Environmentalists and the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[SackAttack]

So there's this thing, you might have heard of it, called a "low-flow" toilet.

Supposed to save water. Happy happy joy joy for the environment. I suppose when all you're using it for is good ol' Number One, the Terminator, that's exactly what it does.

We just had a couple of busted toilets replaced. The outgoing johns were the old-school variety. The newer ones are low-flows. I, uh, can't use them after eating Tommy's cheeseburgers. Or, rather, I can, but then I either have to flush the stupid thing about ten times (yay, environment!) when one flush of the old commmodes would have done the job, or the result has to sit for a while before the toilet is capable of flushing it away (last time it took two days).

Somebody needs to invent one of these things where you can push a button for intended usage and get the appropriate water flow as a result.

[Buccaneer]

As one who works for utilities including environmental regulations and conservation efforts, you wouldn't believe the amount of Law of Unintended Consequences. It's like I said last week when talking about the plastic-eating microbes - everything has tradeoffs.

[lordscarlet]

You mean like http://www.37signals.com/svn/archive...ush_toilet.php ?

[Raiders Army]

My old office had no water urinals. They stank up the bathroom worse than five fat guys going out to eat unholy Mexican and then spraying diarrhea on the walls.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

You mean like http://www.37signals.com/svn/archive...ush_toilet.php ?

That's an excellent start, although what I'm thinking of would be a little more electronic.

You push a button that tells the toilet "this is how the toilet is being used. When Josh flushes, use the appropriate amount of water."

Setting it up so that you're pushing that button or pulling that lever or whatever for the appropriate flow strength at the time of flushing just seems like poor design. As the writer of the article you cited mentions, if you're half-asleep, designs like those could actually encourage water wastefulness.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's an excellent start, although what I'm thinking of would be a little more electronic.

You push a button that tells the toilet "this is how the toilet is being used. When Josh flushes, use the appropriate amount of water."

Setting it up so that you're pushing that button or pulling that lever or whatever for the appropriate flow strength at the time of flushing just seems like poor design. As the writer of the article you cited mentions, if you're half-asleep, designs like those could actually encourage water wastefulness.

Huh? How is what you said different? You want to push it before you go to the bathroom? Or you want it to just know if you're taking a crap or a piss? If you're expecting a toilet to sense how much flush power it needs because you're too lazy to take the time to push the right button (sounds like women complaining about the seat being up because of going to the bathroom in the middle of the night) then I'm not sure what to tell you.

[Subby]

If a low flow toilet can't handle the size of your dump then you need to see a doctor.

It's you, not the toilet.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Subby

If a low flow toilet can't handle the size of your dump then you need to see a doctor.

It's you, not the toilet.

QFT... that's what I was just going to say.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Subby

If a low flow toilet can't handle the size of your dump then you need to see a doctor.

It's you, not the toilet.

I didn't want to be the one to mention it.

[flere-imsaho]

For our home renovation, we're installing dual-flush toilets, which are, in my opinion, a much better option. You press one button for a 1.6 gallon flush, and another button for a 0.8 gallon flush. When we visited New Zealand we saw these all over the place, and they worked really well, so it seemed like a no-brainer for us.

[lordscarlet]

We used dual flush toilets in Greece (the islands), which also has a water supply problem.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think SackAttack realizes that the dual flush has the "bigger" flush to be the same as his low flow toilet and the pee flush is just smaller.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Subby

If a low flow toilet can't handle the size of your dump then you need to see a doctor.

It's you, not the toilet.

yy

[JeeberD]

Pshaw...real men take huge dumps.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

Huh? How is what you said different? You want to push it before you go to the bathroom? Or you want it to just know if you're taking a crap or a piss? If you're expecting a toilet to sense how much flush power it needs because you're too lazy to take the time to push the right button (sounds like women complaining about the seat being up because of going to the bathroom in the middle of the night) then I'm not sure what to tell you.

What I had in mind was a little electronic gizmo where you tell the toilet before the flush so you don't waste the water.

As opposed to pushing the wrong button when you're ready to flush and having to do it again and use more water than you otherwise would have.

It's not a laziness issue, it's a "make sure that a well-intended design doesn't backfire the same way the concept of the low-flow toilet has" issue.

[stevew]

The no water urinal is a horrible idea.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Somebody needs to invent one of these things where you can push a button for intended usage and get the appropriate water flow as a result.

It appears such a thing exists, if this thread is any indication, which makes me happy. I try to practice personal environmentalism as much as possible but sometimes, there are some impracticalities in the way.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by stevew

The no water urinal is a horrible idea.

I don't even get how those work. Voodoo, I think.

SI

[Drake]

On re-thinking environmental issues, there's an interesting article in this month's Wired.

http://www.wired.com/science/planete...heresies_intro

I honestly have no idea why I subscribe to this magazine when they put all of their articles on-line just a couple of days after I receive my issue.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by stevew

The no water urinal is a horrible idea.

You have no idea. I didn't even know it stank so bad until somebody mentioned it. I normally breathe through my mouth only when I use public restrooms so I don't have to smell anything.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

You have no idea. I didn't even know it stank so bad until somebody mentioned it. I normally breathe through my mouth only when I use public restrooms so I don't have to smell anything.

You'd rather taste it?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What I had in mind was a little electronic gizmo where you tell the toilet before the flush so you don't waste the water.

I still don't see how that's any different that what was linked to.

[Passacaglia]

I'm not thrilled about the idea of a urinal or toilet having buttons. Maybe it can be purely weight-based? So when you step up to the urinal, or sit on the toilet, if you weigh more, you get more water.

[stevew]

I wish I could retrofit my toilet with one of those "rocket flush" type systems. It's not enough to merely take a sunday paper type dump, I also want it sucked into a vortex with as much cyclonic power as possible.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

You'd rather taste it?

Naw. You don't taste anything if you don't smell! Anyhow, I always spit out the saliva in my mouth in the sink right after I wash my hands. If you breathe through your nose, you'll taste it anyway in your boogers later on. At least this way, I'm getting rid of most of it.

Edit--I mean, your boogers that come through the snot in your nose down the back of your throat...not eating your boogers.

[lordscarlet]

Wow. I have no response to your detailed explanation.

[Kodos]

SackAttack to the low-flow toilet:

"You want my poop? YOU CAN'T HANDLE MY POOP!!11!"

[Fidatelo]

low-flow toilets are evil.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

We used dual flush toilets in Greece (the islands), which also has a water supply problem.

One thing I've noticed is that nearly every country appears to have a 'water supply problem' these days .... I always thought water was a zero sum situation (ie. its not leaking into space so has to be here somewhere) ..... so is the sahara a heck of a lot wetter these days or what?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

One thing I've noticed is that nearly every country appears to have a 'water supply problem' these days .... I always thought water was a zero sum situation (ie. its not leaking into space so has to be here somewhere) ..... so is the sahara a heck of a lot wetter these days or what?

I don't know the answer to this, but I imagine the pollution of viable water sources and the difference between fresh and salt water has something to do with it.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

I don't know the answer to this, but I imagine the pollution of viable water sources and the difference between fresh and salt water has something to do with it.

But don't all modernised countries already purify water before its put into the system for houses, also island countries also have plants which purify salt water (its not hard to remove salt from water).

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

But don't all modernised countries already purify water before its put into the system for houses, also island countries also have plants which purify salt water (its not hard to remove salt from water).

I have no idea. My understanding, on Naxos at least, was that they did not have their own supply of water.

[Warhammer]

The problem with water is that only 1% of the earth's water is fresh water suitable for consumption. On top of that, many of the world's fastest growing populations do not have enough water to sustain the rate of population growth. Now, we can take a good portion of the other 99% of the earth's water and convert that to drinking water, but the energy required to do so is high as are the initial cost of construction of those water plants.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

But don't all modernised countries already purify water before its put into the system for houses, also island countries also have plants which purify salt water (its not hard to remove salt from water).

No, Memphis, TN basically pumps water straight from the ground to your house, as I understand it. We are on top of a very good aquifer system here though.

Removing the salt from water is not as easy as you think on a mass basis. It requires a lot of energy to do it. There are other technologies you can use besides reverse osmosis, but I do not think they would work for many areas of the industrialized world.

[CU Tiger]

There are good and bad low flo designs.

Toto invented the first effective low flo, but their design has been copieed at least 5 years.


you *can* add a flush assist like used in commercial applications, and while they arent as expensive as one might think they make a lot off noise in a residential environment.

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by Drake

On re-thinking environmental issues, there's an interesting article in this month's Wired.

http://www.wired.com/science/planete...heresies_intro

I honestly have no idea why I subscribe to this magazine when they put all of their articles on-line just a couple of days after I receive my issue.

Wow, I've just lost all respect for Wired. It's one thing to challenge the environmental litany. It's another thing altogether to simply go the other way for sensationalism.

I don't have time to go into detail, but at least 7 of 10 of those "exposes" are showing a dead tree to declare the forest lost.

First and foremost, nuclear energy is not the answer to global warming. In fact, the only real solution to the energy crisis -- say expert after expert -- is to reduce consumption. No technology advancement has ever led to a reduction in energy consumption (or, to be more precise, has ever beaten back the rise in overall consumption). It is true that the real effects of the Chernobyl meltdown were overblown (it's the one point where I totally disagree with Greenpeace), and most reactors are safe (although claiming you can choose locations to build reactors and store waste that will never suffer an earthquake is bold indeed), the truth is that nuclear energy is simply not cost effective when compared to alternative energy sources once you've added up all the costs involved.

Reducing consumption and trasnmission losses, as well as smarter construction and efficient technology is the smart way to go. here is just one story to illustrate: hxxp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070920111359.htm

[Sgran]

But to get back to the point of the thread, new-age toilets are completely waterless and -- according to the faithful -- odourless. AND, most importantly, SackAttack, Dave Berry feels your pain: http://www.jimpoz.com/jokes/toiletPolice.html

[st.cronin]

"Reducing consumption" will never, ever, ever happen.