted the ICC Energy Conservation Code.
Here's the link, so I don't have to listen to whining by RORT cons who
don't know how to look these things up for themselves. Warning, this link
downloads a PDF file:
http://www.iccsafe.org/gr/Documents/stateadoptions.pdf
The model codes agencies have worked closely with US DOE for decades to
develop sensible national code standards for energy conservation and the
ICC continues that development. The US DOE even provides free software so
that designers can easily calculate whether their designs comply with the
codes.
Federal energy codes have long attempted to apply energy codes
retroactively to existing buildings in various ways, however, this effort
has been successfully resisted in many areas. I am somewhat aware of such
an effort in NC, since it involved a renovation project an architect
friend of mine was doing in Raleigh NC in 2002. After a series of
showdown meetings with local officials and consultations with state
officials, it was determined that the newer energy codes could not legally
be applied to an existing old factory building being renovated as
apartments.
As TB stated, the current codes do apply to modern appliances and
equipment to be installed in an old building and there are a few
life-safety issues that are mandatory and usually require retrofitting.
There is a separate building code for residences -- the ICC Residential
Code -- and another specifically for existing buildings, but they work
much the same way.
I can understand why the simple-minded RORT trolls get excited about
things like this. They are so ignorant and so self-interested that they
can't imagine the huge private non-partisan community efforts such as the
ICC or NFPA organizations that have existed in one form or another for
decades. I know enough to virtually guarantee that if a Congress of any
political flavor wanted to override this effort, there would be a cry of
outrage from the model codes agencies that would far exceed the
effectiveness of all the Republican cult & Faux News made-up
controversies like the birthers and teabaggers.
Sadly, people like the LZ and many of the rest of the RORT cons are so
ignorant that they don't even know they are ignorant. Even worse, they
appear not to care.
Regards, John Kinney
Albert
<jwki...@smoke-island.com> wrote:
>As TB stated, the current codes do apply to modern appliances and
>equipment to be installed in an old building and there are a few
>life-safety issues that are mandatory and usually require retrofitting.
John,
Just shifting the topic just a little bit. Our old Kenmore washing
machine finally gave out and we had to replace it so we shopped around
and settled on the Whirlpool washer because of its energy efficient
rating, that and the direct derive transmission somewhat similar to
the old Kenmore/RCA Whirlpool that we have used.
After installation the first load of clothes that my wife put in the
machine required the "Hot" setting for sanitizing purposes. She
called me and told me the water was not hot like her old machine and I
said that I would call Whirlpool and turn it in to have it repaired
which I did. The repair person told me "that's the design of the
machine" and he left wanting me to sign the repair order so he can get
his money which of course I refuse to do because he didn't even go in
to the laundry room and look at the machine.
Apparently Whirlpool has designed the machine where the maximum
temperature that the thermostat is set to is sufficient only to
dissolve washing powders (109�F). I asked him about sanitation and he
told me that that was not a consideration in the design of the machine
we had.
I was told the code mandates that the machine had to be built with a
thermostatic control. When I asked if the law said that the
thermostat should hold the temperature at 109�F I was told no it was
Whirlpool's choice.
Later it dawned on me that by lowering the temperatures they could use
that energy savings (to heat the water) as a selling point of the
machine and not just the electrical and mechanical savings.
So apparently they chose a thermostat setting as a sales gimmick
rather than selling a machine that will protect a family's health.
End Of rant :-)
>Regards, John Kinney
Albert
aml...@Hotmail.com
(use s instead of z
to e-mail me)
Lone Haranguer
> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7mrv4nF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Technobarbarian wrote:
>>> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7mrqfgF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> The energy efficiency provision in the bill give the states all the
>>> power they need to require energy compliance and this includes
>>> retrofitting.
>>>
>>> #1 Do you have a cite?
>> It's in the bill. I thought you read it.
>
> How do you think I knew you were just blowing smoke again? You don't
> have a cite because there is no provision requiring home owners to retrofit
> or in any way encourage States to take it on themselves to require
> retrofitting.
I didn't say there was. Learn to read. I said the bill gives states
authority to implement the program (which it does).
It also offers them incentives to get on board.
Building codes will be changing for new construction, but even
> there the bill requires that new provisions have to be cost effective.
As decided by one of Obama's flunkies.
If
> you change your wood or pellet burning stove you'll be required to replace
> it with one that meets the new standards, but there's no provision requiring
> anyone to replace their wood stove.
Until some government flunky says your old clunker smokes too much.
In some instances the owners of
> manufactured homes will be able to get a subsidy to help replace their home,
> but there's no requirement that they take advantage of the subsidy.
You actually think they would turn down a free new mobile home? What
planet are you from again?
If you
> don't have anything else you just start making things up or rambling on
> about Bill Clinton.
I didn't make anything up and I used the perfect analogy furnished to
rub the Democrat's nose in their denial that a plea bargain constitutes a
guilty plea.
Clinton should have been impeached, based on the evidence and he later
admitted guilt. He got off the hook due to bribery and intimidation.
Learn to live with it.
LZ
>
> TB
>
>
Technobarbarian
"Albert" <aml...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lfkig5t4cll0t476a...@4ax.com...
>
> Later it dawned on me that by lowering the temperatures they could use
> that energy savings (to heat the water) as a selling point of the
> machine and not just the electrical and mechanical savings.
>
> So apparently they chose a thermostat setting as a sales gimmick
> rather than selling a machine that will protect a family's health.
While I agree that there's a lot of smoke and mirrors in modern
marketing you have never owned a washing machine that would get hot enough
to protect your family's health. My suggestion is that you do your research
before you make major purchases. There's a whole world of information right
at your fingertips.
TB
Lone Haranguer
I assume we will soon see sails issued with new cars and instructions to
use them when winds are favorable. This will allow
car makers to say they are meeting new fuel efficiency standards.
Oh those lucky people in Kansas, New Mexico and Oklahoma.
LZ
Technobarbarian
> Technobarbarian wrote:
>> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7mrv4nF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Technobarbarian wrote:
>>>> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:7mrqfgF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> The energy efficiency provision in the bill give the states all the
>>>> power they need to require energy compliance and this includes
>>>> retrofitting.
>>>>
>>>> #1 Do you have a cite?
>>> It's in the bill. I thought you read it.
>>
>> How do you think I knew you were just blowing smoke again? You
>> don't have a cite because there is no provision requiring home owners to
>> retrofit or in any way encourage States to take it on themselves to
>> require retrofitting.
>
> I didn't say there was. Learn to read. I said the bill gives states
> authority to implement the program (which it does).
> It also offers them incentives to get on board.
You're just repeating the same bullshit over and over. You have no cite
because it's figment of your imagination. And, again, the States don't
require federal authoriztion. If any State legislature was both insane
enough to require retrofits and politically suicidal enough to try they have
all of the authority they need. OR did something similar to the Fed's
woodstove replace requirement decades ago on their own. They didn't need
permission from the Feds to inact a requirement that new woodstoves had to
meet certain standards.
>
> Building codes will be changing for new construction, but even
>> there the bill requires that new provisions have to be cost effective.
>
> As decided by one of Obama's flunkies.
>
> If
>> you change your wood or pellet burning stove you'll be required to
>> replace it with one that meets the new standards, but there's no
>> provision requiring anyone to replace their wood stove.
>
> Until some government flunky says your old clunker smokes too much.
>
> In some instances the owners of
>> manufactured homes will be able to get a subsidy to help replace their
>> home, but there's no requirement that they take advantage of the subsidy.
>
> You actually think they would turn down a free new mobile home? What
> planet are you from again?
LOL, there are no free mobiles homes. Just as there are still plenty of
'clunkers' on our roads many people will continue to live in older mobile
homes because that's what they can afford. It's a subsidy for mobile homes
built before 1976 and there are other requirements necessary to get the
rebate. The point is that no one is going to be forced to buy a new home.
TB
Lone Haranguer
> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7mt3k0F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Technobarbarian wrote:
>>> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7mrv4nF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Technobarbarian wrote:
>>>>> "Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:7mrqfgF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> The energy efficiency provision in the bill give the states all the
>>>>> power they need to require energy compliance and this includes
>>>>> retrofitting.
>>>>>
>>>>> #1 Do you have a cite?
>>>> It's in the bill. I thought you read it.
>>> How do you think I knew you were just blowing smoke again? You
>>> don't have a cite because there is no provision requiring home owners to
>>> retrofit or in any way encourage States to take it on themselves to
>>> require retrofitting.
>> I didn't say there was. Learn to read. I said the bill gives states
>> authority to implement the program (which it does).
>> It also offers them incentives to get on board.
>
> You're just repeating the same bullshit over and over. You have no cite
> because it's figment of your imagination.
The cite is in the bill which you claim to have read. Under energy
efficiency provisions.
And, again, the States don't
> require federal authoriztion.
They may not require it but the bill provides grant incentives to adopt
the program and the bill is their authorization
to require the upgrades if they want the grant money.
>> Building codes will be changing for new construction, but even
>>> there the bill requires that new provisions have to be cost effective.
>> As decided by one of Obama's flunkies.
>>
>> If
>>> you change your wood or pellet burning stove you'll be required to
>>> replace it with one that meets the new standards, but there's no
>>> provision requiring anyone to replace their wood stove.
>> Until some government flunky says your old clunker smokes too much.
>>
>> In some instances the owners of
>>> manufactured homes will be able to get a subsidy to help replace their
>>> home, but there's no requirement that they take advantage of the subsidy.
>> You actually think they would turn down a free new mobile home? What
>> planet are you from again?
>
> LOL, there are no free mobiles homes.
Just subsidies for those who upgrade. Where is the difference?
Just as there are still plenty of
> 'clunkers' on our roads many people will continue to live in older mobile
> homes because that's what they can afford.
The subsidies will convince them they can afford more.
It's a subsidy for mobile homes
> built before 1976 and there are other requirements necessary to get the
> rebate. The point is that no one is going to be forced to buy a new home.
Not "forced" but given a cash incentive to do so. All the bureaucrats
have to do to change that from "incentive" to "forced" is to
condemn the one they are living in because it doesn't meet standards.
Have you kept in touch with the real world lately?
LZ
>
> TB
>
>
Zandermax
>>
Well don't let any of us stop you in any way of posting it.
Albert
TB,
I'm a firm believer that everyone has a right to their opinion but I
also believe that what you said "that you (I) have never owned a
washing machine that would get hot enough to protect your (my)
family's health" is just that, your opinion. What surprises me is
that you very seldom post just your opinion you usually do back it up.
Now, my doctor told me the best way to control dust mites and their
feces is to wash our bed linens in "hot water". That also seems to be
the consensus on the Internet.
The temperature control settings on the hot water that I have is from
120�F to 180�F. The control settings on my new washing machine are
"cold" "cool" "warm"and "hot". Nowhere in the literature that I read
said that the hottest temperature available was 109�F. Fact is The
Whirlpool representative I talked to could not or would not send me
that information, I just had to take his word for it.
Apparently according to industry standards hot water coming out of a
hot water heater if set to its highest temperature will be 180�F or
somewhat less and (according to my doctor) would be hot enough to kill
dust mites, in doing so protecting "my family's health".
It is the dust mite feces that most people are allergic to. So again
according to my doctor hot water will both kill the dust mites and
remove their feces and I consider that an informed opinion.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/water-heater2.htm
"Heating the Water
The thermostat controls the temperature of the water inside the tank.
Normally you can set the temperature between 120 and 180 degrees
Fahrenheit (49 to 82 degrees Celsius). It is generally recommended
that you keep the temperature between 120 to 140 degrees F (49 to 60
C) -- especially if there are children living in the house -- to
prevent scalding. It also saves energy."
I've always thought it was quite foolish to use the word "never" in
any context dealing with human beings.
Albert
Technobarbarian
"Albert" <aml...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> TB,
>
> I'm a firm believer that everyone has a right to their opinion but I
> also believe that what you said "that you (I) have never owned a
> washing machine that would get hot enough to protect your (my)
> family's health" is just that, your opinion. What surprises me is
> that you very seldom post just your opinion you usually do back it up.
>
> Now, my doctor told me the best way to control dust mites and their
> feces is to wash our bed linens in "hot water". That also seems to be
> the consensus on the Internet.
>
> The temperature control settings on the hot water that I have is from
> 120�F to 180�F. The control settings on my new washing machine are
> "cold" "cool" "warm"and "hot". Nowhere in the literature that I read
> said that the hottest temperature available was 109�F. Fact is The
> Whirlpool representative I talked to could not or would not send me
> that information, I just had to take his word for it.
>
> Apparently according to industry standards hot water coming out of a
> hot water heater if set to its highest temperature will be 180�F or
> somewhat less and (according to my doctor) would be hot enough to kill
> dust mites, in doing so protecting "my family's health".
>
> It is the dust mite feces that most people are allergic to. So again
> according to my doctor hot water will both kill the dust mites and
> remove their feces and I consider that an informed opinion.
I stand corrected. I was thinking of germs. Most people are not allergic
to dust mites, or at least that's what this site says:
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/dustmites.php
So what are you going to do? From what I read here you've bought the
wrong washing machine unless you can by-passs the thermostat without
damaging something.
TB
bill horne
I don't understand the argument here. Are you saying that your washing
machine heats the water? I ask that, because mine doesn't - it just
provides cold, warm, or hot wash/rinse water by mixing or not mixing
the incoming hot and cold water.
--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
Hunter Hampton
wrote:
>I don't understand the argument here. Are you saying that your washing
>machine heats the water? I ask that, because mine doesn't - it just
>provides cold, warm, or hot wash/rinse water by mixing or not mixing
>the incoming hot and cold water.
That's what I was thinking, but maybe it has a thermostat?
Hunter
bill horne
Which would do what? Control the incoming cold/hot water mix ratio? If
so, then "hot" should give whatever's coming out of the hot water tank.
Technobarbarian
"bill horne" <red...@rye.net> wrote in message
news:007b055a$0$8071$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
the temperature of the water the machine uses to no more than 109F. I think
his point was that his hot water heater is capable of suppling the
temperature he needs to control dust mites. He was addressing my confusion
when I thought he needed even higher temperatures than a standard washing
machines uses to "sanitize" his bedding and stuff.
TB
William Boyd
> I don't know how real this is ...but it's scary!!
>
>
> If supposed gun registration with your 2009 tax return got your
whiskey some people still make it.
Lone Haranguer
I avoid contact with washing machines but I know for a fact that the
dishwasher heats the water.
LZ
Hunter Hampton
wrote:
>Which would do what? Control the incoming cold/hot water mix ratio? If
>so, then "hot" should give whatever's coming out of the hot water tank.
I don't know, I know dishwashers have thermostats and heat water.
Hunter
Hunter Hampton
<Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He was addressing my confusion
>when I thought he needed even higher temperatures than a standard washing
>machines uses to "sanitize" his bedding and stuff.
I bet Clorox would take care of the little mites.
Hunter
Max
> You know despite all the government provisions against making moonshine
> whiskey some people still make it.
>
> --
> BILL P.
> &
> DOG
>
> I Have been to places and done
> things that the average man has
> only dreamed of.
You know despite marijuana being illegal some people still use it.
Max
I have been places and done things
that the average man wouldn't dream of.
Technobarbarian
"Hunter Hampton" <airstrea...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:ggojg517bk8ariefl...@4ax.com...
very hot water. At least 130F according to the website. He seems to know
what he's talking about. If it was me I'd want a different washing machine.
Hopefully the place where he bought it is willing to be reasonable about it.
TB
Lone Haranguer
Our resident expert on washing clothes advises you to try 2/3 cup of
ammonia in your wash and see if that does the trick.
LZ
>
>
>
>
>
> Albert
John Kinney
More likely, they lowered the thermostat setting to avoid nuisance
lawsuits from users who think they can get rich suing manufacturers for
"dangerous" products.
My only experience with modern washing machines is that they usually have
a special "sanitize" cycle for use with high temperature water and bleach.
My wife always used the special cycle if the washing machine started
smelling sour and never tried to sanitize on a wash load.
Regards, John Kinney
Chuck Norris
<Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Gee you make that statement as though you know WTH you are talking
about. see -
http://www.naturalhandyman.com/iip/infwaterheater/infwhadjust.html
And as usual...you don't!
--
"Liberals refuse to allow facts to conflict with their preconceived
notions."
And its corollary
"A Conservative believes what he sees; a Liberal sees what he
believes.
Chuck Norris
Albert
<Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
I hope this will clarify the muddy waters. The old washing machines
water flow control valves had three settings "cold"where only the cold
valve opened, "warm"with both hot and cold valves opened and "hot"with
only the hot valve open. Now according to the manufacturer they were
required to install a thermostatic temperature control system using
both the hot and cold water and mixing the two to the desired
temperature of the selector knob, cold, cool, warm and hot. They
chose 109�F as the hot temperature.
To answer other questions in this thread;
The washing machine does not heat the water nor does a dishwashing
machine heat the water but it does only use hot water not cold, the
dishwasher does have a heating element to dry the dishes, at least
that is the way ours works.
As far as bypassing the thermostat I thought maybe I would try
shutting off the cold water so it would not have cold water to mix
with the hot water but if the thermostat controls the temperature with
the hot water valve then that probably wouldn't work. I guess I'll
check it out.
Albert
William Boyd
Make damed sure you do not use bleach with that ammonia.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Albert
Albert
<jwki...@smoke-island.com> wrote:
John,
Our old machine did "sanitize" but this one does not by design
according to their representatives. I've even thought it could be a
design flaw that they chose not to rectify and gave me a song and
dance about government regulations to blame it on, who knows? I think
I will check around and find out if there are any other manufacturers
that are doing the same thing or maybe even check with the consumer
protection people and see if there's anything there.
Albert
Lone Haranguer
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/dishwashers.html
Today's dishwashers need water hot enough to melt dishwasher soap and
clean greasy dishes - at least 140 degrees. By purchasing a dishwasher
with a booster heater, you can set your home's water heater at 120
degrees, and still allow your dishwasher to operate correctly.
LZ
Technobarbarian
"Albert" <aml...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Our old machine did "sanitize" but this one does not by design
> according to their representatives. I've even thought it could be a
> design flaw that they chose not to rectify and gave me a song and
> dance about government regulations to blame it on, who knows? I think
> I will check around and find out if there are any other manufacturers
> that are doing the same thing or maybe even check with the consumer
> protection people and see if there's anything there.
I got curious and did a little digging around. You can find machines
with a sanitary cycle, but it doesn't appear to be an common feature that
you're going to find on your average washing machine. The ones I found were
all front loaders and LG pops up the most often. Just as a proof of concept
here's an example: http://salestores.com/lgwm2277hsxl.html At $853 it isn't
exactly cheap, but if you need this feature it will probably pay for itself.
This one has a built in heater so that your hot water stays hot, which
sounds like a good idea in your situation. I was able to download an owner's
manual here.
http://safemanuals.com/user-guide-instructions-owner-manual/LG/WM2277H-_E I
found it by plugging the model number into Google.
TB
bill horne
So you're saying that machine is designed so that there's no way to
Not mix in any cold water?
bill horne
Well, that sucks. When I have to get a new machine, I'll try to get
one that doesn't control how hot my water can be. However, we rarely
use the Hot setting. But if want to, I want to bygod be able to.
> To answer other questions in this thread;
> The washing machine does not heat the water nor does a dishwashing
> machine heat the water but it does only use hot water not cold, the
> dishwasher does have a heating element to dry the dishes, at least
> that is the way ours works.
>
> As far as bypassing the thermostat I thought maybe I would try
> shutting off the cold water so it would not have cold water to mix
> with the hot water but if the thermostat controls the temperature with
> the hot water valve then that probably wouldn't work. I guess I'll
> check it out.
>
>
>
> Albert
Albert
<Technobarbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
Snipped
> I got curious and did a little digging around. You can find machines
>with a sanitary cycle, but it doesn't appear to be an common feature that
>you're going to find on your average washing machine. The ones I found were
>all front loaders and LG pops up the most often. Just as a proof of concept
>here's an example: http://salestores.com/lgwm2277hsxl.html At $853 it isn't
>exactly cheap, but if you need this feature it will probably pay for itself.
>This one has a built in heater so that your hot water stays hot, which
>sounds like a good idea in your situation. I was able to download an owner's
>manual here.
>http://safemanuals.com/user-guide-instructions-owner-manual/LG/WM2277H-_E I
>found it by plugging the model number into Google.
>
>TB
TB,
The machine we just bought cost a little over $400 and to be perfectly
honest with you that price was within our budget. Also because of the
configuration of our laundry room we have to use a top load machine.
I did run a test by shutting off the cold water and the machine filled
up with straight hot water. Then by just cracking the cold water
valve open it would change the temperature to warm.
I'm still going to contact the consumer protection agency and see if
they can explain to me why a wash machine that has a temper selection
of hot are you will only give you water temperatures just above the
human body temperature. It will probably be an exercise in futility
but because I don't have heating in my cabinet shop I really don't
have anything much better to do :-).
Oh, and by the way thanks for the research, that seems to be your
forte.
Albert
aml...@Hotmail.com
(use s instead of z
to e-mail me)
Chuck Norris
Oh good God!
--
NASCAR: The new Wrestling
Chuck Norris
Chuck Norris
wrote:
>
>Our old machine did "sanitize" but this one does not by design
>according to their representatives. I've even thought it could be a
>design flaw that they chose not to rectify and gave me a song and
>dance about government regulations to blame it on, who knows? I think
>I will check around and find out if there are any other manufacturers
>that are doing the same thing or maybe even check with the consumer
>protection people and see if there's anything there.
>
Back in the 50's many dryers had Ozone Lamps to kill various bad
things and give the clothes a fresh 'outdoorsey' odor.
Lone Haranguer
>>> "cold" "cool" "warm"and "hot". Nowhere in the literature that I read
>>> Whirlpool representative I talked to could not or would not send me
>>> that information, I just had to take his word for it.
>>>
>>> Apparently according to industry standards hot water coming out of a
>>> somewhat less and (according to my doctor) would be hot enough to kill
>>> dust mites, in doing so protecting "my family's health".
>>>
>>> It is the dust mite feces that most people are allergic to. So again
>>> according to my doctor hot water will both kill the dust mites and
>>> remove their feces and I consider that an informed opinion.
>>>
>>> http://home.howstuffworks.com/water-heater2.htm
>>>
>>> "Heating the Water
>>> The thermostat controls the temperature of the water inside the tank.
>>> Normally you can set the temperature between 120 and 180 degrees
>>> Fahrenheit (49 to 82 degrees Celsius). It is generally recommended
>>> that you keep the temperature between 120 to 140 degrees F (49 to 60
>>> C) -- especially if there are children living in the house -- to
>>> prevent scalding. It also saves energy."
>>>
>>> I've always thought it was quite foolish to use the word "never" in
>>> any context dealing with human beings.
>> Our resident expert on washing clothes advises you to try 2/3 cup of
>> ammonia in your wash and see if that does the trick.
>> LZ
>
> Oh good God!
Makes for clean, sweet smelling laundry. Maybe we don't have any dust
mite poop in our bedding? I don't own a microscope so I don't know.
LZ
Peter Pan
consider a plan b, at my place in id i had those on demand/continuous/flash
water heaters for both the clothes washer and dishwaser hot water tank set
about 130 (for the sinks and shower, and wouldn't scald the kids), and the
flash things for the stuff i wanted really hot water for (they raise
incoming water temp about 50 degrees, 130 + 50 = 180) (you can get em pretty
cheap tthat work on 240 or gas, which is usually availble in kitchen/laundry
areas)
nothermark
wrote:
>Technobarbarian wrote:
>> "bill horne" <red...@rye.net> wrote in message
>> news:007b055a$0$8071$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>> Hunter Hampton wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:27:01 -0500, bill horne <red...@rye.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand the argument here. Are you saying that your washing
>>>>> machine heats the water? I ask that, because mine doesn't - it just
>>>>> provides cold, warm, or hot wash/rinse water by mixing or not mixing the
>>>>> incoming hot and cold water.
>>>> That's what I was thinking, but maybe it has a thermostat?
>>>>
>>>> Hunter
>>> Which would do what? Control the incoming cold/hot water mix ratio? If so,
>>> then "hot" should give whatever's coming out of the hot water tank.
>>>
>>> --
>> His "energy efficient" washing machine has a thermostat that regulates
>> the temperature of the water the machine uses to no more than 109F. I think
>> his point was that his hot water heater is capable of suppling the
>> temperature he needs to control dust mites. He was addressing my confusion
>> when I thought he needed even higher temperatures than a standard washing
>> machines uses to "sanitize" his bedding and stuff.
>
>So you're saying that machine is designed so that there's no way to
>Not mix in any cold water?
I read it as cold is cold
warm is hot and cold both
hot is hot and enough cold to keep the temp around 109 deg probably
by cycling the cold valve.
Zandermax
"Chuck Norris" <hamgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uisjg5p8jddac73kn...@4ax.com...
machine can be almost the same when you look at them trough an alcohol and
drug induced haze, please do try sobering up before you post the next time
or is this just do much to ask of Neanderthals.