"Blind Samples" samples were collected by State Officials from three systems on the same day. All three are single family residences in similar locations and have been in use for several years. System N and System F both have NSF 40 and 245. Which system has the best total nitrogen results?
System N effluent contains TWICE the nitrogen as the Eliminite system and System F effluent has THREE TIMES the nitrogen as the Eliminite. This is not a one time occurrence, Eliminite consistently beats the others. Keep in mind, these tests were taken in warm weather....once the temperature falls a bit, N and F results degrade steeply. A recent cold weather (January in Montana) sample from a single family residence on Montana: 13 mg/L total nitrogen. Even our inexpensive standard residential models in the long bitter cold of Montana winters run around 12-15 mg/L total nitrogen. If you need it, we can easily obtain single digit results. Consistently and reliably.
Capital cost for all three are close but I have seen cost estimates for the others and we even beat them on price. Electrical costs for the other two are probably 5-8 times higher than Eliminite and our systems require far less maintenance.
So why are the other companies so big and well known? One word: Lobbyists. They all have government relations departments that push and manipulate the regs to favor their particular stinkbox. Just look it up on their websites. Eliminite out performs most onsite systems and, if you factor in cost, it may be the best value in onsite treatment technology available, but we are at a competitive disadvantage because we don't have a team of lobbyists providing favors to the gullible government officials they were able to inveigle with their silver tongues.
I am working on obtaining an approval in Maryland (they have HUGE onsite problems there which are not being helped by the fact that the state is forced to water down their regs because the approved systems cannot meet the standards). I was informed that the manufacturers of the existing systems there would likely sue the state if we were even allowed in for an test run. Sounds like the work of lobbyists to me.
In Montana, System N and F, last time I looked, do not have a single installation that even comes close to meeting our liberal standard of 24 mg/L TN. Not one. In fact, most of the really fancy filter fabric contraptions can't meet that standard either (This leads to monkeying around with the samples so they can claim a 60% reduction in TN. If I user their numbers for influent strength, Eliminite generally obtains an 80-90% reduction in nitrogen......you guys can't beat us so put on some dry "huggies", change the sheets and stop your whining.)
If you are tired of hearing all their excuses about high cost, paying dearly for inferior results, putting up with all the maintenance expense, the smell, the noise, high electric bills, I you have "seven tons of toxic peat moss" rotting in your yard (I'll write more about that later. you can take a look at Leesburg Today 7/19/07 if you are interested), if "fluffing" little foam croutons sounds stupid to you too, if you can't stand having those guys in your backyard hosing off fish tank filters full of feculent feces, if pumping sewage on sandboxes just does not seem to make sense, you can call or write to me, I'll tell it like it is. I want to show you real world results that come from reliable designs and expert engineering. I can show you our system that is biologically complex and mechanically simple. (Thanks to my good friend Richard for that line). Whatever you do, don't commit intellectual suicide by swallowing anything these guys try to feed you without questioning it. Ask them how their system compares to Eliminite and watch them pucker up...or say, "Oh..I never heard of them." They have heard of us...they just don't want YOU to hear of us.
Every time I start feeling discouraged about how unprofessional and unjust certain players in our field can be (usually after our large, out-of-state competitors manage to whine and pule their way into conciliatory treatment from regulatory agencies) I remember that only one fact really, truly counts: Eliminite works. It works. It works! And not only does it work, it works BETTER. In MORE PLACES, under adverse conditions, FOR SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER COST, both short-term and long-term. And it is only a matter of time before consumers become sufficiently educated that they will no longer tolerate exorbitant cost for mediocre (at best) performance. Today's consumers are smarter, more budget-conscious, more environmentally aware, and less susceptible to peddler-propagated B.S. than consumers of yesteryear, when bank loans were issued in exchange for little more than tootsie rolls, goodwill, and an wide-eyed, earnest promises to repay, regardless of creditworthiness. "Show me the money" is rapidly evolving into "show me the results"...a terrifying prospect for many of Eliminite's competitors, who've spent so much time figuring out how to duck warranties, lobby (i.e., manipulate) regulatory agencies and generally escape liability, they've forgotten about their responsibility to the environment, and to their customers. The free-for-all is ending in the decentralized industry, and I, for one, am glad.
ReplyDeleteThe oversized, laboring dinosaurs of this industry are going to slowly go extinct (as well they should) while smaller, more adaptable and innovative firms will thrive.
Over the past 6 years, I've closely followed the EPA's decentralized listserv, and dear Big Guys...as one of this industry's most committed professionals has aptly posted in the footer of his messages for the past several years: "Your old road is rapidly aging.
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand,
For the times they are a-changin'."