Professor David Lerner and a colleague, Dr Dave Chandler, at the University of Sheffield have found a use for tampons other than their obvious application. Apparently the fibers in a tampon consist of untreated cotton which is an excellent medium to pick up optical brighteners that glow under UV light. These optical brighteners are typically found in detergents and act to enhance whites and brighten colours. Thus, if surface water is found to contain any amount of these optical brighteners, it is a sure indication that somebody's sewer discharge is connected to the wrong network. Discovering the source of the pollution has been tedious and expensive, but now with field tests showing the effectiveness of tampons to collect samples, Bradford will be able to clean up its act in a cost effective style.
http://disinfo.com/2015/04/glow-dark-ta ... on-rivers/
Glow in the Dark Tampons
-
Icey
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
What an innovative idea! Tampons might actually be better served for this than for their original purpose, as toxic shock syndrome kills about 40 people a year in the UK.
If tampons can identify the source of pollution in rivers, then it's a bonus. The Bradford Beck was once considered one of the filthiest rivers in England, due to industrial units being built close by.
If tampons can identify the source of pollution in rivers, then it's a bonus. The Bradford Beck was once considered one of the filthiest rivers in England, due to industrial units being built close by.
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
For business, eons ago, we used to make signs using stencils and this special thick permanent ink.
No matter what we did, we could not get the applicators clean enough to reuse.
It cost enough in cleaner just to get the stencils clean enough for reuse.
The cost of the applicators was cost prohibitive to throw away.
Normally, men are who worked on making these outdoor signs, which had to hold up, sometimes for years.
Luck of the Irish, the men were all busy, and one of the gals had to work the department for over a week.
Starting on her second day in the department, she had no cleaner waste and no applicators to throw away.
She bought a box of cardboard tube type tampons, I don't know how many were in the box, but the whole box cost less than one applicator.
They used less of the thick ink, the signs looked better, dried faster, and lasted longer.
She won the job permanently, because none of the men would use the tampons to stencil the signs, hi hi...
No matter what we did, we could not get the applicators clean enough to reuse.
It cost enough in cleaner just to get the stencils clean enough for reuse.
The cost of the applicators was cost prohibitive to throw away.
Normally, men are who worked on making these outdoor signs, which had to hold up, sometimes for years.
Luck of the Irish, the men were all busy, and one of the gals had to work the department for over a week.
Starting on her second day in the department, she had no cleaner waste and no applicators to throw away.
She bought a box of cardboard tube type tampons, I don't know how many were in the box, but the whole box cost less than one applicator.
They used less of the thick ink, the signs looked better, dried faster, and lasted longer.
She won the job permanently, because none of the men would use the tampons to stencil the signs, hi hi...
-
Icey
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
Good heavens! These items seem to have more uses than anyone gives much thought to!
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
They work great for cleaning the paint from the rim of paint cans too!
Cleaning the lift tubes and other parts in aquaria.
Inside of small neck bottles when you don't have the right kind of brush to fit inside.
Great for cleaning hummingbird feeders, hi hi...
Starting Seeds?
Lighting BBQ Grills or smudge pots.
Wonder how they would work in a rocket launcher?
Or cleaning the bore of a shotgun?
Back when we had solid lifters, and wanted to quiet them down, we put cotton balls inside the lifters, took a dozen of them. Perhaps one tampon would have done the trick and held together too, hi hi...
Cleaning the lift tubes and other parts in aquaria.
Inside of small neck bottles when you don't have the right kind of brush to fit inside.
Great for cleaning hummingbird feeders, hi hi...
Starting Seeds?
Lighting BBQ Grills or smudge pots.
Wonder how they would work in a rocket launcher?
Or cleaning the bore of a shotgun?
Back when we had solid lifters, and wanted to quiet them down, we put cotton balls inside the lifters, took a dozen of them. Perhaps one tampon would have done the trick and held together too, hi hi...
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
I think I will have to study a bit on Reverse Engineering before I can come up with some more uses, hi hi...
-
Icey
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
LOL. I don't think you'd have too long to wait before an idea came to mind Gary. You amaze me with your ability to utilize stuff!
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
Comes from being POOR Icey. I have to make do with what I have on hand, or can afford.
When I was running my hot foil stamping machines, to control the temperature of the print heads, they used a pulsing type of thermostat on my newer heads.
When I first saw how the new head worked, I actually thought very bad thought about the new system. Turning the heating coils on and off several times a minute has got to wear them out faster, and maybe cost more to run.
I was in for a really big surprise. The old rheostat type heater controls burned up what electric was not going to the heaters, so running these print heads was costing me an arm and a leg. In other words, I had to take into consideration the cost of electric consume on each job I did, besides the materials, labor, and wear and tear on the machine and font faces. Oh, the surprise, my electric bill dropped down to the point I could not determine how much energy I was using to power the foil stamping equipment.
This alone would offset the cost of replacing the heaters on the print heads. But I never had to replace a heater afterward as I expected I would. I guess they are not like a light bulb which burns out faster if you turn it off and on all the time. The heater is not off long enough to change temperature, it just pulses, like tapping a pencil on a desk to a steady rhythm.
I've noticed more recently that a lot of electric stoves, the burners work the same way, including our new one. Keeps our electric bill way down!
When I was running my hot foil stamping machines, to control the temperature of the print heads, they used a pulsing type of thermostat on my newer heads.
When I first saw how the new head worked, I actually thought very bad thought about the new system. Turning the heating coils on and off several times a minute has got to wear them out faster, and maybe cost more to run.
I was in for a really big surprise. The old rheostat type heater controls burned up what electric was not going to the heaters, so running these print heads was costing me an arm and a leg. In other words, I had to take into consideration the cost of electric consume on each job I did, besides the materials, labor, and wear and tear on the machine and font faces. Oh, the surprise, my electric bill dropped down to the point I could not determine how much energy I was using to power the foil stamping equipment.
This alone would offset the cost of replacing the heaters on the print heads. But I never had to replace a heater afterward as I expected I would. I guess they are not like a light bulb which burns out faster if you turn it off and on all the time. The heater is not off long enough to change temperature, it just pulses, like tapping a pencil on a desk to a steady rhythm.
I've noticed more recently that a lot of electric stoves, the burners work the same way, including our new one. Keeps our electric bill way down!
-
Icey
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
You're right about the pulses or pauses when appliances reach a certain heat. It saves money. I don't have to watch every penny I spend, but my husband does that naturally, and I think I've followed him to a certain degree! It just makes sense not to waste it.
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
To me, logic made it seem like it would cost more in the long run. So it was a surprise when I saw it had the opposite affect of what I thought it would have.
-
Icey
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
You were probably thinking in terms of comparing it to switching a light bulb on and off, as you say, but I suppose it's like when the weather's cold and you have the choice of keeping your thermostatically-controlled radiators on. It's cheaper to let them run on a medium heat all the time, than it is to keep switching them on and off and having them heating up again. It can work the opposite way round with things like cookers.
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
My machine shop had several large motors, and an enormous electric bill to go with them.
On a few of the machines which were used several times a day, I installed a drive system, sorta like a clutch in a car, so the machine itself was not running, but the motor powering it stayed running.
The amount I saved in electric by leaving the motors running, far exceeded the cost of the drive system installation.
The motors also lasted a lot longer too.
When I moved the shop to a new location, we had 208 triple phase available so as motors died, I switched to this new power source, and our electric bill dropped a considerable amount each time also.
The location I was in was being razed for a shopping center, so all of my machines were moved into the living room of my house while I looked for a new location to open. A few other things took place during this time which put a damper on me reopening, so I eventually sold most of the equipment, and some I kept for myself, but had to change out the 208 motors for 220 motors. Then rarely got to use any of the equipment after that due to tending to an ailing wife.
Even so, I never would have believed keeping motors running all day would be cheaper than only turning them on when needed.
Now I know why so many factories use belt or gear driven machines from a central power source. Even the awning company only has one motor powering like twenty seaming machines.
On a few of the machines which were used several times a day, I installed a drive system, sorta like a clutch in a car, so the machine itself was not running, but the motor powering it stayed running.
The amount I saved in electric by leaving the motors running, far exceeded the cost of the drive system installation.
The motors also lasted a lot longer too.
When I moved the shop to a new location, we had 208 triple phase available so as motors died, I switched to this new power source, and our electric bill dropped a considerable amount each time also.
The location I was in was being razed for a shopping center, so all of my machines were moved into the living room of my house while I looked for a new location to open. A few other things took place during this time which put a damper on me reopening, so I eventually sold most of the equipment, and some I kept for myself, but had to change out the 208 motors for 220 motors. Then rarely got to use any of the equipment after that due to tending to an ailing wife.
Even so, I never would have believed keeping motors running all day would be cheaper than only turning them on when needed.
Now I know why so many factories use belt or gear driven machines from a central power source. Even the awning company only has one motor powering like twenty seaming machines.
-
Icey
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
Yes, it's surprising what we find out, isn't it?
Our electricity bills're always colossal so I'm often trying to find ways of saving, but because our suppliers've all been very naughty and increased their charges severaL times, any saving's swamped by the increases. I even go round turning lights off which aren't necessary, which makes some of my friends grin, but when you have a lot on at once, switching them off DOES save money. I'm turning into a meanie, and the funny thing is - I enjoy doing it!! : )
Our electricity bills're always colossal so I'm often trying to find ways of saving, but because our suppliers've all been very naughty and increased their charges severaL times, any saving's swamped by the increases. I even go round turning lights off which aren't necessary, which makes some of my friends grin, but when you have a lot on at once, switching them off DOES save money. I'm turning into a meanie, and the funny thing is - I enjoy doing it!! : )
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
If half the people served by your electric company decided to cut corners to save electric, it will FORCE the electric company to raise their rates, possibly even double them, even though their cost of goods sold goes down, their commitment to stockholders and the bottom line must continually go up.
If you have payouts of 1000 dollars per day, which is offset by an income of 1000 dollars per day, and suddenly that income drops to 500 dollars per day, you still have your 1000 dollar a day commitment to cover.
The only way to do this is to double your prices so you return to 1000 dollar per day income.
Of course the electric companies want everyone to SAVE ELECTRIC, it means their COST OF GOODS SOLD goes down. It also means they can double their prices so their income stream does not change and possible even goes up.
The truth be known, energy conservation is not about users saving money or reducing costs. It's all about the utilities doing less work for a higher rate. Using one half of their equipment to produce double the profits.
You the end consumer will end up saving nothing, because using 1/2 means you will soon be paying double, so your bottom line stays the same or goes up anyhow.
The water is going to flow over the dam anyhow, whether it is put to a useful purpose or not.
If you have payouts of 1000 dollars per day, which is offset by an income of 1000 dollars per day, and suddenly that income drops to 500 dollars per day, you still have your 1000 dollar a day commitment to cover.
The only way to do this is to double your prices so you return to 1000 dollar per day income.
Of course the electric companies want everyone to SAVE ELECTRIC, it means their COST OF GOODS SOLD goes down. It also means they can double their prices so their income stream does not change and possible even goes up.
The truth be known, energy conservation is not about users saving money or reducing costs. It's all about the utilities doing less work for a higher rate. Using one half of their equipment to produce double the profits.
You the end consumer will end up saving nothing, because using 1/2 means you will soon be paying double, so your bottom line stays the same or goes up anyhow.
The water is going to flow over the dam anyhow, whether it is put to a useful purpose or not.
-
Icey
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
Sad that the world's come to all this greed isn't it?
Do you have to pay for your water like we do over here?
Do you have to pay for your water like we do over here?
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
Yes, and it is compounded by charging five times your water bills for the sewer bill.
Back home we had three separate sewer systems, besides the natural or controlled watersheds.
Our sewer bills were about 1/3 of our water bill, but have since risen until they are about equal.
Down here we have one sewer system, no storm sewer system, they use the watershed for storm drainage.
Our sewer bill here is roughly five times of what our water bill is. For What?
They have not maintained our local watershed/storm drainage, since the city took over the county and doubled our taxes.
So we know no money is going to maintain the watershed anymore. Even when it was, it was paid from our taxes, not on the water bill.
Here I keep this note handy. Back Home info, for MSD sewer system:
MSD operates 9,649 miles of sewers.
2,980 miles for stormwater.
4,741 miles for Sanitary.
1,928 miles of flow lines (piped watershed) but does not include Watershed maintenance.
As far as water mains, in our county alone back home, we had over 4,200 miles of water mains, which do not count the lateral lines and interconnecting lines. Only the mains.
At the time I did these calculations, after I moved south.
St. Louis County water cost $1.52 ccf, and the sewer $1.88 ccf after 750 gallon allowance.
Here in Knox County we pay $2.62 ccf, and the sewer is $6.42 ccf based on water usage.
Sewer and water combined is only 5,260 miles of pipes down here.
So WHY the major PRICE GOUGING???
14,000 miles of pipes only cost St. Louisans $1.52 and $1.88, about 3 bucks, vs
5,000 miles of pipes cost Knoxvillians $2.62 and $6.42, over 9 bucks. WHY?
I can tell you why. Our Utilities back home were independently owned, and had competition. While our Utilities down here are run by a government board. Too many poly-TICK-ians getting a handout and bleeding the people dry with their mega-buck salaries for doing nothing.
EVERYTHING Costs More, and you get Much Less, when it is handled by the Government!
Back home we had three separate sewer systems, besides the natural or controlled watersheds.
Our sewer bills were about 1/3 of our water bill, but have since risen until they are about equal.
Down here we have one sewer system, no storm sewer system, they use the watershed for storm drainage.
Our sewer bill here is roughly five times of what our water bill is. For What?
They have not maintained our local watershed/storm drainage, since the city took over the county and doubled our taxes.
So we know no money is going to maintain the watershed anymore. Even when it was, it was paid from our taxes, not on the water bill.
Here I keep this note handy. Back Home info, for MSD sewer system:
MSD operates 9,649 miles of sewers.
2,980 miles for stormwater.
4,741 miles for Sanitary.
1,928 miles of flow lines (piped watershed) but does not include Watershed maintenance.
As far as water mains, in our county alone back home, we had over 4,200 miles of water mains, which do not count the lateral lines and interconnecting lines. Only the mains.
At the time I did these calculations, after I moved south.
St. Louis County water cost $1.52 ccf, and the sewer $1.88 ccf after 750 gallon allowance.
Here in Knox County we pay $2.62 ccf, and the sewer is $6.42 ccf based on water usage.
Sewer and water combined is only 5,260 miles of pipes down here.
So WHY the major PRICE GOUGING???
14,000 miles of pipes only cost St. Louisans $1.52 and $1.88, about 3 bucks, vs
5,000 miles of pipes cost Knoxvillians $2.62 and $6.42, over 9 bucks. WHY?
I can tell you why. Our Utilities back home were independently owned, and had competition. While our Utilities down here are run by a government board. Too many poly-TICK-ians getting a handout and bleeding the people dry with their mega-buck salaries for doing nothing.
EVERYTHING Costs More, and you get Much Less, when it is handled by the Government!
-
Icey
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
Over here, water's measured by an approx. annual consumption. The only way to find out exactly what you're being charged for's to have a water meter, but these sometimes work out dearer than using the old rates system, and may only benefit those living on their own. Families who use a lot of water're better off paying the designated amount for their area, plus the sewage/drainage charges. Considering that our water treatment's good, it doesn't seem so much to pay for being able to use as much as you like, and keep swimming pools full and so on. If ours was metered, we'd be paying an absolute fortune. As it stands, the last time I checked ours, it stood at about $614 a year as far as I can remember. There's no fluoridation in our area, which I'm pleased about, and it undergoes rigorous testing.
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
Some areas of the City did work on a rated amount. However, it was technically a very unfair way they used to determine how much someone pays. An elderly widow living alone, may be paying five times more than a family of six right next door, who has water running constantly, washing cars, hosing off sidewalks, watering grass, etc.
The reason for the big difference has to do with how they determine what your water bill will be.
They count the total number of faucets in your house and outside, including the drain faucet on your water heater.
Single handle faucets count as two faucets. Plus there is a count added to it over and above the faucet count by how many rooms contain water faucets, and how many rooms are classified as habitable, aka bedroom use, whether used as a bedroom or not. An office in your house if it meets habitable room counts as a room.
So, the widow, even though unable to use steps, has an old washer connection in the basement, plus a faucet to fill buckets, and a shower and toilet, turned off for years. Four faucets outside, and inside has two bathrooms plus six habitable rooms.
The family of six has NO water faucets in the basement, no water faucets outside, only one bathroom, and four habitable rooms. Yet the house is much larger and a temporary partition divides a large bedroom into two rooms.
Out in the County, all homes have water meters, so you pay for what you use.
I guess I shouldn't complain after seeing what you are paying. It's only the wife and I, and we pay a little over 200 bucks a year for water. It's the sewer bill added to it which hikes it up to around 600 bucks a year.
Some of Debi's relatives are still on well water, and although the water is free, the electric to run the pumps, maintenance on them, and changing the water filters every so often, actually costs them almost as much. They still get a hefty sewer bill like we do, but it is flat rate, based on the size of your well pump. So most folks have a grossly undersized well pump in the well house, but keep a portable pump to use for some things, like lawn sprinklers where they don't want the water going through the filters on the main pump.
The reason for the big difference has to do with how they determine what your water bill will be.
They count the total number of faucets in your house and outside, including the drain faucet on your water heater.
Single handle faucets count as two faucets. Plus there is a count added to it over and above the faucet count by how many rooms contain water faucets, and how many rooms are classified as habitable, aka bedroom use, whether used as a bedroom or not. An office in your house if it meets habitable room counts as a room.
So, the widow, even though unable to use steps, has an old washer connection in the basement, plus a faucet to fill buckets, and a shower and toilet, turned off for years. Four faucets outside, and inside has two bathrooms plus six habitable rooms.
The family of six has NO water faucets in the basement, no water faucets outside, only one bathroom, and four habitable rooms. Yet the house is much larger and a temporary partition divides a large bedroom into two rooms.
Out in the County, all homes have water meters, so you pay for what you use.
I guess I shouldn't complain after seeing what you are paying. It's only the wife and I, and we pay a little over 200 bucks a year for water. It's the sewer bill added to it which hikes it up to around 600 bucks a year.
Some of Debi's relatives are still on well water, and although the water is free, the electric to run the pumps, maintenance on them, and changing the water filters every so often, actually costs them almost as much. They still get a hefty sewer bill like we do, but it is flat rate, based on the size of your well pump. So most folks have a grossly undersized well pump in the well house, but keep a portable pump to use for some things, like lawn sprinklers where they don't want the water going through the filters on the main pump.
-
Icey
Re: Glow in the Dark Tampons
Yes, it's difficult to gauge individual water usage if you're not metered, but in our own particular situation, it works out MUCH cheaper to have the old rates system.
On a street where houses're pretty equal in size, it's worked out using several factors - whether the occupant lives singly or as a family, whether they have more than 1 toilet, if they use a shower instead of a bath, whether they own a dishwasher or use a hosepipe - and things like that. A person can challenge their bills if they think they're too high, and be reassessed, so circumstances play a part in it, although many just accept the charges and pay them!
Water meters don't always work out better for those on their own, either. Firstly, they have the obligatory standing charge for the service, and elderly people living on a limited income sometimes daren't use their washing machines frequently (or even have daily showers) for fear of exceeding what they can pay.
If surface water doesn't run into a public sewer, then people can apply for a reduction in sewage charges.
Some people in rural areas have their own water supplies, unconnected to the general pipework (such as wells or streams). These have to be tested though, to make sure that the water isn't contaminated by any chemicals, lead from any pipework or from organisms which can damage health. Naturally, there's a charge for this!
In certain areas of the UK, residents've complained about those who don't have water meters, and once a meter's installed, it can't be taken out again. They're seeing that - as in our case perhaps - some can use as much water as they want, and only pay the designated charge. Thus, they don't think it's fair. On the other hand, many of those who moan chose to have their homes metered, and then found that they were constantly having to watch what they use, so a bit of resentment set in. Tough, in that case, because they had the choice the same as anyone else. New homes are now all metered though, and the cost depends on the water board which controls each area. In the south, the charges're far higher than up here. It doesn't seem fair, and yet the water source might be miles from where they are, so the companies have to get their money back somehow. Miles of piping and treatment costs money, as do leaks. I suppose we're lucky really, and our water's supplied by well-kept reservoirs.
On a street where houses're pretty equal in size, it's worked out using several factors - whether the occupant lives singly or as a family, whether they have more than 1 toilet, if they use a shower instead of a bath, whether they own a dishwasher or use a hosepipe - and things like that. A person can challenge their bills if they think they're too high, and be reassessed, so circumstances play a part in it, although many just accept the charges and pay them!
Water meters don't always work out better for those on their own, either. Firstly, they have the obligatory standing charge for the service, and elderly people living on a limited income sometimes daren't use their washing machines frequently (or even have daily showers) for fear of exceeding what they can pay.
If surface water doesn't run into a public sewer, then people can apply for a reduction in sewage charges.
Some people in rural areas have their own water supplies, unconnected to the general pipework (such as wells or streams). These have to be tested though, to make sure that the water isn't contaminated by any chemicals, lead from any pipework or from organisms which can damage health. Naturally, there's a charge for this!
In certain areas of the UK, residents've complained about those who don't have water meters, and once a meter's installed, it can't be taken out again. They're seeing that - as in our case perhaps - some can use as much water as they want, and only pay the designated charge. Thus, they don't think it's fair. On the other hand, many of those who moan chose to have their homes metered, and then found that they were constantly having to watch what they use, so a bit of resentment set in. Tough, in that case, because they had the choice the same as anyone else. New homes are now all metered though, and the cost depends on the water board which controls each area. In the south, the charges're far higher than up here. It doesn't seem fair, and yet the water source might be miles from where they are, so the companies have to get their money back somehow. Miles of piping and treatment costs money, as do leaks. I suppose we're lucky really, and our water's supplied by well-kept reservoirs.