To Flush Or Not To Flush

gooman writes "Tired of arguing the same old issues like Linux vs Windows? Choose up sides in the fight over flushing vs non-flushing urinals. The L.A. Times reports on efforts to place the waterless urinal into the Uniform Plumbing Code. To quote: '...the ordinary-looking urinal is at the center of a national debate that has plumbers and water conservationists taking aim at one another.' Amazingly simple, the no-flush urinal uses gravity to force urine through a filter containing a floating layer of oily liquid which then acts as a sealant to prevent sewer odors from escaping. Each no-flush urinal is claimed to save over 24,000 gallons of water a year, but the opposition is concerned about the spread of disease. Although not mentioned in the article this technology is in use around the world. Does anyone have these fixtures installed at their place of employment? Are there any real drawbacks? Is this really a worthwhile debate or just an excuse for toilet humor?"

Comments

Get your $#!^ together

[BWJones]

There are actually a number of simple implementations that I have been absolutely surprised to not see in the US. For instance, in other places I have traveled around the world, dual flush toilets with "light" and "heavy" flush modes are available everywhere except in the most undeveloped third world countries. However, here in the US, particularly in water restricted areas you see standard high-flow toilets. Granted many "low flow" toilets such as the ones available in many areas of California are not so great if you have a fruit/vegetable intensive diet, but for some reason the toilets available in the US simply don't have the "power" that other more advanced designs have elsewhere in the world and I am not talking about the advanced technology toilets that they have in Japan either. Those are actually kinda scary because of all their automation and such, but simple things like pressure assist can make for very effective low water use designs.

Why is it that the US, one of the most advanced countries in the world cannot get their $#!^ together, pun intended :-) when it comes to plumbing issues that most of the rest of the world seems to have solved years ago?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the US is not as advanced as you think they are or maybe having a choice of two flush types is too much for the ordinary citizen to handle. :)

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[GnarlyNome]

Follow the $$ good low flush toilets cost as much as $600.00 while a crappy one that just meets code can go for less than $100.00
NO contractor is going to cut into his profit margin on a bid job. Just remember the Building Code is the *Mimium* that you can get away with.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[slashdotnickname]

Why is it that the US, one of the most advanced countries in the world cannot get their $#!^ together, pun intended :-) when it comes to plumbing issues that most of the rest of the world seems to have solved years ago?

Your loaded question implies there's a serious problem with the current system in the U.S, and that's just not the case. Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon. Plus the "old" way just plain works so there's no major incentive to change things.

Also, what effect will a more concentrated (less dilluted with water) waste have on the environment? Seems like a total no-flush solution would require an overall change in the entire waster-water-management system. Such an expensive undertaking would be hard to justify giving how relatively cheap the current system is.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[saskboy]

" i don't give a crap about water conservation... "

Mr. Bush, what are you doing posting to Slashdot?

We don't have a good environmental boogey man when it comes to water wasting. Can anyone suggest one that's better than Bush?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

because they don't give a shit ?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[HardCase]

There are actually a number of simple implementations that I have been absolutely surprised to not see in the US.

Like the implementation that I discovered in several modern businesses in Marseilles, France when I was there in the early '90s: a hole in the floor with two raised places to put your feet. No flushing at all! Of course, there appeared to be a problem with the, um, accuracy of the previous users that was disturbing, to say the least...

-h-

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

yeh what's the estimated pH of a bunch of guys' piss sitting in a pipe without water? yuck

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[RabidMoose]

Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon. Plus the "old" way just plain works so there's no major incentive to change things.

Also, what effect will a more concentrated (less dilluted with water) waste have on the environment?

Good point. With the way water treatment facilities are set up right now, so much of the water that gets flushed down the toilet is recycled and watering somebody's lawn, especially in the more water-smart cities.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[hhawk]

its' called a public good. Water is still fairly cheap here and so there is little incentive economically to develop a variety of things that would make sense if you actually had to pay serious $$ for your water..

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[ewhac]

Your loaded question implies there's a serious problem with the current system in the U.S, and that's just not the case. Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon.

Incorrect. The situation is already changing. And it is going to get worse soon.

Redwood City, CA, -- smack in the middle of one of the most affluent areas in the nation -- currently has what amounts to a ban on all new construction because there's simply no more fresh water. They have already exceeded their allotment from available supplies. Los Angeles has been living on borrowed time for decades, damming up every fresh water supply in sight and draining it dry. Tulare Lake, once measuring roughly 30 by 60 miles across, is now essentially gone. It took government intervention to keep them from completely draining Mono Lake, but they're still slurping a monsterous percentage of the Colorado River. Other scattered communities throughout the continental US are noticing the rivers and lakes are drying up, and underground fresh water aquifers are also becoming harder to find and maintain.

There is a problem. And as long as the population increases, it's only going to get worse. As I see it, there are only two real long-term solutions:

• Mandatory Conservation
  I don't really give a sh*t if you have a six-figure income and can afford a $500/month water bill; the surrounding community that supports you can't sustain it. So mandatory conservation for everyone. That means 1.8 gallon or less toilets, low-flow shower heads, front-loading clothes washers, underground or drip irrigation for gardens. If you're really snazzy, you'll recapture your waste water and re-use it for the garden or the toilets -- or re-purify it yourself and take pressure off the municipal supply.
• Massive Water Grid Project
  We have a nationwide power grid. Why not a nationwide water grid? Some areas of the country get flooded every year, while others suffer drought. With a national network of large pipes, we can ship water from areas that have too much to areas that don't have enough -- use the flood waters from the Midwest and East to relieve water shortages in the West, and vice-versa when the need arises.

Of course, I'm just an insane computer programmer, so what do I know?

By the way, if you want to talk about the (lack of) need for water conservation and be taken seriously, then viewing this is a mandatory prerequisite.

Schwab

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[E8086]

This reminds me of that King of the Hill where Hank successfully fights to keep his "normal flow" toilet because the bill to mandate low flow tiolets was proposed by the guy who makes them, using politics for personal financial gain. In most of the US there's plenty of water for use in toilets, except California, probably why the article's in the LA times, where there's a shortage of everything but lawsuits. A large part of the state was desert, you can try to conserve and stockpile water and bring water to the desert, but it's still desert. Probably a simpler solution would be delayed flushing, a good number of the urinals over here on the east coast have sensors that flush when you're done. All they would need to do is change the toilet's firmware to flush once every 10-20 uses. There will still be that pool of water and blue disk at the bottom but it will only use less water.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[frdmfghtr]

Why is it that the US, one of the most advanced countries in the world cannot get their $#!^ together, pun intended :-) when it comes to plumbing issues that most of the rest of the world seems to have solved years ago?

Because it seems like if it doesn't (a) get somebody re-elected and/or (b) make somebody a profit, it usually won't get done.

During WWII, Winston Churchill put it best. To paraphrase: The Americans, when all other options have been exhausted, will do the right thing.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Lehk228]

you can't use flood waters for consumption, far too contaminated often with things that require distillation not simple filtration or treatment to make safe to drink. unless YOU want to be drinking gasoline and motor oil with your water

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[ewhac]

No, but if you strategically locate your cisterns and capture points, you can capture a fair amount of the water before it becomes floodwater. If the system is pervasive and dense enough, the excess water could be pumped away as it falls, reducing the chances of a devastating flood.

Of course, this idea conveniently ignores the potential environmental impact of redistributing water on such a massive scale...

Schwab

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Lehk228]

without the oil trap used in the no fluch models do you have any idea how bad that would stink. even with just one use after a few minutes urine starts to smell pretty bad.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Lehk228]

if some way were devised to reduce harm from contamination, perhapse using excess floodwater for irrigation and other non-drinking non-bathing purposes such a system would be a great idea, possibly use passive solar distillation to convert a percentage into drinking water

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[CaptainCarrot]

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The only place you'll see the old, high-flow toilets are in older houses. You can't even buy the things anymore, not since 1992. 1.6 gpf toilets are now standard everywhere in the US. There was early resistance to them because, as another poster pointed out, early models did not work well, and in reaction some people went so far as to import high-flush models from Canada. No one bothers anymore unless they're atavistic; new low-flush toilets work just fine.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

There are actually a number of simple implementations that I have been absolutely surprised to not see in the US. For instance, in other places I have traveled around the world, dual flush toilets with "light" and "heavy" flush modes are available everywhere except in the most undeveloped third world countries.

I live in Canada, and I've travelled extensively in France, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. I have never seen or heard of a dual flush toilet.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Fess_Longhair]

Granted many "low flow" toilets such as the ones available in many areas of California are not so great if you have a fruit/vegetable intensive diet, but for some reason the toilets available in the US simply don't have the "power" that other more advanced designs...

For gravity feed (i.e. most residential) toilets, the key to the "power" problem is the quality of the porcelane. I think the problems some people have with these "low flow" toilets is with the cheapest models. I got a mid-range 1.6 gpf model a few years ago and have not had a single problem in a family of vegetarians with very high fiber diets. :)

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[An Ominous Cow Aired]

ARE YOU RETARDED? Never heard of a water shortage?! Jesus Christ, get out of your hole and go outside every once in a while. Sooner or later you'll hear that the city is asking that you not water your lawn because there isn't enough water. Next they will ask that you limit your water use as much as possible. After that, they might have a "rolling blackout", or have periods of reduced pressure, or none at all.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Dausha]

"Redwood City, CA, -- smack in the middle of one of the most affluent areas in the nation -- currently has what amounts to a ban on all new construction because there's simply no more fresh water. They have already exceeded their allotment from available supplies. Los Angeles has been living on borrowed time for decades, damming up every fresh water supply in sight and draining it dry. Tulare Lake, once measuring roughly 30 by 60 miles across, is now essentially gone. It took government intervention to keep them from completely draining Mono Lake, but they're still slurping a monsterous percentage of the Colorado River. Other scattered communities throughout the continental US are noticing the rivers and lakes are drying up, and underground fresh water aquifers are also becoming harder to find and maintain."

That's what you get for living in the desert. You countered the parent post, who said that freshwater is plentiful in most of the US by saying that in a couple places in California, there is need for conservation. I hate to burst your bubble, but California is not "most" of the US. Come to the Mississippi river area and tell me there's not enough water.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Kadin2048]

Maybe you could program them with an OR condition: flush every 5 uses, or after 5 minutes of inactivity. That way if the toilet was being used continuously (say a whole line of guys using it one after the other) then it wouldn't flush after every use, but it wouldn't sit full of urine and stink for more than a few minutes after the last person was done, either.

Perhaps simpler, just program them with a longer delay-before-flush on the motion sensor. Instead of flushing as soon as the person steps back from the unit, as most of them do now, use a few second delay so that if another person moves into position to use it, it doesn't flush immediately. I don't think that many men would really be bothered by this, and it could potentially save a lot of water in locations where the usage comes in large surges (think restrooms at sports stadiums, concert halls, etc.).

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[BlueHands]

uhm, if you think redwood city is a desert, it shows how much you know about...well, reading.

HINT: Redwoods need alot of water.......guess what they have alot of in REDWOOD city?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That's what you get for living in the desert.

Yup. I'd like to live in California, except for all the batshit insane people demanding the full output of the Colorado river and acting like it's Connecticut.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[BlueHands]

Mandatory conservation is SO the wrong way to go, for lots of reasons. I would guess that business are the primary offender and are the ones that truly need to be constrained. You should totally let people use as much water as they can afford.

You just raise the cost of the water as the use increases. As their water use grows their cost increases geometricly. Suddenly people conserver water not because they have to but because they choose to.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Kadin2048]

Exactly. Despite the opinions of many Californians I've met, the universe does not revolve solely around them, or their state. Water shortages are rarely an issue in the U.S., outside of California (and I suspect probably mostly only Southern California) and the Southwestern states -- the only exception being the odd seasonal shortage during a bad summer drought in other places, or if the water supply is contaminated for some reason.

In any event, this seems like an issue that should be dealt with on the local municipal level, and certainly not on a Federal one. There are no water shortages in my area, and I have no desire to switch to a different design of toilet that wouldn't have any advantage to me and would just mean a lot of additional complexity, and I would take a very dim view of any legislation that tried to force this. If people who choose to live in places essentially unsuited to human habitation have problems with their water supply, obviously their governments should address these issues. But it's not a universal problem, and it does no good to make it one artificially.

There are enough problems which affect the entire country that need to be dealt with; we should leave those that only affect certain regions to the levels of government closest to the problems to fix as they see fit.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[chgros]

uhm, if you think redwood city is a desert, it shows how much you know about...well, reading.

HINT: Redwoods need alot of water.......guess what they have alot of in REDWOOD city?

I live in the bay area. Outside of the urbanized areas (with A LOT of water sprinklers. And they tell you to conserve shower water!), most of the vegetation is very dry. Maybe there was a time when Redwood could grow in Redwood city (and I can't comment on a redwood's water consumption, I have no idea about it), but I'm not sure it would still work.
Also for instance "lake" lagunita in Stanford used to be a place for rowing or windsurfing. Now it's merely a pond in the winter, and completely dry in the summer.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mr. Flibble]

Mandatory Conservation
I don't really give a sh*t if you have a six-figure income and can afford a $500/month water bill; the surrounding community that supports you can't sustain it. So mandatory conservation for everyone. That means 1.8 gallon or less toilets, low-flow shower heads, front-loading clothes washers, underground or drip irrigation for gardens. If you're really snazzy, you'll recapture your waste water and re-use it for the garden or the toilets -- or re-purify it yourself and take pressure off the municipal supply.

I am going to disagree with this sentiment on economic principles. Right now the price of gas is higher, and people in my area are switching to more fuel efficent vehicles. The pressure of the price of gas is causing this change. I have never seen so many smart cars and scooters on the roads before.

Those with large amounts of cash will still drive their hummers at high speeds along the roads because they can, and they will waste gas because they have the funds to do this. Conversely, I was partially glad when the head gasket on my Toyota 4Runner blew 6 months ago, and I switched to a Toyota Tercel (I still miss offroading in the 4runner mind you). My gas costs have dropped signifigantly, all because of a change of vehicle. I could have replaced the engine in the 4Runner for about $500, and the Tercel was much more than that, but I wanted better fuel economy, so I got it.

The same thing will happen with water. Sure, the beverly hills types will have their pools and constant running water, economic forces will allow them to do this. The "regular" people will start to conserve water because they must, and technologies that aid in conservation will become more and more common. It will reach a point where everyone except the very rich have these water saving devices because it makes economic sense. This is the case in europe, and it will become the case in North America because it must.

Economic pressures are great because you don't have to mandate any laws, the price of the commodity forces a change in the market. Rising water prices will force water conservation. Rising water prices will inspire businesses to find less expensive ways of converting waste water back into potable, and the same for seawater.

Economic forces will also cause invention and competition in the market - maybe someone will invent a waterless and odourless self cleaning toilet that uses almost no water - and it will become popular because it is less expensive to operate than the old gallon flush toilets. Mandating specific measures of conservation, such as your mentioned 1.8 gallon toilets, prevents economic forces from taking their toll. Economic forces result in greater invention, and greater choice. This is a good thing, and in the long run, it forces water conservation in its own way.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Deadstick]

Still quite a few of those in Paris, and they're still more or less standard in some countries. American servicemen usually refer to that design as the Turkish Bombsight.

rj

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

All but the low flow toilets sound good. I've got one now and it takes about three flushes and a plunger to get a decent crap to flush. So what good are they when you end up using more water to get them to work than you would with an older toilet. A better solution would to tell people to quit watering their yards and let the darned dandelions grow.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[n6mod]

what amounts to a ban on all new construction because there's simply no more fresh water. They have already exceeded their allotment from available supplies.

This always amuses me, every time some politico starts ranting about conservation.

The fact of the matter is that California has accomplished the last 20+ years of growth through conservation, not through building any additional infrastructure. This is what caused the energy collapse that allowed Arnie to usurp the Governorship, and now it's happening with water. (Didn't anyone *watch* Chinatown?)

The time has come for the powers that be to either a) spend money on infrastructure, or b) halt growth. Sounds like RWC chose answer b).

-Z

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[MillionthMonkey]

I used to work in Redwood City, at a startup located in a converted print shop in the gritty section between Woodside and Fifth.

That place had the most lo-flo toilet from hell I ever saw. Basically, the rule was that if the flush was 100% liquid (no solids or paper) you could safely flush once. Otherwise, you had to carefully look at what you were about to flush, and decide if it might stick to the pipes- and if you thought it might, then you had to flush twice, maybe three times. And you never knew what the toilet was going to do when you flushed it. If people before you hadn't been flushing it enough, it would take revenge on a random flusher by regurgitating several gallons of filth all over the floor. Everybody had a horror story of being caught when that happened, frantically trying to stop it with a plunger and then mopping up the mess. When we had customer visits the toilet became horrible- the customers weren't used to our toilet and would single-flush which quickly made the toilet very angry. We were chronic customers of Roto-Rooter, who was over every so often to fix recurring problems with the toilet and the landlord got so sick of the costs that he secretly installed illicit toilets from Canada.

Now I work at a place in Santa Clara. This place has one evil urinal that flushes forever. God knows how many gallons this thing rips through in one minute. Since even the normal urinal flushes are so remarkably prolonged, the flusher is usually gone before realizing that his flush is never going to end. (This is even granting time for the customary pro forma soapless hand rinse to acknowledge any possible witnesses to his hygeine who are in the restroom with him and who forced him to flush the urinal in the first place.) I see it happen all the time. I come in, this thing is flushing, and I stop it by flushing one of the other urinals (usually the one with yellow water, there's always one of those). The drop in pressure disrupts the eternal flush and it stops. Then someone I don't know will come in, use that urinal, start it flushing, quickly rinse and dry his hands without soap to acknowledge my presence as a potential witness to his hygeine, and leave before realizing he's just started an eternal flush.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Kadin2048]

Agreed; I was going to point this out but it's rarely worth arguing with people who think mandatory conservation will ever work, since they're generally quite detached from reality anyway. Schemes like that would be so unpopular and raise such public outrage in this country that they're nearly always a no-go from the start.

What does need to happen is that we need to have water rates that:
1. Accurately represent the entire cost of what is being used; perhaps including sewage treatment and water recycling, dam construction and maintenance, and other high-level infrastructure, either in the overhead/distribution flat fee, or the unit price per gallon,
2. Fluctuate depending on supply and demand: some water companies only bill bi-monthly, with pricing to match, and this means that customers aren't encouraged to tailor their usage to match supply, and
3. Equal rates for equal product delivered: business and industrial consumers shouldn't receive a discount on their consumption, except on the distribution/overhead charges (because it's a lot less piping to run one 4" line to a factory that consumes 1,000,000 gal/day than 1,000 small lines to homes that each consume 1,000 gal/day, the large users can fairly demand and should receive less of an overhead or "distribution surcharge," but the cost per gallon of water ought to be the same). This is probably the biggest issue, since I'd bet many major consumers are paying essentially subsidized rates for their water because of old agreements with utility companies.

The short-term effect of this might be to drive some water-dependent industries out of some areas, but this is really only a correction of behavior that shouldn't have existed if the market had been operating correctly. In the long run, water conservation will be encouraged in the same way that's most encouraged energy conservation: increasingly high utilities costs make the upfront investment in 'greener' facilities justifiable. It's just that for historical reasons, water supplies have always been insulated from having prices that represent the true cost of what's being delivered, especially in arid regions, and now we're seeing the consequences of that.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Lake Lagunita is a man-made lake to start with, and the only reason its empty oftentimes, is because Stanford DRAINS it for legal reasons (to prevent drunk frat drownings, etc), not because of a lack of water.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Tux2slack]

Duh, Ummm..... California is a DESERT; no surprise water is scarce. That doesn't mean the rest of the country is the same. Get real.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[nicklott]

Economic pressures are great because you don't have to mandate any laws, the price of the commodity forces a change in the market.

Economic pressures work great in a true free market. Unfortunately America, and the world in general, does not operate a true free market. Oil companies in particular are subsidised to the hilt. OK, it all comes out of your taxes eventually, but pump prices would be double what they are now without the gubment funding pipelines, tax breaks, wars etc.

The water companies are subsidised even more, but water is not a commodity like Oil. Not yet anyway.

There is also the Law and Order aspect to think about. If Joe Twelvepack down the road can afford to drive a hummer, the Joe Sixpack just thinks, "Ah well, maybe I need a better job". If Joe Twelvepack can afford to water his lawn while Joe Sixpack can only afford to wash once a week, I think his reaction might be a little stronger.

Fundamentally, you need water to live. Oil is convenient, but you don't need it to survive.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

The same thing will happen with water. Sure, the beverly hills types will have their pools and constant running water, economic forces will allow them to do this. The "regular" people will start to conserve water because they must, and technologies that aid in conservation will become more and more common. It will reach a point where everyone except the very rich have these water saving devices because it makes economic sense. This is the case in europe, and it will become the case in North America because it must. Heh. Whether you like it or not, we're all in this together. Why should some rich bastard use MY water, just because he is wealthier than I am? Spend it on gold or art, things I can live without, thank you.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Kymermosst]

It took government intervention to keep them from completely draining Mono Lake, but they're still slurping a monsterous percentage of the Colorado River.

Is it a good time to point out that Mono Lake and the Colorado River are completely unrelated except for Los Angeles drawing water from each?

Your sentence implies that Mono Lake is nearly dry due to L.A. drawing water from the Colorado River, which is simply not true. They are taking the water from minor streams and rivers in the Sierra Nevada that feed Mono Lake, which is nowhere near the Colorado River.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[aricusmaximus]

uhm, if you think redwood city is a desert, it shows how much you know about...well, reading.

HINT: Redwoods need alot of water.......guess what they have alot of in REDWOOD city?

If you guesed redwood trees, then you'd be wrong. Redwood City, like most cities, is not a grove of trees - it's mostly pavement and buildings. Redwood City was named not for having Redwoods but for providing a port for the lumber industry that cut them down from the Santa Cruz mountains.

You want to see Redwoods, then go to the relatively close Big Basin park or even to Redwood National Park, which is, ironically, several hundred miles away from Redwood City.

While not a desert (not like Pal Springs), Redwood City is hardly a moisture-laden paradise. According to official NOAA data Redwood City averages about 20 inches of rain a year, less than 1/2 of what New York City gets annually.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Kadin2048]

I don't want to put words in the GP's mouth, but what he's saying seems to make sense to me. I don't think he was implying that Mono Lake is drying up because of anything to do with the Colorado River specifically; it's drying up because L.A. is diverting away water that would otherwise feed it. In a separate but related issue, L.A. is ALSO diverting a large portion (so he says) of the Colorado River. Two separate issues.

To say that L.A. is the only thing that Mono Lake and the Colorado River have in common seems perfectly in line with the sentence as written. They have nothing in common except they're both used as water supplies by Los Angeles -- since that's what the discussion is about, that's why they're both being mentioned together.

At least that's the way I read it.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mozk]

This article is about urinals. Urinals are used for urination, not defecation. If your urine requires a heavy flush mode then I suggest you see a doctor.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mr. Flibble]

Why should some rich bastard use MY water, just because he is wealthier than I am? Spend it on gold or art, things I can live without, thank you.

Are you suggesting that on a planet covered with 70% water we will suddenly be faced with DUNE like conditions? What is to prevent you from distilling seawater? What is to prevent you from collecting rain, and distilling your own urine? The level of lack of water is unlikely to reach propotions where people begin to die of dehydration, you might just stink more as you take fewer showers. People might accuse you of being French!*

Let the people with the money wear their gold and gems, and take showers daily. Those that can't will create an economy so that they can.

(* Born and raised in Quebec:) )

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[h4rm0ny]

Saw one of these outside Bordeaux (can't remember where). Unbelievably they were open air near a main road and (the best bit) there were two of them - one signposted men and the other women!

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mr. Flibble]

The water companies are subsidised even more, but water is not a commodity like Oil. Not yet anyway.

No, and subsidized or not, if the price rises beyond a certain threshold, people will change their habits. Simple as that. Why do you think people are even CONSIDERING a non water urinal at this point? Can you imagine places where urinals are currently flush operated continuing to pay the water bill, if say, water cost the same as gas? No, they would all switch to non-water urinals.

There is also the Law and Order aspect to think about. If Joe Twelvepack down the road can afford to drive a hummer, the Joe Sixpack just thinks, "Ah well, maybe I need a better job". If Joe Twelvepack can afford to water his lawn while Joe Sixpack can only afford to wash once a week, I think his reaction might be a little stronger.

So? What if his reaction is stronger? Then what? There are people just down the street from me that own 3 BMW's. I dont even own one. And water cost pressures are great enough in certain areas of the United States that people *PAINT* their lawns instead of watering them. Why paint instead of water? Partially cost, and probably partially mandated. One could water illegally I suppose, but I prefer the economic solution.

Fundamentally, you need water to live. Oil is convenient, but you don't need it to survive.

And if the gas supply suddenly dried up from the pumps tomorrow, how would you get to work? How would supply trucks get food to the supermarkets? In a larger city envronment, supposing you don't own a farm and a manual plow and oxen, with the current modern lifestyle, a lack of gas overnight would cause massive starvation. Gasoline is required to literally put food on your table. As gas prices change over time, alternatives will be sought. The same is with water, but you need far less water to survive than you do gasoline. You can get by on a few liters of water a day, you might not like it, but you can. It is unlikely that we will totally run out of water on a planet that is covered with 70% water. It will simply reach a price point where most people simply cannot afford to waste it.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[evilviper]

As I see it, there are only two real long-term solutions:
        * Mandatory Conservation
        * Massive Water Grid Project

Umm, you don't see rising prices as a way to naturally curb water usage, without rationing? You don't see desalination as a long-term solution to water shortages? You don't see grey-water systems? You don't see better water recycling? You don't see collecting the annual LA floodwaters, rather than letting them run-off to the ocean (no "grid")? I could go on if I wanted to waste more of my time, but I think you get the point.

As for a water grid, I'd have to say that's what we already have. Using rivers, dams, etc., several states share water as needed. Electricity, unlike water, flows up-hill easily, so I'd like to find out how you are going to make any kind of economical "water grid".

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Jedi Alec]

You just raise the cost of the water as the use increases. As their water use grows their cost increases geometricly. Suddenly people conserver water not because they have to but because they choose to.

Ah, screwing those among us that are already trying to survive on the bare minimum in the process?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[werewolf1031]

You can't even buy the things anymore, not since 1992. 1.6 gpf toilets are now standard everywhere in the US.

Sorry, but that's not quite true. In my apartment, my landlord just replaced the old 5.0 GPF toilet with a brand-new 2.5 GPF model about four months ago (cuz he pays the water, so it was of course in his interest to down-size).

Oh, and since my landlord is a renown cheapskate (nice guy, but cheap), this newer toilet was, of course, not by any stretch "expensive".

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

>Your loaded question implies there's a serious problem with the current system in the U.S, and that's just not the case. Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon.... ...
Yeah, it's so cheap you can't even drink it, in some places it burns if you light it.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[werewolf1031]

That was one of the most rational, balanced, and well-reasoned posts I've seen in this thread, and it was modded Flamebait.

Y'know, posts like the parent up there are exactly the kind of debating we need more of here. There was no name-calling, no berating, no insults. Just a reasoned argument. If ya don't agree with it, that's fine, but it's not the job of modders to bury opinions they don't like -- that's actually very poor modding, and should be condemned.

I'd call out whoever did that but I'm sure they don't have the stones to show themselves. Hey mods -- all you reasonable ones anyway -- throw the parent a bone here, eh?


Ok, back on topic. I live in a rural central-Pennsylvania area, and here we seem to go from one extreme to the other: We're low on water one day, then uh-oh it's raining, crap now we have flooding! Drought! Flood! Drought! It gets a little ridiculous sometimes, really. But, I rarely here anyone complaining, in any kind of long-term fashion, that there's not enough water here. Overall it seems to balance out pretty well here, in spite of people on one side or the other panicking a bit too quickly. Granted I have little technical knowledge on the subject, but I've yet to see any local laws or ordinances passed that require the rationing of water.

Again, I can speak only from the experience of my local area, YMMV.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Com2Kid]

Sure, the beverly hills types will have their pools and constant running water,

Can we just shoot them instead? Then we wouldn't have to listen to them, AND we wouldn't have to deal with them.

It is a win-win situation.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[shawb]

There is one problem with making water consumption plans municipality only, and that is basically rivers and lakes which are shared by municipalities. A city upstream can use so much water as to make it unusable or even unavailable downstream (notably the Colorado River which basically leaves the Baja Peninsula a trickle of brine after LA and Vegas take the lion's share. Baja communities which relied on the Colorado for water, fishing, etc have become devastated. The Sea of Cortez has been ecologically damaged by the increase of salt concentrations in the Colorado.) Although federal regulation does not really make sense either; water usage plans should be designed per watershed, although this is probably too big in some cases. A watershed as big as the Mississippi river basin or great lakes catchment would be too big to fairly manage; watershed management plans would often have to be broken down into sub-sheds for adequate planning.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[shawb]

People once looked into piping water from the Great Lakes to the high plains, as it was assumed that this would be a nice cheap source of water. Then the engineers stepped in and told the planners that it would take the construction of about 5-10 high yield power plants just to run the pumps to get the water there. And that's not even getting into the environmental problems pumping this much water around would cause, or the political problems this would cause (there are treaties between the U.S. and Canada that forbid pumping water out of the great lakes basin. Possible to get around this, but it would be very tricky.)

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[DigitalReality]

Get your $#!^ together

Not in the urinals, ok?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should some rich bastard use MY water, just because he is wealthier than I am?

Because that's the way our economic system works.

Yes, the alternative has theoretical allure, but nobody has been able to make it work well in practice (USSR, N Korea, E Germany, etc.). In those systems, you end up asking the question "why should some politburo bastard use MY water, just because he has been spouting the party line better than me"?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[shawb]

When Winston Churchill was stumbling home from a bender, a lady stopped him and said "Sir, you are drunk." To which he responded Yes, Madam, I am drunk. But in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.

I'm proud to be distantly related to the man. Oh, and then there's his parrot.

Of course with all quotations and factoids of famous eccentric people, these may have to be taken with a grain of salt. Or several grains of salt on the rim of your glass...

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[jjeffrey]

Actually dual flush toilets are mostly confined to pan-European chain hotels in the UK.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Stephan Schulz]

Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon.

Are tap water prices in the US free market prices? I remember a documentation about New York city a while back, and that mentioned that the water was heavily subsidised and so cheap that it often was not metered at all. And I cannot imagine that water e.g. in Los Angeles is priced at a fair value that internalizes all the costs...

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Stories like this make me glad I telecommute full-time.

Because people are pigs, and that's being insulting to pigs.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[potat0man]

I generally agree that these issues should be left up to the free market. But here's where the problem is: The guy who can afford to water his lawn twice a day (or drive aggressively in his hummer down the highway) removes let's say an amount that could have been used by five more conservative users. Now since the demand for the product has gone up the price will naturally go up which means that even if the guy can afford to waste water/energy he probably should be mindful of the fact that he's driving the price up even for the people who are careful about the impact they make.

Imagine if Bill and Steve decided to buy up the world's oil/water and throw a big bon fire/dilute all their toxins this weekend. Would we still argue for the free market then?

Granted, a guy driving around a hummer or a guy watering his lawn twice a day only drives the price up a negligble amount. But how about 100,000 Americans driving around or living using five times as much as they otherwise would if they just took ten minutes to adjust their habits?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[IceD'Bear]

Flush Bush!

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia we have the duel flush toilets, quite handy. Light for number 1s, heavy for number 2s. :P

Anywho, on with my point.

A few years ago Australia went into a pretty bad drought, so the government introduced a water conservation project. Water prices went up a bit, for one. As it was mentioned before, for the average joe, they'll try to cut down a bit to reduce heavy costs, while Mr. Aston Martin will just continue using water as usual.

Next they introduced rebates on water savings products, such as trigger nozzled hose fittings and simple tap timers, and I believe on large water tanks as well.

Eventually they made restrictions which are still in place today. In the summer they get increased, but we still have them in the winter. Generally they are...
* You can't use normal hoses to water your garden anymore, it has to be a trigger nozzle
* You can't wash your car with any hose, you have to use a bucket of water/sponges
* Sprinkler systems are only allowed on between about 8pm - 8am

All together, this has worked well for the Australian Government, with water levels in the resiviours rising.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Would a high fiber diet really clog up toilets much? I've run the gamut from vegetarian to Atkins and generally found that adequate fiber makes for lighter, fluffier deposits while lack of fiber leads to clay-like bombs. While there may be more volume (and frequency) with a high fiber diet, it breaks up easier. Although the high fiber does tend to make more floaters which wouldn't go down if a fair amount of water stays in the bowl, such as with a maladjusted tank float or partially clogged sewer line. But if you aren't clearing the bowl with each flush, the plumbing needs to be looked at anyways. You could have a bad seal, or the float or flap may need replacing or readjusting, or the main pipe out to the sewers needs to be snaked out (snaking or rota-rooting should be done about once a year, especially if you have trees or deep-rooted bushes in the yard. Plants love the moisture and nutrients in a sewer pipe, so the roots will work their way in to any cracks and crevices in the pipe.)

Hmm... this really seems like there may have been TMI, but hey: it's on-topic, fresh on everyone's mind after the thanksgiving feast, and honestly it's sorta funny and maybe even informative (although my position may be wrong, I suppose there would have to be a controlled study on this... anybody working on dual degrees as a civil engineer and dietician need a research project or even thesis paper?) I'll still post this, just go AC.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[jez9999]

As someone who's seen a typical British, US and European toilet, I have to say I fail to understand the non-British designs. :-) Our toilets seem far more effective and water-efficient than the others. There's just a small amount of water in the toilet bowl which is flushed effectively. In the US, well, there's just this giant pool of water that virtually touches your ass when you sit down. When you flush it slowly drains out into this tiny pipe at the bottom, very prone to blockage, whilst water is constantly flowing in from above. Eventually it empties but it seems to waste a LOT of water. Anyone have any idea why they don't just use our design?

At least they're not the European ones. Sorry, I don't like shitting onto a shelf. :-)

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no name-calling, no berating, no insults. Just a reasoned argument.

You've been on Slashdot too long. I know plenty of Californians who don't think the world revolves around them. Great way to start a post. If I had a mod point, I'd give the GP just what he deserves, despite the fact that I agree with dealing with the problem locally, where possible.

As for California not being humanly habitable, that's yet another distortion of reality. That's a bad habit for such a "reasonable" guy. I can't and won't defend the abomination that L.A. has become, but it would have been able to sustain some habitation, just not droves of people from out of state who decided to move there. I won't complain too much though. Future generations will have to deal with much more overpopulation hell than I'll ever see. Is your metropolitan area not dependant on water and food beyond the immediately outlying area? Good for you. Time to get high and mighty I suppose.

Enough MOD instructions, OK? When you have points, spend them however you think is best. That's how it works.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[moonbender]

It will reach a point where everyone except the very rich have these water saving devices because it makes economic sense. This is the case in europe, and it will become the case in North America because it must.

I'm from Europe. Water is really cheap here, too, I don't know how cheap relative to the US, but so cheap that I don't think I've ever really heard about anybody installing a water saving device due to economic pressure. And in fact I don't think water saving devices are very wide-spread (except for press-twice-to-stop flushers), or maybe they're just so wide-spread that I've never really seen anything else. --

Okay, I just did some googling and found a PDF on European water pricing. It's from 1998 with prices from '96, I guess today it's a tad more expensive, so I guess a couple of Euros - per cubic metre (1000 litres). Yeah, I'm not losing sleep over that. Another cent down the toilet, literally.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bhiestand]

Exactly. Despite the opinions of many Californians I've met, the universe does not revolve solely around them, or their state. Water shortages are rarely an issue in the U.S., outside of California (and I suspect probably mostly only Southern California) and the Southwestern states -- the only exception being the odd seasonal shortage during a bad summer drought in other places, or if the water supply is contaminated for some reason.

In any event, this seems like an issue that should be dealt with on the local municipal level, and certainly not on a Federal one. There are no water shortages in my area, and I have no desire to switch to a different design of toilet that wouldn't have any advantage to me and would just mean a lot of additional complexity, and I would take a very dim view of any legislation that tried to force this. If people who choose to live in places essentially unsuited to human habitation have problems with their water supply, obviously their governments should address these issues. But it's not a universal problem, and it does no good to make it one artificially.

Exactly. Despite the opinions of many New Orleaners I've met, the universe does not revolve solely around them, or their city. Hurricanes are rarely an issue in the U.S.., outside of the gulf states -- the only exception being the odd seasonal hurricane that comes up and the atlantic and strikes a northern state.

In any event, this seems like an issue that should be dealt with on the local municipal level, and certainly not on a Federal one. There are no hurricanes in my area, and I have no desire to subsidize the south when it wouldn't have any advantage to me and would just mean a lot of additional tax burden, and I would take a very dim view of any legislation that tried to force this. If people who choose to live in hurricane-prone places essentially unsuited to human habitation have problems with their weather, obviously their governments should address these issues. But it's not a universal problem, and it does no good to make it one artificially.

I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. California is responsible for a lot more than its share of America's industry, technology, agriculture, and GDP. Just like a major disaster striking a major port is going to cause damage to the entire nation, so would any change in the way the agriculture and industry operates in California. I don't think the stock market would fair too well if California became unproductive due to drought. This problem is also not limited to California (see Nevada), and could end up causing problems elsewhere as well. California doesn't ask for federal help all that often, and usually ends up getting turned down or completely fucked over (see the energy crisis and rolling blackouts in 2001-2002) by the rest of the country. Their tax burden is among the highest, and every year California is subsidizing the states that are hit by hurricanes, helping rebuild the rest of the country, and chugging along. Eventually this is going to become a disaster. We know that. We knew it would happen in New Orleans, but nobody wanted to move and nobody wanted to improve the levees. Now the rest of the country is footing the bill, bitching and moaning about nobody doing anything sooner. This mandatory water conservation is somebody seeing a huge future disaster, KNOWING it's coming, and offering a solution that will help avoid it. Now everyone is whining because it doesn't affect them [yet] and blaming California?

That being said I had these waterless urinals at my job for a couple of years and I really liked them. They didn't smell at all, and I didn't even feel the need to wash my hands afterwards since I didn't have to touch the door handle, the urinal, or anything other than my zipper and boxer shorts. A couple of times they did get backed up for some reason and when you peed into them the blue oily stuff would come up out of the hole. But it never overflowed, and it just drained back down after a minute or less. But these were heavily used urinals, with hundreds of people using three of them, and I only saw that happen a few times. I'm sure it saved thousands of gallons of water, and I wouldn't mind using them again.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mr. Flibble]

Imagine if Bill and Steve decided to buy up the world's oil/water and throw a big bon fire/dilute all their toxins this weekend. Would we still argue for the free market then?

An interesting question, I would say the event is unlikely as in executing it the people who have the money relinquish it, and also generate considerable anger amongst the populace. Currently, there is nothing to stop Gates or Jobs going to a third world country and buying up all the grain supply, and thus starving the populace! It is similar to the strange people that lined up to get an X Box 360 - and then promptly took it outside the store to smash it in front of the onlookers. Some people do it, but is rare.

So, could such a thing happen? Sure, but at the price of the rich individual sacrificing huge amounts of their wealth to no great purpose, and suffering (at the very least) great social stigmas.

Imagine if you have enough money to water your lawn, when no one else can afford to do so. Well, that's ok because you are affluent... But, now the culture has shifted, and watering anything that does not help to produce food becomes a major negative stigma - the lawn watering will dissapear. After all, you used to run older Norton motorcycles on a mixture of 50% gas and 50% benzine. This is frowned upon now. Sure, you can do it, but benzine is highly carcinogenic, so people don't.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mr. Flibble]

From having visitors come from Belgium, Italy, and France I have found that they are often surprised by "hot tubs" maybe it is culturally different, but I did hear the comment once: "How can you keep this thing filled?"

Given that, I am Canadian, and generally speaking, water is insanely cheap here.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[libertas]

Only 15% of California's water supply is allocated to residential and industrial use. The remaining 85% is consumed by agriculture. Farmers pay nearly nothing for this taxpayer-subsidised water under long-term contracts (recently renewed for another 50 years), making it economically feasible to perform such stunts as growing rice in a desert (which they then use Federal subsidies to sell to the Japanese).

There is no shortage of water in California. There is an allocation issue.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Why go to such lengths to live on such shitty land?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[kubevubin]

Apparently, one flush mode is too much for the ordinary citizen to handle. I mean, is it just me, or do you typically have to flush before taking a leak simply because the previous user was too damn lazy/stupid to flush? No matter who you ask, I'd say that "Not to Flush" would be most peoples' true response. Bring on the waterless urinals. Who would really notice the difference?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Reverse Gear]

Here in Denmark, where we have plenty of fresh water in aquifiers, only real problem right now is in the north-western part of Zealand, Copenhagen, where all aquifiers have been poluted by the massive population and they get their water from further down south.
The two main problem are irrigation and contamination of the aquifiers, both problems mainly caused by the farmers.

Depending on where in Denmark you are in some areas up 70% of the water used goes to irrigation. The problem is that the last 30 vinters have been "a wet period" and there has been plenty of resupply to the aquifiers but if we start having a more dry period, like the 1960'ies again then there won't be enough water for this massive irrigation.
Also we tap deeper and deeper into our aquifiers, some of this very high quality water that is over 100's of years old and extremely pure have been for irrigation. There is coming more regulation to this now, but still it is a major problem.

The other problem contamination mostly comes from pesitcides and fertilizers used in most of the farms all over the country. More and more aquifiers can not be used for drinking water anymore because the levels of dangoras leftover from the pesitcides have become to high ... this is actually getting a bit of a problem, even in some less populated areas.

These are really the main problems here in Denmark ... water has gotten a nice price tag on it the last 10 years or so and the population has cut their water use in half (by methods like the ones mentioned above), which is all very good, but the main problem remains the farms that don't get billed for their water use (they dig their own wells, which of course is regulated, but not pricetagged) and they keep on using huge amounts of pesticides that threathen our drinking water supply in this country (they try to regulate this ... but whenever one pesiticide is banned they just come up with another that it takes 10 years before it is found in the ground water and banned ... and then they come up with the next one)

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[TheRaven64]

In the UK, a lot of people still aren't on metered water - we pay a flat rate for water, not per use. When my parents went from paying water rates to having a meter they found that their water bills dropped to about a third of their previous cost.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that the US, one of the most advanced countries in the world

One of the most advanced countries? That's priceless.
Oh and by the way the 90's called, they want you back.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

You had a broken toilet. The fact that it was low-flush was incidental.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[scottv67]

there are treaties between the U.S. and Canada that forbid pumping water out of the great lakes basin. Possible to get around this, but it would be very tricky.)

Hell, I live 25 miles from Lake Michigan (west of Milwaukee) and we are running out of water. The city I live in is not allowed to pump water from Lake Michigan because we are on the wrong side of the "continental divide". Our rainwater runs *away* from Lake Michigan, not toward it.

Yeah, the Great Lakes are full of fresh water but the people who have control over it (the governors of the states that border the lakes) have a very tight leash on who can tap that supply.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[penguin-collective]

Despite the opinions of many Californians I've met, the universe does not revolve solely around them, or their state. Water shortages are rarely an issue in the U.S., outside of California (and I suspect probably mostly only Southern California) and the Southwestern states

Many places that have water problems are downstream from places that think they don't; so the upstream places take out water and pollute like there's no tomorrow and let others deal with the consequences.

There are no water shortages in my area,

You're probably wrong.

But even if you have excess water and are behaving responsibly (and I can't think of any state that does), we should let companies build aquifers so that they can move your water to high demand areas and the prices and availability equalize across the nation. That's what interstate commerce is all about.

we should leave those that only affect certain regions to the levels of government closest to the problems to fix as they see fit.

Water is a federal issue.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[CrazyDuke]

"...but they're still slurping a monsterous percentage of the Colorado River."

I wouldn't recommend that for pregnant women BTW.

The stuff tends to concentrate in breast milk and in some produce.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[berj]

I think you misunderstand his point: if you use 1000 Gal of water you pay, say 5cents per gallon. if your rich neighbour using 10,000 gal of water he pays $1 per gallon. You still pay 5 cents. Or, make it like income tax - pro rate it (this is the way it works in Canada, anyways). For the first 5000 gal per month you pay the lowest rate, for the second 10,000 you pay the second rate, etc. After a certain amount you pay the highest (and usually prohibitive) rate.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[cowscows]

While it's an interesting comparison you're making, I think it's important to understand that the current situation here in New Orleans is quite different than any water shortages that California is having. Most specifically, We were hit by a hurricane that we're were powerless to prevent, while California could take some easy steps to significantly improve their water situation. And waterless urinals are not the easiest solution. The best solution would be for the suburbanites to stop pretending like they need big plush green lawns, and to fill their yards with native vegetation.

As for your distaste for New Orleans, go fuck yourself. You don't know what you're talking about. When earthquakes hit california, we don't bitch about how it's stupid for you to live there and you deserve whatever you get. New Orleans exists where it does for a lot of practical reasons, and those reasons are very important to the economic workings of this country. You may have heard about the Mississippi river, which provides a good shipping route to a large portion of this country. You've probably also heard something about the gulf of mexico, from which we draw a lot of the oil that keeps our industry and economy running. Then there's seafood, chemicals, all sorts of important stuff. You can pretend all you want that the gulf coast is just a bunch of backwater bayou's, but your ignorance does not make it true. And once you factor in some less quantifiable things, like New Orleans being one of the most culturally unique and productive cities, not to mention whole other parishes(counties) being underwater, and hundreds of thousands of hard working human beings suffering from the consequences. Your selfishness and your greed are pretty indefensible.

You have no sense of the scale of what's happened down here. The local governments are working pretty damn hard. They've all burned through their budgets, and are taking on large amounts of debt, trying to get things running again. I question if any city/state/locality would have the resources to deal with something of this scale. All citizens of the US, via the federal government, end up subsidizing lots of other people. Whether it be farmers, or defense contractors, or lately, the citizens of Iraq. I think there are plenty of other things for you to be bitching about having to pay for, besides helping a few hundred thousand human beings who's lives have been so severely impacted by flooding. Flooding which, by the way, would not have happened if the Army corps of engineers had actually built the system to the tolerances that they had told us they did.

Basically put, we did take steps to try and prevent what happened. And while those steps ultimately failed for a large part of the city and the region, that doesn't make a good excuse for California to keep going about doing what they're doing, especially when there are some much more straightforward answers than dodging hurricanes. The political history of the south west has always had a lot to do with water. California has used its economic power to get what it wants, and other states have been effected by it. And most importantly, it's not sustainable, and when things do come to a head, Cali will probably need help from the rest of the country. I don't know where else you expect to get water from, unless there's some sort of major breakthrough in desalinization technology.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[SW6]

We have a nationwide power grid. Why not a nationwide water grid?

Because water is rather heavier than electrons, and it's a completely different kind of engineering problem. Sloshing water round a country costs a lot of energy, so you try to source it as locally as possible.

The grid exists because electricity is cheap to transmit but expensive to store, so already-generated power is sent elsewhere rather than lost. Water doesn't work like this at all.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the upper Midwest we have no water problems living next to the largest source of fresh water in the world. We use it for transport, industry and entertainment for over two hundred years and the lake level still varies through its 3 feet cycle. What we don't use it for is turning a desert into an growers paradise where 95% of the water is lost to evaporation.

There has been a talk of a pipeline to Texas and beyond. There is also been a few shiploads that have been shipped abroad to be sold as bottled water. We will send you all the drinking water, water to shower but not one drop to support citrus in the desert or to keep your lawn clean.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Two choices too much to handle?
How about the sloppy morons who CAN'T AIM STRAIGHT?

There's been many a time I entered the bathroom and there was urine all over the freakin floor. This is not in bathrooms where the general public can enter. This is in secured buildings and the only people who use the bathrooms are the employees, and they all have to be highly educated just to work there.

Flush? Wait a second. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. There seems to be a high proportion of American men who need to be taught the most basic concepts of urinal use, beginning with "Shoot your piss IN the urinal, dickhead!"

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

You would replace the entire engine for a blown $20 head gasket?!

Uh... Sorry, I stopped reading at that point. You're obviously an idiot.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

HINT: Redwoods need alot of water.......guess what they have alot of in REDWOOD city?

Traffic. Subdivisions. Wal-Marts. Dust.
Not redwood trees.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[yndrd1984]

Their tax burden is among the highest...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Californians pay the same federal taxes that the rest of the county does, and state and local taxes don't pay for things outside the state. I just don't see how that's relevant to a discussion of state vs federal responsibility.

California is responsible for a lot more than its share of America's industry, technology, agriculture, and GDP.

Great! Then y'all can afford to solve this problem on your own. :)

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Liam Slider]

But even if you have excess water and are behaving responsibly (and I can't think of any state that does), we should let companies build aquifers so that they can move your water to high demand areas and the prices and availability equalize across the nation. That's what interstate commerce is all about.

Let, sure. Use the government to create them, even pay for them (and hence, the People pay for them) when they aren't really needed, while enforcing water conservation measures on everyone in America regardless of their local supply? Hell no.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[pommiekiwifruit]

I didn't even feel the need to wash my hands

Gah! Wash your hands, e.coli boy! I wish we bowed in the west instead of shook hands, there are so many dirty people out there.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Scrameustache]

I see it happen all the time.

May I suggest more fiber in your diet?

soapless hand rinse to acknowledge any possible witnesses to his hygeine [...] quickly rinse and dry his hands without soap to acknowledge my presence as a potential witness to his hygeine

And learning to aim?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[yndrd1984]

Why not just help the ones that need helping and leave the rest alone to pay market rates? We don't give out food, clothing, shelter or medicine for free, except to those who can't afford it, why would this be different? If you can help the poor without restricting the rest of us, and you want to live in a free country, that's what you should do.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Liam Slider]

California has used its economic power to get what it wants, and other states have been effected by it. And most importantly, it's not sustainable, and when things do come to a head, Cali will probably need help from the rest of the country.

entitled to it. They tend to think of California as the USA, and everyplace else as just some minor, insignificant resource for them to use. Always have. Californians even want everyone else to feed them water, the whole country if they can get away with it! Personally I say if they lack enough water for the people, perhaps the people should start moving to where there is water but maybe that's just me.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Liam Slider]

Man, I really fucked that one up.... That first part should read that Californians believe that are entited to it.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[yelvington]

Kadin's post was modded as "insightful," but it is unfortunately myopic.

Certainly the United States does not suffer the kind of devastating water shortages that are common in many third-world countries. But saying there is no water problem in most of the United States is like making claims about the climate based on local weather snapshots.

Water shortages do not necessarily manifest themselves at the surface. What aquifer underlies the region in which you live? What has happened to that aquifer over the last 50 years? Is it being drawn down? Is it being polluted? Do you have any idea? Do you actually think that's a municipal-level issue?

There are serious, underpublicized water shortages all over America. Some of them relate to surface issues like processing and distribution capacity. Some relate to pollution -- especially agricultural pollution -- and infiltration issues. Some have to do with depletion of deep resouces. You won't find out about it in the blogosphere. It's the kind of thing that newspaper reporters cover for lengthy, boring Sunday articles (that hardly anybody reads).

Casting this as a big-government vs. little-government issue suggests that you didn't read the Los Angeles Times article. This isn't about Uncle Sam coming to take away your favorite potty.

This is about the Uniform Plumbing Code, which is drawn up by a nongovernmental trade association and used as a basis for local building code enforcement efforts. And it currently prohibits urinals that don't use water to flush.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[anakin876]

But who are these mysterious californians that are so different from you? california has no way to keep people from moving there - new people move from places with lots of water to California all the time. Over the last 50 years the population demographics and size has changed dramatically. If the municipal governments all got together and stopped all new construction - then house prices would rise even more and force all but the richest of people out - at which point you would still have all those people willing to pay insanely high water bills.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Bill Walker]

Now since the demand for the product has gone up the price will naturally go up which means that even if the guy can afford to waste water/energy he probably should be mindful of the fact that he's driving the price up even for the people who are careful about the impact they make.

You could apply the same argument to Americans using less fuel-efficient cars, or energy-guzzling high clock-speed processors. Our wealth permits us to consume more energy and resources than, say, a Vietnamese subsistence farmer, and simultaneously drives up prices world-wide for fungible commodities like oil and industrial metals.
Be careful how strongly you push this idea, because the developing world could turn it around on you just as easily.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[sasdrtx]

Not much, evidently.

Why is it so hard to understand that water is nothing like oil? It isn't burned, it doesn't really go anywhere, and is automatically and eternally recycled. In dry areas, there is certainly a limit on how many people can be supported by the available water. But there is no such thing as "wasting" water!

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Liam Slider]

I'm just saying that if these people want water, let them live where it is, instead of in a city that's in a location that's meant to be desert. What I keep hearing is how California's water problem is a national problem and so we all must conserve water (even the places that have excesses of fresh water), and even half assed schemes to build "national water grids" for one purpose and one purpose only....feed California with water at the expense of everyone else. Let them solve their own water problem without stealing my water, and my money. If they can't...and they don't have enough water for their population, then the people don't have much choice but move to where there is water. Saying "fuck over the rest of the country so I can have water" isn't a nice solution.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[aevan]

Maybe that has more to do with the 'hot' part of the hot tub?

Power to heat the water and keep it operating could be the surprise they were having-Canada is blessed with a relatively high amount of cheap power, where as they might not be so lucky.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[sribe]

If you're really snazzy, you'll recapture your waste water and re-use it for the garden or the toilets -- or re-purify it yourself and take pressure off the municipal supply.

No you won't. At least not if you live in a place where you really need to ;-( Those arcane 19th century water rights laws we have in the West forbid users of water sources from retaining once-used water for reuse, because the original idea was that what drained off your fields was supposed to find its way back into the stream for the next downstream user.

Now you might say that the law needs to be changed, and I would agree. But the water laws are very complex, and under near-constant litigation and negotiation both intra- and inter-state. Changing anything at all about them tends to be a non-trivial political process, to put it mildly.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

It would take a ridiculous amount of surface area exposed to direct sunlight to distil any meaningful amount of water.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[sribe]

That place had the most lo-flo toilet from hell I ever saw.

The symptoms you described, especially the blowback of several gallons of waste water, cannot be caused by a defective low-flow toilet. Your building's plumbing had a serious problem, which needed to be diagnosed and fixed.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[pla]

Why not a nationwide water grid?

I said this about hurricanes (and caught hell in moderation for the un-PC nature of my sentiment), and I'll say it about water... I chose to live in the NorthEast US because we don't get any real natural disasters. We don't get deadly droughts that last for 20-year stretches. We have plentiful clean fresh water. We produce most of our own food (or rather, could and once did - Huge arable tracts of Northern New Engand have lain fallow for decades because, although extremely fertile, we just can't compete economically with the midwest industrial-ag operations).

So when you suggest "we all" conserve water for SoCal's use - I say go pound sand... Let the idiots that decided to live in a frickin' DESERT die.


low-flow shower heads

No. Plain and simple. For one thing, given decent water pressure in the shower, I'll take a four minute shower (vs over 20 at some hotels, before I started carrying a pair of pliers to "fix" that while travelling). For another, as I point out above - Not all of us live in the desert. If you want to live in the desert, you can have to take 20 minute showers trying in vain to get all the soap off you; bathrooms that always smell like piss no matter how many times you flush; drinking water made from recycling your own waste (and yes, technically it all comes from there, but I'll take "three centuries undergoing biological filtration in a wetland" over "filtered, sterilized, and deodorized").



Now, believe it or not after that mini-rant, I do agree with your sentiment for the most part - But don't get carried away. The planet will make more fresh water. It just happens. We need to focus on not polluting our water (including our "waste" water), and not draining, clearing, and building condos on, the natural filters already in place on this planet. The rest of the problem just comes as a natural consequence of people living 1where Mother Nature has put up great big "no trespassing" signs.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bad-badtz-maru]

With regards to the first scenario, this is caused when a low flow toilet is installed on older waste lines. The older lines are larger and the low flow toilet does not provide enough water to properly push the waste through the larger pipes.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bad-badtz-maru]

As I mentioned in another thread, the problem is when you replace a high flow model with a low flow. The waste plumbing is a larger size on older houses and the low flow toilets don't properly move the waste all the way to the end of those larger pipes.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[kent_eh]

The same thing will happen with water. Sure, the beverly hills types will have their pools and constant running water, economic forces will allow them to do this. The "regular" people will start to conserve water because they must
 
...And the poor will go without, because they can't afford it. Which may be tolerable when you were talking about gasoline, but it's not acceptable when we're talking about water.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[ozborn]

Economic pressures are great because you don't have to mandate any laws, the price of the commodity forces a change in the market.
This is great? A "change in the market" may mean that people that need water do without - like the 1 billion or so people in the world who do not have sufficient water. (http://www.un.org/events/water/brochure.htm)

Water is not just another commodity, it is essential for life and if left to "market forces" (which in practise has meant politicans giving sweetheart deals to investors to privatize water supplies) the public gets screwed. This is exactly what happened in the city of Atlanta (they are now taking back control of their water system).

So while a "change in the market" in the United States may mean that people get ripped off, it may be the difference between life and death in other countries. People who don't have water aren't likely to suffer "market forces" lightly, they are more likely to riot until the situation is fixed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_protests_ of_2000)

When dealing with scarcity essential to life, the best solution is rationing - not the market. This is why when countries go to war and they need oil, iron, etc... it is procured directly with little complaint from the bulk of the public.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Eskarel]

The problem with this sort of attitude is that it natural forces are fundamentally irrational and unfair. Some people are wealthy, some people are not, some people are stronger than others, etc. The role of government is to regulate these forces, and these forces are regulated pretty much everywhere in the civilized world(hint: this sort of regulation is what makes civilization).

You believe that the rich should be able to waste non-renewable resources(gas) or expensive to renew resources(water) and in some cases harm other people in the process, but I would bet you don't believe that some thug should get to take your oil or your water because he or she is bigger than you or has a gun, or any of a thousand other things which governments regulate. Just because forces are economic and not physical doesn't mean they shouldn't be regulated, and even in the US one of the most wealth for wealth, greed is the key, capitalism to it's unnatural extreme countries I have ever encountered(I lived their for 13 years), this is already the case.

The free market economy is a joke, it's not free, it can't be free, and the sooner we all face this fact and start working out what particular bits of freedom or control are most important to us, the better we'll all be. To use a non water metaphore, do I want people who don't need a offroad vehicle to drive one, to burn up resources we need, to pump crap into the air, because it amuses them to do so, no, I don't. On the other hand I don't want the government coming in and telling me I have to turn off my PC now because I've had it on for more than the regulated number of hours today and I'm using too much electricity. It's all about balance, and if we accept that we have to regulate some things and regulate them now things will be much better off for everyone.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[WiFiBro]

BWJones said: "are not so great if you have a fruit/vegetable intensive diet"

Wrong here, what's smelly is the digested proteines. Proteines are found much more in meat and dairy products, than in fruit and veggies. The odd bean besides. The human digestive tract is also pretty long for meat, which usualy starts rotting in the bowels. You should really compare the odour of veggies and mcD'ies.

Especially when you go a step further and abandon the flush toilet for a compost toilet, you'ld like to be vegetarian, or rather vegan. (And one low on beans :) ) At a huge meeting (Ecotopia Romania, 1995) were they (Rampenplan) cooked vegetarian, the compost toilets smelled <sweet>. Eeeev'rybody said so!

But draining and ventilating them intensively is vital. If you don't it gets really smelly.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

He's talking about the volume, not the smell.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mad_Rain]

That's what you get for living in the desert. You countered the parent post, who said that freshwater is plentiful in most of the US by saying that in a couple places in California, there is need for conservation.

Except for one thing: Redwood City, CA isn't in the middle of the desert, it's in the middle of the BAY AREA, and has a natural body of water within walking distance.

I wouldn't want to drink that water for all the tea in China, though. Water might be available, in most places in the US (which I think the grandparent poster was saying), but it certainly isn't all potable.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[WiFiBro]

Really? Hm that does not make sense then, mentioning fruit/vegetable diets, does it?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[rthille]

As we've seen in New Orleans, flood waters are good. They bring silt which builds up offshore barrier islands which protect areas from storms. They also renew the land for growing crops and wild plants for the wildlife. In general, water systems can be a nearly closed loop (given appropriate landscaping), and shouldn't need water imported from another state. If you're doing that, you're doing something wrong...

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Yert]

While I support conservation, I think you are missing something here - oil is not required for survival. Our economy relied on other forms of transportation in the 1800's, and they didn't require oil - steam and horse power are cheap. And horses don't require expensive fuels (sure, oat supplements are handy. $30 for a week's worth still beats the hell out of gas costs.) and do something your car will never do - reproduce.

Do I think we should abandon 100 years of progress and revert to the horse-drawn carriage? No. But we could, if we had to - and your groceries would still get to the supermarket, eventually.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[my_breath_smells]

I was going to mod the grandparent flamebait, but instead I'll save my modpoints for elsewhere and comment on why I *would* have modded it flamebait.

The entire statement was laden with baiting words. "That's what you get for living in the desert." Ok, yes, it should be evident to ANYONE that desert's equal no water. However, the presence of ample freshwater in *most* of the US does not mean that everyone should burn fresh clean water like its infinitely available.

That's what you get for living in the desert. You countered the parent post, who said that freshwater is plentiful in most of the US by saying that in a couple places in California, there is need for conservation. I hate to burst your bubble, but California is not "most" of the US. Come to the Mississippi river area and tell me there's not enough water.

The problem in California is blatantly ignored by most Californians. Developments continue in most parts of (at least) Southern California despite the fact that the the water supply can't handle the growth. "Everyone" wants to live there but there aren't the resources to support everyone. The problem in California is quite significant to the rest of the country, despite the Mississippi being full of water. California's economy, if it were an independent nation, would be the fifth largest in the world. Its responsible for 14% of the US GDP - $1.5 trillion dollars in 2004. 12% of Americans live in California (more people than in all of Canada) - and that doesn't include illegal aliens.

The Grandparent's basic statement that a clean freshwater supply is, "Not a problem here" is selfish and ignorant. Yes, if fewer people were dumb enough to live in California, then they wouldn't have (as bad of) a problem. But with a powerful economy, a reasonably high average income, and many jobs, there's a reason people are dry in the desert.

Despite the opinions of many Californians I've met, the universe does not revolve solely around them, or their state. Water shortages are rarely an issue in the U.S., outside of California (and I suspect probably mostly only Southern California) and the Southwestern states -- the only exception being the odd seasonal shortage during a bad summer drought in other places, or if the water supply is contaminated for some reason.

No, the universe doesn't revolve solely around Californians, but I've generally found that most Americans think that they already live on the greenest side of the fence. Outside of California water shortages may not be a big problem, but large parts of the US are not as densely populated either. Montana doesn't seem to have water problems. Yay, you win! Oh, wait, that doesn't solve California's problem.

As for water contamination in the US - its a bigger problem that you're aware of. Just because there's water coming out of the taps in your house doesn't mean that its not contaminated.

The Colorado river is tainted with heavy metals after passing through mining tailings in southern Utah (Moab). California drinks the Colorado so dry that the Gulf of California receives very little "fresh" water and is becoming increasingly salinated. Its becoming so salty that the fish population is disappearing. This is naturally having a negative impact on the local population.

The INL, formerly known as the INEEL developed the first nuclear reactors. Nearby Arco Idaho is the first town in the world to be powered by nuclear power. However, how do you run Nuclear reactors in the middle of old lava beds (equivalent to desert)? How do you provide cooling? Oh, there's a large aquifer - the Snake River aquifer? Yes, lets use that. Funny, where does the Snake River end? So yes, there's lots of water in the Mississippi, but is it clean? Is it safe?

Ironically there is now a division of

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[rthille]

I agree with the other reply to you, however, to someone not familiar with the situation (anyone East of Arizona?), they could read it the way you did. The thing about the Colorado is that the damming of that and removal of all the water to L.A. is destroying the Sea of Cortez ("Mexico's Galapagos"), and it will probably take Federal/International action to reduce/reverse that, just like with Mono Lake. All so L.A. can have lots of swimming pools and green lawns.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[my_breath_smells]

I'm amazed you've been modded so positively. The parent was not making a cut on New Orleans - I believe the rhetorical device being employed is known by some as satire. New Orleans was a tragedy, and yes, Californians can do more. But problems concerning water span governmental boundaries - municipally, federally, internationally.

California should do more to dig itself out of its own mess, but that doesn't mean that waterless urinals won't help - and that's the point of the discussion, is it not?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bohemian72]

Actually that British design sounds like a nice idea. I'm from the U.S. and spent three weeks in the old Soviet Union where as you put it, you're "shitting onto a shelf." Of course the Soviet toilet had this fire hose effect which cleaned off said shelf and flushed everything away. This was weird at first, but I got used to it. Then when I came home, I almost couldn't bring myself to go into that "pool" in the toilet at home. Come to think of it though, that British design sounds like many (not all) public toilets I've seen here in the U.S. though. Particularly in schools.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[j79zlr]

Actually you're wrong, I am a mechanical engineer and design plumbing systems, the larger the pipe, the better, sanitary pipes are not under pressure, they are gravity. Code minimum is 3" for all water closets in every town I've worked for, older water closet installations usually have 4", which is what I always call for.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Surt]

And you're proud, no doubt, because it is better to be an ass by choice, than to be born ugly. ;-)

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

In most technologies outside computers North America (yes I include Canada in this) has been lagging sadly behind for a long while. The breadth and scope of this getting steadily scarier. It's like thechnology stayed stuck in the heyday of american power, late 60s early 70s.

Yes, now it is the ONLY superpower, but you're only talking military power here... see soviet Union to see how swiftly one can fall from the heights of power to struggling middling when there is no economical basis to support the war machine. America's height was during the height of the cold war. Ever since then, the world economy has steadily been depolarizing. There are many more econocmic foci distributed throughout the world these days. But here in north america, we've stayed stuck with old technologies, and the industry seems unnaturaly reistant to use innovative techniques outside the "hight tech" world.

Superplastifiers are still just about unused in concrete mix designs. Similarly, The cone penetrometer is largely unused with the very archaic SPT test just about the only source of subsoil information. We still use water heaters with wasteful water tanks for hot water rather than the on demand "heat what you need" devices used apparently just about everywhere else (very wasteful that). And the list goes on, and on, and on. Why are industries outside of high tech incapable of embracing improved techniques? It baffles me.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[geniusj]

My place of employment actually does have toilets with light and heavy flush modes. First ones I've seen outside of Europe. They even have the giant European toilet seat (the shape of the seat in Europe is quite different from most of ours).

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[number11]

Pommiekiwifruit wrote:
Gah! Wash your hands, e.coli boy!

Personally, I don't put my penis into places where there are a lot of e. coli. I'm not passing judgement on those of you who do, merely pointing out that there are sanitary aspects that may not apply to the rest of us.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[mrchaotica]

Here's a better idea: build a bunch of treatment plants and recycle your water!

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[sjames]

Conserve water, piss on Bush!

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[DudeTheMath]

It's not living in places that are unsuited to human habitation. It's building beyond the ability of the environment to keep up.

Here in West Central Florida, the Floridan aquifer provided plenty of clean, cold fresh water for years. But the developers keep building, the county commissions don't have the spine to stand up to them, and now there isn't enough fresh water.

The aquifer gets drained as quickly as heavy rains can fill it; the empty limestone bubbles then make great sinkholes, increasing the cost to insure homes.

Local politicians just can't bring themselves to stop taking contributions from the fat wallets of developers long enough to realize that the reason we have to spend so much on transportation, schools, and freakin' drinking water is because of these same sugar daddies.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[HeroreV]

We were hit by a hurricane that we're were powerless to prevent
Which caused the city to be flooded which could have easily been prevented.

New Orleans exists where it does for a lot of practical reasons, and those reasons are very important to the economic workings of this country.
The extreme majority of the population had nothing to do with shipping, fishing, oil, etc.

The local governments are working pretty damn hard.
That's complete bullshit. Yall just sat your asses down and waited for the federal government to come help you. Nobody in their right mind would seriously believe that the local governments were working hard. There were hundreds of examples all over the news proving this. Parking lots full of unused buses, etc. were a very common occurance.

I question if any city/state/locality would have the resources to deal with something of this scale.
Like, oh, say... Texas? We did a pretty good job of hauling our asses outta there when we heard a hurricane was coming through. It helped that nobody was living in a hole in the ground surrounded on all sides by huge amounts of water.

Flooding which, by the way, would not have happened if the Army corps of engineers had actually built the system to the tolerances that they had told us they did.
Just another example of relying on other, non-local, groups. Did you never think that maybe yall should handle it yourselves? Also, it was publicly known that it could only handle a category 3 storm, and guess what? A category 4 storm broke it. What a surprise.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Tacky the Penguin]

Why is it that the US, one of the most advanced countries in the world cannot get their $#!^ together, pun intended :-) when it comes to plumbing issues that most of the rest of the world seems to have solved years ago?

When our old toilet developed a leak, we went to a store that had some of the old-style fixtures that use lots of water (there is no water shortage in Michigan), and some of the newer mandated 'water saver' fixtures. The new fixtures that require two flushes to remove all of the stuff were the cheapest, the 'classic' fixtures were more expensive, and the new power-flush fixtures were the most expensive. We opted to spend the extra twenty bucks and get a power flush.

So, the new fixtures are definitely available. If you want one, go buy one. If you're building a new house, tell the builders what you want.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Chuckstar]

"Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon."

You're missing the point. The problem isn't availability of water. The problem is getting it to the consumer. Its much cheaper to conserve water than build another aqueduct.

"Also, what effect will a more concentrated (less dilluted with water) waste have on the environment? Seems like a total no-flush solution would require an overall change in the entire waster-water-management system."

The main issue with waste-water treatment is the amount of water going through the system, not the concentration of waste within the water. Less water = don't have to expand the water purification plant.

The bottom line is that in most of the U.S. water conservation is about reducing the costs of distributing water and collecting sewage. It is dramatically cheaper to use less water than to expand the water/sewer systems. Municipalities (i.e. tax dollars) generally pay for the capital costs of expanding these facilities, therefore it is in all citizens financial interest to reduce the cost of such facilities.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[(negative video)]

What aquifer underlies the region in which you live? What has happened to that aquifer over the last 50 years? Is it being drawn down? Is it being polluted? Do you have any idea? Do you actually think that's a municipal-level issue.

Yes. Cities directly purchase many resources. Electricity, water, fuel oil, natural gas, fines for dirty air, diesel, you name it. Competent city managers are well aware of long-range resource limitations and cost projections, and make their decisions accordingly. They don't expect the Resource Fairy to wave her wand and give them an everlasting fount of water. (The town where I live built a 44 mile pipeline to a lake, presumably because its water is cheaper to purify.)

There are serious, underpublicized water shortages all over America. ... Some have to do with depletion of deep resouces. You won't find out about it in the blogosphere.

Oh, really?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[dascandy]

> dual flush toilets with "light" and "heavy" flush modes are available everywhere except in the most undeveloped third world countries.
> here in the US ... you see standard high-flow toilets.

There's no reason those two bits of logic wouldn't mix.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bhiestand]

The parent was not making a cut on New Orleans - I believe the rhetorical device being employed is known by some as satire.

Thank you. My point exactly, only with less words and more clarity.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bhiestand]

Gah! Wash your hands, e.coli boy! I wish we bowed in the west instead of shook hands, there are so many dirty people out there.

I just don't see the need if I don't touch any handrails, don't touch the toilet, and only touch my zipper and boxers. It's the equivalent of peeing on a tree in the forest while you're on a hike. Unless you pissed all over yourself, you didn't touch anything dirty. I wash my hands frequently but I do believe it's not necessary just because matter left my body.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Tacky the Penguin]

Your loaded question implies there's a serious problem with the current system in the U.S, and that's just not the case. Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon.

Incorrect. The situation is already changing. And it is going to get worse soon.

Redwood City, CA, ...

You can't dispute the fact that fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. by giving one or two counterexamples. 'Most' does not equal 'all'

The problem is that people are congregating in places that simply can't support the population. If they want to enact local laws in an attempt to fix the situation, more power to them. If you still choose to live there, you choose to live with the restrictions.

Meanwhile, it's silly that people who live in the Great Lakes area have a hard time buying a toilet that uses enough water to actually flush away the waste.

By the way, water that is flushed down the toilet isn't destroyed or wasted. It goes back into the septic or sewage system, is purified, and finds its way back into the local waterways or aquifer. This is called the water cycle. It works very well in areas that aren't overtaxed by the local population.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[gnuorder]

Despite your opinion, the universe does not revolve around you and where you live. There are many states and communities who have serious water concerns, my state of Florida being one of them. We have pollution, salt water intrusion, droughts, sink holes, you name it. We have many very delicious springs but that water is largely sold to the bottled water companies. We have regulations on how much they can take from the springs because it's our source of our water too yet they are often caught pumping out more than they are allowed and given a slap on the wrist. There are fights between communities over how much water they are pumping or pollution flowing into supplies.

Perhaps since we were so stupid as to be born and raised in an area with so many water concerns, we should all wise up and move to where you so brilliantly decided to be born. I'm sure your area, where ever it is, can support 16 million Floridians. Heck we could invite the Californians too. We'll have a big water balloon fight on your lawn. And when you run out of water, we will move back and be taken aback at your complaints because by then, our water tables will have replenished.

I do agree with you that the water problems differ in different areas and most of the problems should be dealt with at the local and state level. Some problems that extend across state borders, however, and sometimes have to be dealt with at the federal level or at least with federal aid. If LA and Vegas can't or wont do something to reduce the impact they have on water supplies down stream, the federal government should step in. If nothing else, the downstream communities could use the federal courts.

I dont understand all the paranoia some people have about the federal government and federal funds helping some areas in times of need. Florida and the east coast have never turned down federal aid after hurricanes. I dont see any of the midwest states turning down federal aid after floods or droughts. I dont see the mountain states turning down federal aid during forest fire season. Why all the bitching about New Orleans or California when they need federal help? After all, we are the United States, not the I've got mine, you get yours States.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mr. Slippery]

Certainly the United States does not suffer the kind of devastating water shortages that are common in many third-world countries.

Not yet. However a large part of the nation, including prime argricultural production areas, gets it water from fossil aquifers such as the Ogallala that are going to run dry eventually.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Blkdeath]

Your loaded question implies there's a serious problem with the current system in the U.S, and that's just not the case. Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon.

I live on the northern side of the great lakes. I'm surrounded by fresh water. Yet every summer without fail I find my area in atleast 3 fresh water bans (no lawn watering, restricted laundry, etc.)

Population density is increasing everywhere in North America and the situation is most definately getting worse - especially with all the pollutants we're putting in our water. This increases the need for treatment facilities thereby reducing the availability of clean water.

Matter of fact, a quick Google brought up this interesting piece that discusses a piece of the North American water situation.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mr. Slippery]

What is to prevent you from distilling seawater?

The tremendous amount of energy required, not to mention the shortage of seawater in inland areas.

The level of lack of water is unlikely to reach propotions where people begin to die of dehydration, you might just stink more as you take fewer showers.

Plants need water. Food crops are plants. Water shortages mean no food. So no, people won't begin to die of dehydration, they'll starve to death before things get that dry.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Lehk228]

well since the sytem would be running massive pipes all around the country there is enough of an infrastructure investment to justify some of the desert areas having distillers installed

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[gnuorder]

"'We were hit by a hurricane that we're were powerless to prevent'
Which caused the city to be flooded which could have easily been prevented."

Which engineering school did you graduate from because most experts on the subject say that to have prevented that flood would have had to have started 20 years ago and would cost billions of dollars.

"'New Orleans exists where it does for a lot of practical reasons, and those reasons are very important to the economic workings of this country.'
The extreme majority of the population had nothing to do with shipping, fishing, oil, etc."

What economics school did you graduate from because most experts say that New Orleans is a major shipping port and supplies much of the country's seafood, petrolium and natural gas products. You are right, a large part of the population were not involved with shipping, fishing or oil production but who the hell do you expect to run the restaurats, build the houses, Provide power, water, roads, Sell cars, boats, appliances, fix cars, boats, appliances, teach the children...? As you can see, it takes a lot more than oil workers to run an oil town. The practical reason for where it exists has nothing to do with that, though. It was settled there because it was the first place going up the river that wasn't a swamp. It was, and still is, the hub for everything going up and down the river and out into the gulf.

"Yall just sat your asses down and waited for the federal government to come help you."

Yea, they sat on their asses all right, on the few dry areas of the city, without communication, food, water, dealing with hundreds of thousands of desperate people trying to save as many as they can while waiting for FEMA who sat on their asses in Washington or ate at fancy restaurants in Baton Rogue. The Local authorities did the best they could and more than you could ask them to given the situation. The buses you refer to dont drive themselves and were not under the authority of the city. It was FEMA who was suppose to coordinate the use of transportation with outside communities because they were well aware that communications would be the first thing to go in NO. I'm sure the mayor would have authorized commandeering them had he had the drivers but he didn't. New Orleans had the 5 day's worth of supplies for the people they expected at the superdome. They were quickly overwhelmed because they didn't get the help to evacuate people that they depended on. They also didn't get the supplies brought in that they expected to get.

"Like, oh, say... Texas? We did a pretty good job of hauling our asses outta there when we heard a hurricane was coming through."

Perhaps you didn't notice but texans did not get "outta there." They were stuck on highways and are lucky it turned and didn't hit them. If you want a model of evacuation, look a little east to New Orleans. Last year when they had a scare from Ivan, it was taking over 8 hours just to get out of the city. Then there were long traffic jams and cars out of gas once on the highway, much like around Houston. They revised the plans and opened up new routes and started contraflow earlier so that it only took a 2 hour wait to get out on the city. They also enlisted the help of tow trucks and fuel trucks along the evacuation route to help keep traffic flowing. Their remaining problem was that a large segment of the population didn't or couldn't leave.

"Just another example of relying on other, non-local, groups. Did you never think that maybe yall should handle it yourselves? Also, it was publicly known that it could only handle a category 3 storm, and guess what? A category 4 storm broke it. What a surprise."

Did you think if yall Texans handled things yourselves, the Army Corps of Engineers would have had the resources to strengthen the levee system?

http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_nra/ace/tx.h tm

I think The New Orleans

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[wart]

How do you provide cooling? Oh, there's a large aquifer - the Snake River aquifer? Yes, lets use that. Funny, where does the Snake River end?

The Pacific Ocean, after it merges with the Columbia river near Richland, Washington.

It certainly doesn't end anywhere near the Mississippi river.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[cowscows]

Well sorry. There's just a lot of pissed off people down here, because New Orleans is not getting the help it needs because so many people have the same attitude that the parent implied. I've visited a lot of cities in this country, and New Orleans is one of the best, for so many reasons. Yet it's being ignored, lied to, and generally left to die. It's a very sad situation.

I apologize for misunderstanding. We're just desperate to try and remind people how bad things are, and that we really need some serious help.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mr. Flibble]

You would replace the entire engine for a blown $20 head gasket?!

Uh... Sorry, I stopped reading at that point. You're obviously an idiot.

Head gasket blew leaking the contents of the radiator into the oil - engine siezure. I had the truck in the mechanics 1 week before this failure, and supposedly the mechanics had done a full check on the truck, so during this period of a week I had not checked my oil nor my rad levels. After all, one week out of the shop I should not have needed to!

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[cowscows]

Thanks for responding to that jackass for me.

Katrina was a category 3 storm when it hit new orleans. There are a few places where floodwalls broke. One broke in Lakeview and that caused most of the flooding in the city, well after the storm was past. Recent testing on the floodwall has shown that the sheetpiling appears to have only been driven down about 10 feet below ground, instead of the 25 feet called for. And so the water basically just washed out under it and it came down.

And anyways, we're beyond bitching about the week after the storm. Today, three months after the storm, large parts of New Orleans still have no power, water, utilities. Many of the streetlights, even in areas that are open and full of traffic, still aren't working. Businesses are wary to come back because no one knows what's going to happen with the levees and floodwalls.

I really can't believe people are still whining about those buses. It was maybe a couple hundred busses, and while it would've been great if they were used to get some people out, even at full capacity, they would've made a hardly noticeable dent in the crowds stuck in town. Well over a million people in the greater new orleans area, plus a bunch of parishes to the south and east evacuated on just a couple days notice. The fact that that many people were able to get out in time is an amazing feat. Although things weren't perfect, and it's a tragedy that many didn't get out in time, the evacuation was overall an amazing success. Much better than the fiasco in Texas for Rita. If Rita had smashed into Houston, a whole lot of people probably would've died on the highways. Texas didn't do a great job with that hurricane, texas mostly got lucky. A whole bunch more of louisiana got flooded in that storm as well.

The local government, and the majority of the citizens did not simply sit on our asses and whine for help. And we're not doing that now. There are lots of people back in town already, cleaning out their homes, trying to save what they can. But it's all done under this cloud of uncertainty, because the feds are waffling on fixing the levees. The city of New Orleans can't do it itself. It's basically bankrupt. And with only a small percentage of its citizens and businesses back, it's not going to have the money to do it anytime soon. The state of Louisiana, well, they're broke too. A sizeable part of the state was underwater a few months ago, many people and businesses were driven away. If the federal government can't help us now, then what are they there for?

The Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA existed before the storm. The citizens of Louisiana have been paying for them via taxes just as long as everyone else in this country. In exchange for those tax dollars, we are supposed to be able to benefit from the services that those organizations provide. We depended on those organizations because that's why they exist. If the federal government didn't want to use the Corps of Engineers to protect New Orleans with levees, then why'd they tell us that they were going to?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[winwar]

"If the federal government can't help us now, then what are they there for?"

There is a difference between not being able and not wanting to. Let's face it, a lot of people lied. I'll let you figure it out.

"If the federal government didn't want to use the Corps of Engineers to protect New Orleans with levees, then why'd they tell us that they were going to?"

They did. Of course, a few were built and/or maintained poorly. Which leads to a another question-if a poorly built levy (or one that has been showing signs of potential failure was ignored by the locals) can essentially doom an entire city from a moderate to large hurricane, what good are they? More precisely, why protect non-essential things. People can be relocated to higher ground. It makes no sense to rebuild a significant portion of that city. It is roughly akin to living in a flood zone-some structures you just can't move. Others you just don't allow there. Once destroyed, you don't allow them to be rebuilt.

"But it's all done under this cloud of uncertainty, because the feds are waffling on fixing the levees."

I don't think there is any question about rebuilding the levees. It's only a few billion. Maybe a ten to 20 billion at the outside. Not much on the US Government side. But there is no sense rebuilding until you know why the levees failed and how to prevent it in the future. It is also a policy debate-how much of the area do you protect. Finally, it will take up to 20 years to build them. And until that time a Cat 5 storm can come through and wipe the city off the map. Gee, I wonder why there is uncertainty. It cannot be prevented in even the best case scenario. No one wants to spend 200 billion or so dollars and have it washed away....

The bottom line? It sucks if you lived in New Orleans. But I don't see a massive economic impact from it. That is the only thing that will encourage the rebuilding. In other words, if the loss from not rebuilding is greater than the cost of building. Finally, no one said recovery was going to be quick. Anyone who thought the city was going to be up and running in a couple of months was optimistic at best but most likely trending towards clueless....

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[HeroreV]

most experts on the subject say that to have prevented that flood would have had to have started 20 years ago and would cost billions of dollars.
Which obviously the federal government should have taken care of. And the residents of course had no choice but to live in such a place.

while waiting for FEMA
Of course, of course. What else could they have possibly done?

I work with a dude that left New Orleans and he is doing decently. Know why? Because he left. He didn't sit around though a hurricane and then wait for FEMA to come save him. He talks kinda funny but he obviously has more sense that most people in New Orleans.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[cowscows]

People keep telling us that we should just move everyone up to higher ground. I can't help but wonder where exactly you expect a couple hundred thousand people to move to. Are you going to donate the land? Are you going to build all the infrastructure they'll need? Oh, and by the way, we'd prefer something a little more exciting than a bunch of trailer parks out in the middle of the desert somewhere.

Also, your whole "if a poorly built levee can doom an entire city what good are they?" statement is just about the most retarded thing I've heard all day.. A flat tire can make my whole car not driveable. Maybe I should just scrap the whole thing and walk eight miles to work every day. I think the solution for the levee system is pretty obvious, build the stuff correctly. Most of the floodwalls did not break. It's certainly possible to build them so they'll work.

I'm not expecting a quick recovery. We all know that even in the best of circumstances, a lot of this would take time. The problem is, America in general has a rather unimpressive attention span. The gulf coast is already being forgotten and ignored. We haven't gotten nearly enough help yet, and we're not too optimistic that we'll get much more in the future.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[HeroreV]

Katrina was a category 3 storm when it hit new orleans.
Really?

Recent testing on the floodwall has shown ...
Did nobody ever think before the hurricane that maybe testing should have been done? The city does kinda depend on it and all. But we'll just rely on others to handle it for us. Yeah, that'll work.

Well over a million people in the greater new orleans area, plus a bunch of parishes to the south and east evacuated on just a couple days notice.
Well over a million you say? That's interesting, because you gave a slightly different figure before:

... besides helping a few hundred thousand human beings who's lives have been so severely impacted by flooding. (here)

You're obviously twisting the facts, so it would be foolish of me to believe anything you've written.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[jafac]

The gulf coast is already being forgotten and ignored.

But those people rioting over xbox360's at walmart are so much more important!

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Mr. Flibble]

In the case of economics you are correct to some degree. What you are speaking about is known as Market Failure. In cases of Market Failure, such as pollution, you wish to create regulation to the point that your goal is to reduce or control pollution without adversely affecting the free market. In the case of market failure like pollution, you can create incentives to control the pollution by things such as vouchers etc. This way the market comes up with more solutions to the problem. What is required is identifying the goal. If the case is water conservation, you can regulate it, or allow the price to increase.

So, yes, you are correct, it is about balance. The government should only intevene in the case of market failure, and it that case we must make certain our goals for the market, and our environment are well defined.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[aywwts4]

Holy crap, thats rediculous. I never even would have Dreamed that they could do something so silly. I thought citrus was absurd. That just takes the cake!

They even have a commission http://www.calrice.org/

"Sunny California, If your not nuts, you must be new!"

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[shibashaba]

Head gaskets can be hard to diagnose, usually you can see the coolant on the dipstick or it's blowing blue smoke out the back. Sometimes though they just leak oil out the engine like my saturn.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bhiestand]

It's a very sad situation.

I agree entirely. The situation in California is also going to be very bad if nothing is done about the water. Telling people to abandon the entire state is even more absurd than telling people in NO to leave the city and not come back. The state and its industries are absolutely vital to the nation, just like the port and refineries in New Orleans are.

I personally feel it's stupid to live at the base of a volcano, and I see New Orleans in a similar light. I would never buy property there, because I can tell you with certainty that this WILL happen again. I can't tell you when, but I know it will. The city is going to become a sunken city in the middle of the ocean unless we develop the technology to raise the elevation a few hundred feet and stop the sinking. That being said, there are a lot of people who live there and can't afford to simply up and move, and there's no where for them to go. The city's refineries and other resources have proven vital to the country, and definitely fall in the realm of national responsibility. Just keep in mind that, eventually, the city really needs to be abandoned. It's the only logical choice.

California is a similar, if converse, problem on a much larger scale. It's one of the largest states, but also responsible for a huge percentage of the american industry and GDP. Its ports are of vital importance, as well as many of its natural resources. People from around the country are moving there because it is extremely habitable, and there are a lot of great jobs to be had. These people are sucking up a lot of water, and wasting a lot at that. So it's partially their fault, the same way New Orleans' destruction is partially the fault of the residents, army corps of engineers, and mainly the politicians. But something as simple as a mass exodus from California to the rest of the country would completely fuck the American economy for a long time. Not only would housing costs quickly double, but vital industries and businesses would be severely restricted, or simply cease operations for a period of time. Combine that with the fact that it's not JUST California, but Nevada and Arizona and the whole region, and you quickly have a national crisis looming.

I hope that clears things up some. California could become a much larger disaster if something really bad happened, like the water sources being destroyed by earthquake, volcano, or terrorist activity, and it's going to take more than just californians conserving more water to solve that problem.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

But water shortages can sometimes be an issue anywhere, and widespread shortages of water ARE possible -- in the next few hundred years, with growing urban populations, MANY places other than parts of California will likely have seen times of serious shortages in the next 50 years -- if there's a drought one year in place X, people won't magically replace replace all their high-flush toilets during that one year, in that place in time to mitigate the shortage. It's partly the failure to conserve that brings shortages on in the first place -- water resources are limited, when they fall in shorter supply than usual, the level of demand is what causes there to either be a problem, or no problem.

These are preparatory measures that have to be in place well ahead of any drought in order to be effective at reducing water consumption, lowering energy costs to produce clean water, and preventing or reducing the severity of shortages.

Once you get the drought or shortage, it's pretty much too late.. conservation doesn't hurt, and it can help others a lot ..

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bhiestand]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Californians pay the same federal taxes that the rest of the county does, and state and local taxes don't pay for things outside the state. I just don't see how that's relevant to a discussion of state vs federal responsibility.

You're wrong :). It's almost impossible to really measure tax burdens, but I've spent a lot of time looking into this, and have some great references somewhere. I'll post another reply if I can find them, but I'll try to explain things as well as I can and help you find the actual data if you're interested.

Basically Californians make a lot more money than most people. This is true. This also means most californians are in the highest of federal tax brackets. I have friends who make ~$100,000/year and can't afford to buy a house. They're being taxed a good $40K or more of that federally, with a large additional state and sales tax burden. Prices are also much higher here, with rent for single bedroom apartments exceeding $1400/month in a lot of places. Gasoline costs a lot more. So does insurance. Obviously water and electricity are also more expensive.

A lot of states also receive what I like to refer to as subsidies and indirect rebates. North Dakota is a great example of this. The federal government spends more there than they collect from ND so, in effect, they're pumping free money into the economy. California pays a lot more than it receives. Money is given to individual states by politicians fighting for their companies and locations, for military installations as well as large contracts being awarded to companies in those areas. Since most of the federal budget is spent domestically, with the exception of the direct foreign aid and charity we participate in, the tax money is supposed to simply flow back into the economies from whence they came. For some states, such as California, it's a disproportionately small return, which is not only unfair but acting as a leech on the economy. Most people consider this "taking from the rich and giving to the poor", which I disagree with to begin with, but this is much worse, since Californians really aren't all that rich. Being a millionaire in California means you own your own home. Being a millionaire in Louisiana means you own half the town or a fairly large business. The salaries sound large on paper, and $50,000 of post-tax money sounds like a lot to play with, but when your bills total $45,000 a year for BASIC living expenses (car, food, roof, insurance, etc.)... Well, I'm sure you get the point.

I'm not sure why most of the country hates California so much. It's been pretty silent about being blatantly robbed by the federal government and energy companies. Most californians I've met have been friendly, typical Americans and not had a large ego at all. I think most people who live in California love it because it is a great place, geographically speaking, and Californians obviously take pride in it and prefer to live there otherwise they wouldn't. I really do miss the place, but I still prefer my tropical islands :).

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

Get rid of the smiley at the end of your sentence: it's not needed, and this is entirely serious. You're entirely correct: the reason we don't have two flush types in the US is because most people are entirely too stupid or too inconsiderate to bother using the proper one. That's why we can't have simple measures like that to help us save resources (and money); instead, we have to have extremely complex and expensive automated technological solutions, or just go without (high-flush only toilets) and suffer the consequences.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

This is in secured buildings and the only people who use the bathrooms are the employees, and they all have to be highly educated just to work there.

I work in a large technology company too, and supposedly everyone there is highly educated, but it's exactly the same way: urine all over the floor, unflushed toilets with huge loads of sh!t in them, etc. It's disgusting. Not only that, it's extremely common to see men leaving the restroom without washing their hands, and then head straight to the cafe with their lunchbag in hand. I've developed a habit of never touching the door handle or sink handle after washing my hands, instead using a paper towel.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[aaronl]

First off, the Federal government is *not* there to bail you out. That is not one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution. That job is up to the city of New Orleans, and the state of Louisiana. I choose to not live in a flood plain, hurricane track, under sea level, in an earthquake/mudslide common area, near a volcano, etc. It is not right to force me to pay for the people that choose to do so, which is what having the Federal do it would mean.

If New Orleans is entirely rebuilt, then it should be by the people and businesses located there, perhaps State aid, and voluntary contributions from elsewhere.

Also, pick a viable anology for the situation. I happen to carry a spare tire in my car, because I *might* end up with a flat. I also pay for AAA in case there is a another problem, or a problem with my spare, etc, just in case. New Orleans did not carry a spare seawall, or anything similar. It had no plan for dealing with this highly likely situation.

New Orleans was built once, and it didn't require massive amounts of Federal aid, forcing me to put up money for it, or any of the other "help" that you're talking about. It would be smart to not build it the same way a second time. It would be sheer stupidity to rebuilt the city without first building a seawall that can be guaranteed to stand up to whatever nature will throw at it. In the time that takes, you could've relocated the effected people, and the at-risk structures.

BTW - help sort of tends to be voluntary. Again, your version of help is to use government force to make people "help".

While the idea of not having any levy because a bad one can ruin all your stuff is silly, the idea of having such a massive single point of failure *is* really quite stupid. This should've been the top priority to insure the safety of all the residents of the area. It's a slight bit more important than stadiums, road repairs, *or* schools.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[my_breath_smells]

Very correct. My mistake. I was visualizing on the wrong side of the continental divide. The principle I was getting at still remains despite my misinformation. I did need the geography lesson. Thanks (no sarcasm intended)

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

I disagree with many of your comments. First, while I do think it's senseless to live in NO right now because of the way it is, it doesn't have to be. Do don't need to "develop the technology" to do anything; we just have to stop doing the stupid stuff that's screwed up NO. The reason NO didn't have any protection from the Katrina was because all the wetlands and barrier islands that used to surround NO, and provide a buffer between the city and the Gulf, are gone thanks to our screwing with the ecosystem by diverting the river there and preventing silt from the Mississippi from reinforcing those wetlands, so they got washed away. See this article for more details. Katrina's devastation was our own doing, not some random natural disaster we were powerless to avoid. Even worse, scientists knew that this would happen years ago, but politicians didn't want to do anything about it. The responsibility here lies with the people, who voted these stupid politicians in.

As for abandoning NO, I don't see how that can happen as long as we operate a port there. A port needs to be there because of the Mississippi and all the goods it carries. To have a port, you have to have a city; thousands of port workers don't really want to live in a temporary trailer city with no families, no communities, etc.

As for raising the city, it seems to me that that again is our own doing, by diverting the river. If we hadn't screwed around with the river, NO wouldn't be below sea level. But what's done is done, and it's still possible to raise the city. This was done in Galveston, TX back in 1906 after a cat5 hurricane hit them. If they can do it in 1906, they can certainly do it in 2006.

So as far as NO goes, I think the country needs to make a decision whether we actually want to go to the trouble and expense of rebuilding it at all. Since Americans are generally cheap and shortsighted, I think the answer is going to be "no". Of course, with this, we should go ahead and shut down the port, and stop importing and exporting goods via the MS river. Eventually, the economy will collapse, but we really deserve it, and it's not like we weren't warned.

Same goes for California. Maybe we should put it to a vote to the American people whether we should bother doing anything about CA's water problem. I predict the answer will be "no", judging by the responses right here on /. Of course, with so much of the economy tied up in CA, that means our economy will utterly collapse, but again I think we really deserve it.

Then, for hundreds of years afterwards, students in other countries learn from this as an example of how rich nations/empires fall when their citizens become lazy, selfish, and greedy.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

So how do you flush the toilet? Unless you have a no-flush or auto-flush toilet, you have to put your hand on the same lever every other nasty person uses.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bhiestand]

It's a no-flush urinal :). The urine drains itself rather quickly through the blue stuff. When I use a toilet I do wash my hands.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bhiestand]

I disagree with many of your comments.

I'm not sure why. I agree with everything you've said in this post, except I think the city would have sank regardless of the destruction of the wetlands. Other than that I disagree on what to do about it, but only because I prefer to make positive changes rather than serve as a warning for others.

I do disagree with your prediction about America deciding not to rebuild New Orleans because they're cheap and shortsighted. I think, because they're cheap and shortsighted, they're going to rebuild the city, but they're not going to do a very good job. It will get destroyed again in the future, but not until it's been at least partially rebuilt. But at least that'll give people decently paying construction jobs and the politicians a place to spend that huge budget surplus.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

No actually, we couldn't. Our population is much too large to revert to horses now. Sure, people had other methods of transportation before the Industrial Revolution, but there also weren't nearly as many people, and they didn't live so densely.

The pollution and sanitation aspects another poster brought up are good too.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

Try this: remove your first-generation, cheap-ass POS low-flow toilet, and throw it away. Then go to Home Depot and buy a new one: a good one should cost about $150-$200. Install that. Your plunging problems will be gone.

Stop blaming problems with a specific technology on a really cheap, crappy implementation of that technology. Just because you were too cheap to buy a decent toilet (or you unfortunately got stuck with one of the early ones) doesn't mean they're all bad.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[aywwts4]

Well with my foot of course! You dont actually touch that thing with your hands do you?! Haha, Poor ecoli infested sap. Probably touches the faucet taps and the towel dispenser as well...

(seriously though, where I work, its all sensors)

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

Other than that I disagree on what to do about it, but only because I prefer to make positive changes rather than serve as a warning for others.

I normally do too, but I'm feeling especially cynical and negative tonight, especially after reading all these comments here where people don't want to do anything about problems in parts of the country other than their own, even though to do nothing would cause them problems eventually (economic turmoil, population shifts, etc.) in whatever area they live in that they think is perfect and immune. So maybe we need one country to go down in flames to provide a great history lesson to future generations about why we shouldn't be selfish about helping our neighbors.

I do disagree with your prediction about America deciding not to rebuild New Orleans because they're cheap and shortsighted. I think, because they're cheap and shortsighted, they're going to rebuild the city, but they're not going to do a very good job. It will get destroyed again in the future, but not until it's been at least partially rebuilt. But at least that'll give people decently paying construction jobs and the politicians a place to spend that huge budget surplus.

I think you're unfortunately right about this one.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

I do that on occasion too, if no one's looking (I always do it for the sit-down toilets). Why on earth don't they make foot-operated toilets standard, anyway? Who wants to touch the same lever everyone else has?

I use paper towels to touch everything after I've washed my hands; faucet handle, door handle, etc. We have automated towel dispensers, but that's it. We're a giant, rich, semiconductor company, but of course we're too cheap to put in automatic faucets and toilets like the interstate rest stops and airports have.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

In Australia we have the duel flush toilets, quite handy. Light for number 1s, heavy for number 2s. :P

This won't work in America. We're too stupid to figure that out.

* You can't use normal hoses to water your garden anymore, it has to be a trigger nozzle
* You can't wash your car with any hose, you have to use a bucket of water/sponges
* Sprinkler systems are only allowed on between about 8pm - 8am

These sound like fine ideas. I already wash my car that way, and my sprinkler comes on at 4AM. I've never understood all the idiots around here who have their sprinklers come on in the daytime. I barely use any water at all with my sprinklers.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

Why not? Wouldn't you have to eat a larger volume of food with a vegetarian diet to get the same nutrition, since much of plants is just bulk/fiber/etc.?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Grishnakh]

Some explanation about superplastifiers and cone penetrometers and why they're important would be useful for people who aren't civil engineers.

As for hot water tanks, there was just an article about that on Slashdot yesterday. I think one of the main problems with the on-demand water heaters is that most houses don't have the current capacity to handle an electric heater that heats water on-demand. As for gas units, lots of houses don't have gas available (mine doesn't).

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they thought you were somehow pumping in a fresh supply of hot water from your hot water heater and draining the tub all at once?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[bad-badtz-maru]

There is an inverse correlation between pipe diameter and drainline carry. A 3" drain line has roughly 50% greater carry distance at a 2% grade than a 4" line at the same grade. For conversion of old houses, you also have to take the cast iron versus PVC fact into account. New 3" PVC is going to carry better than rusty old 4" cast iron.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Thundersnatch]

Massive Water Grid Project

Just because all you freaking lemmings move out to a place where there's no water, the rest of us have to pay for it? No thank you. I will not subsidize your stupidity.

And if you try to mess with our great lake, remember that Chicago is "the city of broad shoulders." We'll kick your commie pinko coastal asses off the continent.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Feels good to know that I live next to the largest fresh water supply in the world. Oh those wonderful Great Lakes! Industrial corporations dumped more toxin in those lakes than it would take to botox Joan River's facehttp://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1 045330465705_2003/02/16/ent_joanrivers1702.jpg, and local governments get stuck with the clean up bill. Is that why KC has so much profit? I can't wait til Lake Erie catches on fire again... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Erie

Come to the Mississippi river area and tell me there's not enough water.

Enjoy the water we send down!

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Ledgem]

Precisely.

I haven't studied much in the way of electricity outside of basic physics, but I have taken a number of engineering courses on water. The problem isn't just pumping the water, though that would take a fair amount of power in itself. Where do you plan to put the pipes? Wires are relatively easy - you can string them above ground, or you can dig barely beneath the surface and lay the lines there. Theoretically, you could have above-ground pipes, but in order to have a working model of what you're proposing (a nationwide water grid) the pipes would either need to be very large, or the water would need to be moving at very high speeds. Water at higher speeds has the potential to cause increased stress on the pipes (look into cavitation/"water hammer" if you're interesting) and will consume more energy. Additionally, pipes above ground will face weather and other forms of erosion.

Placing the pipes underground would require a lot of digging, and digging very deep. Many cities don't want to replace their aging infrastructure because it was expensive enough to place the pipes, and now they'll need to dig them up and place new ones: the cheaper method is to ram newer, somewhat smaller pipes through the old ones.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow!! You have taken missing the point to an entirely new level!

Since everything following your first paragraph is complete merde, I will refrain from taking you to task on each point.

However you did get off to a good start in the first paragraph...

True less plush green lawn would be a great step, except that is being addressed already. As land prices rise, homes are being built on smaller and smaller lots - each one comes equiped with a driveway, walkway, and patio all built of concrete and none of them are shrinking in size (significantly) thereby reducing the percentage of each lot available for a plush green lawn.

However that being said, there is always the 2 ton elephant in the room that noone seems to want to talk about. Residential water use ammounts to about 10% of total usage in the state. The VAST majority goes to agricultural uses, for instance growing RICE, of all things, in the desert. You try and convince the rice lobby to just stop. Aside from the difficulty we seem to have controlling corporations though, it points up the crux of the problem and its national impact. For all of the economic and cultural impact of the NO area (http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/LA.htm which the first poster was not denegrating) it can not compare the the national impact of the California economy (http://www.lao.ca.gov/2002/cal_facts/econ.html.) As far as culture goes, you are quite correct, NO is a fantastic bruepot for music, food and the arts, I have no quibble with that. But if California were not a cultural powerhouse - none of the rest of you would bitch endlessly about "those damn Californians" the way you do!

As far as the the missinformed posters comments about everyone paying the same federal taxes, that is true, but for every dollar Californians pay, less than one dollar is received in federal funding. We already are keeping the rest of you layabouts living better than you would without our help. So the next time you want to bitch about California, stop succling on our teat first. And another thing, while you are bitching please stop moving here. Infact just stop moving here at all - especially if your from Kansas.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[StikyPad]

Exactly. Despite the opinions of many New Orleaners I've met, the universe does not revolve solely around them, or their city. Hurricanes are rarely an issue in the U.S.., outside of the gulf states -- the only exception being the odd seasonal hurricane that comes up and the atlantic and strikes a northern state.

In any event, this seems like an issue that should be dealt with on the local municipal level, and certainly not on a Federal one. There are no hurricanes in my area, and I have no desire to subsidize the south when it wouldn't have any advantage to me and would just mean a lot of additional tax burden, and I would take a very dim view of any legislation that tried to force this. If people who choose to live in hurricane-prone places essentially unsuited to human habitation have problems with their weather, obviously their governments should address these issues. But it's not a universal problem, and it does no good to make it one artificially.

Were you trying to make a parody? Because that sounds 100% rational to me. It's local government's responsibility to prepare for disaster (through building codes and, say, not perpetuating a city below sea level right next to the ocean, a lake, and a river) and set up emergency response. There's no Federal Ambulance Squadron, or National Emergency Shelter Network, nor should there be. The Federal government can come in when necessary, but it's a last resort, and their role is mainly one of coordination and logistics, not first responders.

At any rate, I worked at a place with no-flush urinals and they were terrible. There was always a film of urine residue which smelled foul, and they required more cleaning than a normal urinal. There's no way a gravity filter will do an adequate job of passing and trapping all waste without water. Timed flushes would meet the goal of using less water while still maintining a semi-self cleansing system. A timer could be triggered by an infrared sensor so that the urinal flushes no more than once every 15 minutes or whatever.

Also, I don't know if anyone's aware of this, but people PUT THINGS in urinals. Especially drunk people. (Put things in urinals, not get put in urinals.. at least, that I've seen). Most objects will flush through in a normal urinal, but in a filtered urinal you now have a clogged system. And really, urinals are clogged often enough as it is, which means people will just have to use the normal toilets and waste 1.whatever gallons of water, or just piss in the same water and hope it doesn't splash much.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Ass? no. Wit? yes. In my book telling a silly old cow to keep her nose out of something that's none of her business isn't ass making material.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Anonymous Coward]

Perform the following left rotation: (California <- USA <- World) and the final statement is still true.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Random832]

Nobody's "burning water" - There are processes which consume water - electrolytic separation, photosynthesis, etc. Flushing a toilet is not one of them. Many other processes [combustion, for one] in fact create water - For hydrocarbons, at a slightly greater rate than they create carbon dioxide. [one more H2O than CO2 per molecule combusted]

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[jtorkbob]

One major US plumbing manufacturer just released such a dual-flush handle.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Uppercut+Dual+Flush

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Random832]

When the federal government decided to raise taxes to such levels as to squeeze state tax revenue to virtually nothing, they assumed financial responsibility for everything that they deprived the states of money to do What needs to be done is to cut federal taxes in half and raise state taxes to make up the difference, and let the states pay for their own highways, schools, health care, etc.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Random832]

You don't put it in your underwear? /even more creepy //almost worse than going commando

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Random832]

Are you suggesting the USA is not self-sufficient in water?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[npsimons]

During WWII, Winston Churchill put it best. To paraphrase: The Americans, when all other options have been exhausted, will do the right thing.

Why's everybody always picking on us Americans (besides the fact that our President is an ass)? I tend to think that a shortness of vision is not limited to Americans, and prefer the following:

History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives.
        -- Abba Eban

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[npsimons]

Despite the opinions of many Californians I've met, the universe does not revolve solely around them, or their state.

And neither does it revolve around you or your state.

There are no water shortages in my area, and I have no desire to switch to a different design of toilet that wouldn't have any advantage to me and would just mean a lot of additional complexity, and I would take a very dim view of any legislation that tried to force this. If people who choose to live in places essentially unsuited to human habitation have problems with their water supply, obviously their governments should address these issues.

Oh, you mean like New Orleans? Maybe we should just tell them they are screwed because they chose to live somewhere "unsuited to human habitation" when they are "having problems with their water supply". Tell you what, the next time your area becomes "unsuited to human habitation" due to whatever reason, we'll tell you to suck it up and "deal with it on the local municipal level". Also, southern California and the Southwestern states are far from the only places that have problems with water shortages - I know for a fact that Iowa has had droughts that require them to "let it mellow if it's yellow".

Look, I know you're just trying to get out of buying a new toilet, and that's fine and all, I can understand that. But try to think for a moment: why waste water unnecessarily? The next time you are in the market for a toilet, why not buy one that uses less water? Are you that much of an asshole that you want to waste natural resources unnecessarily?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[aaronl]

I would go even further than that. Cut the Federal more than you say by repealing the 16th amendment; only allow them programs that can be paid for with excise and tariff. You won't even have to do much work to get those Federal programs cut. Then, get the States to cut their taxes considerably and let the local governments pick it up. Then make the local governments responsible for roads, school, and other infrastructure.

Actually, local governments do most of this already, they just depend on State and Federal monies flowing back to pay for it. You tend to only have a school paid for by a higher level in the case of state colleges. Even with school districts, the money is from several municipalities putting up the money.

Don't get in mind that the Federal took responsibility for anything by taking a larger share of tax revenues. They still make the lower levels do most of that work. Interstate roads are maintained by State government, for example, they just get additional Federal money to do it.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Krach42]

This is even granting time for the customary pro forma soapless hand rinse to acknowledge any possible witnesses to his hygeine who are in the restroom with him and who forced him to flush the urinal in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine

Although urine is commonly believed to be 'dirty' this is not actually the case. In cases of kidney or urinary tract infection (UTI) the urine will contain bacteria, but otherwise urine is virtually sterile and nearly odorless when it leaves the body. However, after that, bacteria that contaminate the urine will convert chemicals in the urine into smelling chemicals that are responsible for the distinctive odor of stale urine; in particular, ammonia is produced from urea.

Maybe, they wash their hands without soap, because it's not essentially necessary to wash their hands at all after contact with urine, because at the time it leaves the body, it's essentially sterile, and in fact, urine sanitizes what it gets on.

So, I have a question for you Mr. Pedantic-Hygenist: If one were to piss an anti-bacterial fluid from their body, would you still expect them to wash their hands with soap? Would you expect them to wash their hands at all?

I wash my hands after a piss because it is a distinct habit, and a social expectation of behaviour. I wash my hands after defecating, because it's particularly good hygene.

I laugh at the same people who use paper towels to open the restroom doors. It's like magically once you're out of the restroom, everyone's hands have spontaneously gotten "cleaner". I mean, ok, take two people Mr. A, and Mr. B. Mr. A uses the restroom first, then doesn't wash his hands, then gets a coke from the coke machine. Mr B then uses the bathroom, but since he's hygenically superior, he washes his hands with soap, then uses a paper towel to open the doors so as not to get any of Mr A's nasty germs on his hands... Then he walks over and gets a coke from the same coke machine that Mr A touched 5 seconds after touching the restroom door, but without a paper towel.

It's god damn stupidity... like using paper toilet seat covers, and other crap like that. Fact is that toilet paper, indoor plumbing, and a simple (soapless) hand wash is sufficient for maintaining sufficient (99.999 some percent) hygiene. Everything else is just extra... and in the case of anti-bacterial soaps actually potentially HARMFUL, as it's generally just making Bacteria more resistant.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[anakin876]

I can certainly see you side of it - and if California had a way to keep people from moving where there was water to where it isn't, I would be less inclined to voice support in the Californian's favor. However, there is no practical solution to keeping immigrants out. So, all the people that moved into California in the last 30-40 years should have brought along water rights access with them - or never moved there at all. At this point, California has to find a way to either A) force people to leave, or B) provide water for all the immigrants. One way to force people out would be to raise prices on water - but that would just leave thirsty, probably very stinky, poor people in California.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Random832]

Local authority comes from the state - any "local taxes" would by necessity be state taxes. There are only two levels of government that have any actual sovereignty in the US - federal and state.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Random832]

Don't get in mind that the Federal took responsibility for anything by taking a larger share of tax revenues. They still make the lower levels do most of that work. Interstate roads are maintained by State government, for example, they just get additional Federal money to do it.

I meant that, morally, they assumed the financial obligations - I did say "financial responsibility" didn't i?

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[aaronl]

You did say that. It's just that putting morals in with government is a bad choice. The Federal collects more tax money so it can exercise more force. It does this by passing more legislation, creating new agencies, and expanding it's influence. Remember, anything governement does is a form of force, even if it is a good thing.

One of the problems with the Federal in the US is that while they collect most of the tax monies, they do not apportion it out in a way to properly provide for the force and services that it mandates. State and local governments are forced to collect additional revenue to pay for these Federal mandates.

It can be a real burden! I'm involved in the government for a large town (>16000 people) and let me tell you, trying to comply with just the State code is not easy to do with the revenue we can collect. Once you set aside the money to provide essentials, like police, fire, and roads, most of the rest go to schools. We fully depend on money coming in from the State and Federal to operate. It's no different anywhere else, unfortunately.

I'd agree that *morally* the Federal should assume the financial responsiblity. In reality, they simply do not.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[Random832]

The fact that they are not fulfilling their obligations does not mean that they did not assume them in the first place. I would go so far as to say that [despite supreme court decisions to the contrary] the federal government has no right to deny the states highway money, since they tax too much to allow the states to pay for their own roads.

Re:Get your $#!^ together

[JoeWindBlocker]

I think the article refers to urinals, not toilets, so please get YOUR $#!^ together. I think the biggest issue with urinals is not the disposal method, but whether the users even bothers to flush it at all. I'm often disgusted, when using the restroom at work, to see fully half of the urinals festering in stale piss, unflushed. Are these guys lazy pigs or are they hypochondriacal pussies, afraid to touch the handle?

dood.

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?

I'm relieved that this article...

[Anonymous Coward]

was not categorized under "Your Rights Online".

Re:I'm relieved that this article...

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

Actually, once fresh water becomes too scarce, we will all either die from a loss of water, OR the Government will have to restrict our rights and limit our water intake, making this is a rights issue.

Re:I'm relieved that this article...

[Ryosen]

As with most other things, only the poor will suffer. The rich will continue to enjoy their subsidized water long after the readily available supply runs out.

Re:I'm relieved that this article...

[JAppi]

Why do we have to use fresh water?

Re:I'm relieved that this article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's still going to rain, even in the more economically depressed areas.

My solution is to whiz in the back yard. Works for me.

Re:I'm relieved that this article...

[ryanov]

On Star Island, http://www.starisland.org/ a place that I vacation, they use salt water in their toilets. That works if you're near the ocean I suppose (though apparently the waste treatment plant they had to install is close to one of a kind, so that part may reduce some of the savings).

Re:I'm relieved that this article...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. You probably don't even have to mow the lawn!

Re:I'm relieved that this article...

[Anonymous Coward]

even in your twisted and stretched logic, it still isn't an online rights issue.

BTW - killing the water irrigation subsidies for farmers (who are also paid to grow crops and then destroy them) and allowing water to be bought/sold/used on an open market would solve all future water problems.

Re:I'm relieved that this article...

[GigsVT]

There's this thing called the water cycle.

It uses this big still to distill the water and make it fresh and clean again. It's called the atmosphere. You might have seen it through a window or on google images.

Re:I'm relieved that this article...

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

You think that rainwater is clean? Ha. Not in God's America, friend.

Just flush once a month

[cyber_rigger]

It's almost as efficent.

Re:Just flush once a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we worried about urinals? Those use less water than TOILETS, which we should be worried about more.

Re:Just flush once a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Could someone explain why the story mentioned not flushing as a source of disease? I thought that urine was one of the most sterile liquids available. Thats why survival manuals recommend using it as a sterilizer if nothing else is available. How exactly does urine cause disease?

Re:Just flush once a month

[gameboyguy13]

Aren't some venereal diseases spread via urine?

Re:Just flush once a month

[jbrader]

I for one am not in the habit of rubbing my genitals on the urinal.

Re:Just flush once a month

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't speak for everyone, buddy!

So what we have is...

[snevig]

the ultimate pissing contest. :P

Re:So what we have is...

[Daengbo]

To score points, make sure that you hit the target.

Dual Flush Toilets

[apple ii guy]

I use the Dual mode flush toilets in Japan for many years and had no problem with them.. If you remember whick flush to use... But after that It works great...

Re:Dual Flush Toilets

[ryanov]

I think one of the most interesting toilets I saw in Japan was not a technological toilet or one with multiple flush types, but one that had an integrated sink. Water ran out of a spigot on top of the toilet during a flush, and into a sink basin in the lid. The drain fed into the toilet tank. This is a big water saver -- why flush with drinkable water?

I have one!

[skazatmebaby]

We have a no-flush urinal in the bathroom where I live

The disadvantages are that you have to change the filter every, like 3,000, "non flushes". The filters are expensive and I'm sure they're slightly wasteful. If you don't have a new one, the entire urinal stops working and lovely pee just accumulates inside the urinal. And that stinks.

What would be nice would be a hybrid - it's a no-water system until the filter, "craps" out, and then you have the regular way of doing things, as a backup.

Saying all that, it's proven to save us lots of water and keep our incredibly delicate plumbing working well.

Re:I have one!

[PygmySurfer]

We have a no-flush urinal in the bathroom where I live

You live in a bathroom?

Re:I have one!

[Nethemas the Great]

Sure, why not? All that's left to get is a fold out couch, fridge and an indoor hibachi. --Neth

Re:I have one!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why yes he does... He lives in New York..

You could say both that both the city is a Bathroom or the size of standard apartment is about the same size.

Re:I have one!

[Shadow Wrought]

I have one, too, just out the back door. It's called the neighbor's tree.

Re:I have one!

[tardigrades]

I use one all the time. Ok it is a regular one but im pretty sure it never gets flushed. If you cant reach the lever with your foot its not worth trying to flush it. I guess by not flushing im a conservationalist. Cuz you know water is very limited in seattle.

Re:I have one!

[saucercrab]

You live in a bathroom?

Clearly he lives at myspace.com

Re:I have one!

[PygmySurfer]

"...I moved there from Texas, by the way. Get this, man, I left in Houston, Texas, my apartment 1400 square feet, balcony 30 floors up, air conditioning centralised, dishwasher, washer, dryer free parking.. drumroll... four hundred dollars a month.. what a fucking idiot, huh? I feel like a real moron. I moved to an apartment where I can touch one wall with one hand, the other wall with that foot.. one thousand dollars a month! It's super moron! I can answer the door, answer the phone, take a leak, take a shower all at once for I am super moron!" -- Bill Hicks, RIP

Re:I have one!

[sjames]

The filters are expensive and I'm sure they're slightly wasteful.

That's probably in part due to production volume and in part due to novelty. From the looks of it, there's nothing intrinsically expensive or wasteful about the filters, though the current model might be both.

Flawed analogy

[Dolda2000]

Tired of arguing the same old issues like Linux vs Windows? Choose up sides in the fight over flushing vs non-flushing urinals.

Yeah, right! If it isn't Linux vs. Windows, how would I possibly know which side to pick?

Pfft... seriously...

Re:Flawed analogy

[Doppler00]

If the waterless urinals ran on Linux would you be happy?

Re:Flawed analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Had to say it: "You must be new here. This is Slashdot. We *never* get tired of arguing Linux vs. Windows."

Re:Flawed analogy

[Cervantes]

Yeah, right! If it isn't Linux vs. Windows, how would I possibly know which side to pick?

I would recommend the side that is doing the pissing, and not the side receiving.

Re:Flawed analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

If it isn't Linux vs. Windows, how would I possibly know which side to pick?

In the case of urinals, I recommend the outside.

Re:Flawed analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

So... Windows? ;-)

I prefer flush

[digitalgimpus]

I always have a bottle of water with me, and keep myself well hydrated... so I know my urinals well.

IMHO no flush urinals suck. There's always that faint odor of urine that just doesn't go away.

The best urinals ever are the low flow with a urinal cake. Low flow means even when they get older, and have calcium buildup, no splash at all on flush, and the urinal cake keeps it fresh. When well mantained they are very good.

When I make it rich... I'm getting a Urinal in my home bathroom. And yes, it will be low flow.

Re:I prefer flush

[connah0047]

On my next birthday, when my wife asks me what kind of cake I want, it's going to be Urinal Cake.

Re:I prefer flush

[LO0G]

Interesting. They've got them installed in the mens room at Center House in Seattle Center, and I use them just about every week, I've never noticed the "faint odor of urine".

Center House is a pretty high traffic area too, fwiw.

I'm not sure if they actually save money or not, but...

Re:I prefer flush

[Pig Hogger]

When I make it rich... I'm getting a Urinal in my home bathroom. And yes, it will be low flow.

When you'll finally make it rich, you'll be so old that you won't have any need for an urinal for those morning pees.

Splash

[Anonymous Coward]

I will just be happy when they invent no splash urinals...is it really that difficult??

round

[rescdsk]

Time for the classic round:

Everybody poops and pees
If it's yellow, let it mellow
If it's brown, flush it down.

(Sung to the tune of "White Sands and Gray Sands," if you know that)

Urinals

[Oculus Habent]

I have used a few of these. I would think that they would reduce the spread of disease through their "no touch" design -- no buttons or levers to press. The same argument made by users in the article, there. I guess I can understand the opposite argument; urine is just sitting there on the surface. But, I don't know many people that touch the inside of the urinal.

You can always spray it with a disinfectant, can't you?

Re:Urinals

[CastrTroy]

It's also important to point out that normal healthy people urine is actually quite sterile, and doesn't contain anything that's really going to harm people with an immune system of any kind. Actually, it's safe to drink your urine if you're stranded and don't have any other source of liquids. It won't hold you up for every, but it could keep you alive an extra while till help arrives.

Re:Urinals

[Johnboi Waltune]

It's not important in this context. The point is that the urine is a breeding ground for bacteria that already exist in the urinal.

Re:Urinals

[CheshireCatCO]

Also, a flush-less urinal might not splash as much. There's a researcher who has does studies on how far commodes splash when flushed (I don't recall if he has done tests on urinals, but I assume he has), and it's something like 2 meters. That, combined with the zoo of bacteria you find on your toilet, and that's just disturbing.

Re:Urinals

[CastrTroy]

Oh, and what's wrong with the flushing toilets that flush themselves when you step away. Clean and sanitary because you don't have to touch them, and clean and sanitary, because the urine goes down the drain, along with the scent.

Re:Urinals

[zerocool^]

Urine is sterile, and unless there's something kind of wrong with you, there shouldn't be any glucose to encourage bacteria growth.

Now, it is warm and wet, and that helps with bacteria growth, but the same could be said of any warm, wet, non-corrosive liquid.

~W

Re:Urinals

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, urine is only sterile in the body. When it passes out of the body, it becomes contaminated with the bacteria at the "exit". When they used to taste urine in labs to check for sugar content, the urine was removed with a catheter. Drinking your urine in a "stranded" situation is a bad idea. It will make you sick and if you're on land there's pretty many places to get water and if you're at sea, well, sucks to be you. I'd really recommend that you check out a survival handbook sometime if you're ever in a situation where you might be "stranded". Sounds like you could brush up on some points.

Re:Urinals

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always spray it with a disinfectant, can't you?

I think a certain uric acid solution might work...

Interestingly enough, not only is urine almost 100% sterile, it's also a mild disinfectant, albeit one somewhat disgusting to modern sensibilities. Many ancient cultures used it as such; some Aztecs even used it to cleanse wounds and prevent infection.

Re:Urinals

[Artifakt]

"unless there's something kind of wrong with you" is effectively slang for type two Diabetes in this case. Given that there are estimated to be upwards of a million undiagnosed borderline type two diabetics in the US today, what's your point? Your "there shouldn't be" has over a million exceptions just from that problem alone. When you include that the standard test is only reliable if taken at least an hour after eating, and almost all clinically normal people will show significant glucose if they urinate within 15 minutes of drinking a typical large fast food restaurant soda, that ups the numbers to 10's of millions on a typical day. So the original poster was right, this is an extremely significant factor in design.

Re:Urinals

[Johnboi Waltune]

Nah, all people have bacteria living in their urethra.

That's all fine, but...

[The Infidel]

I sure hope they dont use these things in restaurants that serve asparagus.

Re:That's all fine, but...

[Mahou]

i don't get it

Re:That's all fine, but...

[NeMon'ess]

eat some asparagus and go pee. if you smell nothing out of the ordinary, either your nose isn't up to snuff or your body chemistry is abnormal.

Re:That's all fine, but...

[Greyfox]

Google to the Rescue

Re:That's all fine, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

from the straighdope(first page on google)

For example, Benjamin Franklin, in a wide-ranging discussion of bodily discharges, once noted, "a few stems of asparagus eaten shall give our urine a disagreeable odor; and a pill of turpentine no bigger than a pea shall bestow upon it the pleasing smell of violets."

holy crap, holy crap! someone try the turpentine thing and tell me if it works, that would be awesome * infinity + 1

Spreading diseases?

[Patik]

Does running some tap water over part of the urinal really help stop the spread of diseases and germs? If so, why not have one flush every night to clean it out and remain 'waterless' during the day?

Re:Spreading diseases?

[sacdelta]

Given how accurate some people tend to be, I don't think either prevents urine from being on the surface. Using that argument seems like more of a red herring . I would actually rate the 'waterless' as more sanitary since, unlike a handle flush you never need to touch it. But of course if you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom, like people should, it really wouldn't matter.

I used to have one where I worked and some of the people there went to some interesting lengths to try to control the smell when the jatintorial staff wasn't quick enough with the filter replacements.

Before I would say it is an efficient water design, I'd have to see the figures on how many gallons of water get used to produce each filter. And also how much pollution is created for each one. It might end up as a wash, or even a loss when you actually consider all of the process.

Re:Spreading diseases?

[DrEldarion]

It doesn't matter, urine is sterile anyway. People are just really paranoid. ... unless said person has something quite serious going on and blood is coming out, but I have a feeling that's pretty rare.

Re:Spreading diseases?

[Detritus]

Is it sterile if you have an infection of the bladder or urethra?

Re:Spreading diseases?

[kesuki]

Urine is sterile unless one of the following conditions are == true.

1. you have an STD that causes urine to become a transmission point (very rare)

2. you have an infection (usually indicated by a strong odor, or pus color) (somewhat rate)

3. you're sick with a virus (common)

4. you're bleeding when you pee, and your blood contains a contagious pathogen/HIV. (normally blood is 'sterile' too, and normally HIV will 'break down' without continuous blood exposure within minutes) (rare)

now, 2 things to note
1. running water alone does not make a urinal sterile in the case of 1 or 2, and may be insufficent in the case of 3.

2. even an 'infected' urnial cannot transmit it's infection unless you come into physical contact with it. No, a urine stream does not count, as 'gravity' and 'fluid dynamics' make it physiologically impossible for one to become infected from one's own urine stream.

the Only downside of this technology is replacing the odor filter, and even a 'normal' urinal becomes pretty rank without a 'deoderizer' tablet.

Re:Spreading diseases?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that's something that's never made sense to me, let's walk through it - you put your hand in your penis, then the flusher - kooties are no on the flusher handle, then you put your hand on the knob on the sink - kooties on the sink knob - then you wash your hands and...put your hands on the infect knob to turn it off...then you put your hands on the door to pass on whatever you were transferring onto the door handle for everyone else to pass on too.

What about the motion detector sinks? You put your hand on yourself, the flusher handle, then you wash your hand and put your hand on the door to leave. Problem is, someone didn't wash their hands, they put their hands on themselves, the toilet, and then the door - so washing your hands did nothing because they put it on the door you touched.

Solution: All bathroom doors must now be motion detector, sliding doors like in Star Trek (they must also make the door open/close noise). Waterless urinals, that have a clean cycle set to run in their time of low use, and they flush by motion detector. Motion detector sinks obviously. Also, just for the sake of congruency with all the other motion detectors in the bathroom, all stall doors must open and close on motion detector (kidding).

Re:Spreading diseases?

[ScribeOfTheNile]

I would actually rate the 'waterless' as more sanitary since, unlike a handle flush you never need to touch it.

Around here, I've found quite a few motion-triggered auto-flushing urinals, nicely solving that problem. Sometimes the motion sensor is a tad too sensitive, though, flushing before you're done. At least it doesn't splash. ;-)

Re:Spreading diseases?

[floodo1]

you could get splashback

Re:Spreading diseases?

[Artifakt]

I've already argued why this is wrong with other posters, and you might want to read some of those posts, but this time, I'll take just one disease.
Hepatitus C commonly damages the kidneys enough that it frequently begins to be present in the urine in copious amounts within two weeks or less of initial infection. It is also a very hardy disease, able to tolerate conditions such as low levels of chlorination that will kill many other germs within milliseconds for significant time. You may have a "feeling that's pretty rare", but it's totally unsupported by the facts.

Here's an estimate on just how many people currently have Hep C in the USA alone. That C. Everett Koop guy may look familiar.

http://www.epidemic.org/theFacts/theEpidemic/

Once you've absorbed the part about 5 Million cases, you might want to check out the rest of the site.

This is also one of over a dozen such conditions where blood is frequently not visible, so you're giving bad medical advice there as well.

Re:Spreading diseases?

[uberdave]

Is it just me, or does this guy look like Count Baltar with a beard?

Re:Spreading diseases?

[Omestes]

Moral of the story: "don't lick urinals".

Ways to get a disease from a urinal:
1) Direct contact (i.e. playing in pee, licking, etc)
2) Splash, which all urinals have by nature.

So, either way it is there, but hard to catch, unless people pee on the flush handle within 15 minutes of your use.

Re:Spreading diseases?

[Waffle Iron]

It doesn't matter, urine is sterile anyway.

A jar of Cheez Whiz is sterile when you open it, too. Now try spreading it all over your toilet, and keep it nice and moist. See what happens after a few days.

Re:Spreading diseases?

[bm_luethke]

I don't really have a dog in this fight - for all toilets except the one in my own house I deposit my waste in them and let someone else worry about it. Though if it is a "flush" model I do so (well, I've never seen a non-flush model. I would most like spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how to flush them - see below).

I most cases the "need to touch" for the flush has been eleminated. Generally, on things like this, I figure I'm in the minority. I live in east Tennessee (Knoxville) - Podunct Tennessee. If we have then I generally assume other do. I know I saw this year ago first while on travel, but many/most places have switched to the autoflush things. I think they are great - no need to worry, just use and go. The no touch faucets with warm water all the time are great also - I always wonder why someone didn't come up with it MUCH sooner, it's just such a great idea.

Though, I must admit, the first time I saw them I was confused. Being brought up in the typical rural society - one where you do your civic duty always - you flush, make sure you don't waste others water, and always wash (amongst other things - basically treat everything as if it was yours). So, use the urinal and then look over the whole thing, press any nubs that seem anywhere close to sanitary for a good ten minutes. Eventually the thing flushes and the light bulb goes off. I saw the auto-wash sinks after that and figured that one out immediatly after noticing that there was no water controll, though I still had the "Great idea" thought when I did.

When they remodeled the local mall it was VERY funny to just watch the bathroom areas - people who were not anything close to technically inclined and had it VERY tightly ingrainged in them to do certain things were just confused. I saw one older gentleman (at least in 70's) try and figure the faucets out for quite a number of minutes - I told him how to use them when I made it near him.

Rural people aren't stupid by any means - at least no more than anyone else (people are people - intelligence isn't based on where you live). Just never seen that type of thing - city people were just as confused at first, just it happened a few years earlier (about 5-10 years if my experience meant anything). I find myself confused when I go visit some of my relatives - they think my lack of knowledge about farm stuff as funny as I think of thiers (and many of the people around me) about technology. Just different worlds and it's funny when the collide.

Re:Spreading diseases?

[grolschie]

> Does running some tap water over part of the urinal
> really help stop the spread of diseases and germs?

I guess this matters if you are drinking out of it. :-)

Re:Spreading diseases?

[Com2Kid]

Strange, I live in a major metro city (Seattle WA) and auto-flush toilets are still not the "norm", though I do encounter them from time to time.

I *HATE* the auto-sink things, because I cannot control the flow and usually they are set with such low water pressure that I have to spend a good 10 or so seconds just wetting my hands down to get ready to put soap on them!

Re:Spreading diseases?

[jez9999]

for all toilets except the one in my own house I deposit my waste in them and let someone else worry about it.

I feel sorry for the people who go in after you...

Re:Spreading diseases?

[elakazal]

And how many of those five million cases were urinal-transmitted?

Re:Spreading diseases?

[Scrameustache]

don't lick urinals

This persecution of alternative lifestyles must stop!!!! Think of the pee-licking children!

Re:Spreading diseases?

[kesuki]

you could wear pants and shoes... and maintain them regularly...

Re:Spreading diseases?

[Dread_ed]

2. even an 'infected' urnial cannot transmit it's infection unless you come into physical contact with it

Hmmm...didn't know that.

Note to self: Stop eating the complimentary pink cakes from the public urinals.

Re:Spreading diseases?

[floodo1]

that doesnt work in all situations :(

Re:Spreading diseases?

[ProfDD]

This thread has disappointed me a lot. So much of it is about toilets, not urinals. The simple point that urine is almost always sterile should make one wonder about what the real argument is about. Why is it that the plumbers' union is leading the charge for "public health" ? Do you really believe that it is because official public health bodies are under the control of the toilet-equipment makers ? The plumbers' unions are concerned about preserving union jobs. Most bad bacteria in a public restroom will come from feces. Some will carry by air from the toilets to the urinals. The question is whether the water-free urinal provides a better place than the flushing kind for bacteria to come to rest and multiply and which of the two provides a better opportunity for the bacteria to reach an infectable place on a human. The risk must be very low anyway, compared to the risk from defecating in a toilet. Not having to touch a handle to flush a toilet counts in favor of the water-free toilet. Not having water, possibly contaminated, splash onto clothes or conveying coliform bacteria by mist to one's nose and mouth also counts in favor of water-free.

Re:Spreading diseases?

[smithmc]

  Urine is sterile unless one of the following conditions are == true.

However, this is only the case at the instant the urine leaves the body. Once exposed to air, urine does not remain sterile indefinitely.

Re:Spreading diseases?

[Artifakt]

Haven't any more than a guess. Do I count the cases involving food prep people who worked illegally in the industry while having Hep C or do I assume all employees really washed their hands like the sign says they must, AND that following the sign was sufficient? If I assume some of those employees didn't follow the rules OR that the law they violated was a good law, then the answer is, "At least some, maybe 20-50,000 or so nationwide over the last 10 years, but that's just a first approximation, and I'd be quite happy to find out it's lower".
          The larger point is still, it is not enough to design a toilet or urinal that is more ecologically sound if you don't also take into account the new design's effect on the spread of infectious diseases, and it's not enough to ensure that a design is safe if used according to directions unless you also look at what can go wrong if the directions aren't followed.
          The spray from existing flush designs is a health risk (moderate rather than major, but still a risk). We need designs that don't waste water AND reduce that risk. We could also use education campaigns to get more people to bother with cleaning the things more often and such, but that's a seperate issue.

Well...

[Xaroth]

"Is this really a worthwhile debate or just an excuse for toilet humor?"

Given that this story was submitted to /., I'm gunning for the latter. I offer as evidence any comment that gets modded "Funny", including this one.

Re:Well...

[saskboy]

gooman is the name of the submitter of a potty article.

Tee Hee!

Seriously though, if you can get by without flushes, and there's no smell, how exactly is disease going to spread? It's not like people are going to go, "hmm, this urinal doesn't smell, oooh look a quarter to pick up!"

Re:Well...

[FreakyAntelope]

Looks like you must be wrong then..

Your post is the only comment modded funny with a score of three or above..

Looks like toilets are worthwhile afterall!

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

due to the nature of this article (toilets) i'd say that all comments should get modded to be informative. after all, any comment related to a toilet is bound to be informative in one way or another. even if the comment is simply the word "$**T!" ..it's informative.

Not the only debate

[Daengbo]

This picture shows that flush / no-flush is not the only debate over urinals, at least in Korea.

Re:Not the only debate

[Fishstick]

Wow, that's just disturbing. You know they wouldn't have to go to the trouble of coming up with a sign (pictures and all) unless it was really that much of a problem. God, hard to imagine though that there are _that_ many illiterate urinal users that have to be told how to use the thing.

Reminds me of a sign I saw once in a bar hanging over the urinal though:

We aim to please. You aim too, please!

Re:Not the only debate

[GrayFox777]

I'd say it's a big problem in the USA too. =/

Re:Not the only debate

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Heh. So you really think a photo of that sign, posted to a Korean discussion site, wouldn't appear equally disturbing??

Re:Not the only debate

[Kumkwat]

We had a sign by our toilet at college with two pictures, one with a man standing on the seat lid squating down with a big X over it and the other with him sitting normally with a tick. Seems the seat lids were being broken by students deciding to stand on the thing?

Re:Not the only debate

[moonbender]

Seems the seat lids were being broken by students deciding to stand on the thing?

No. It's a joke. It's more polite than saying "we don't like cleaning your piss from the back wall, so sit down".

Re:Not the only debate

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you are, but we had signs like that to discourage the ragheads from standing on the toilets. Where they came from, there were no sit down shitters, so they did the normal thing for them. Best case was muddy footprints on the lid. Worst case was a broken lid.

Re:Not the only debate

[Fishstick]

Are you saying that the Korean sign is intended to be funny?

Re:Not the only debate

[IWannaBeAnAC]

The wording on the sign might be funny, but the message it is trying to convey is certainly not!

Assuming you cannot read Korean, why are you apparantly pre-judging that the text on the Korean sign has no humor value, without knowing what it actually says? In fact, my bet is that it is humorous to Koreans ;) If I am right, would that suddenly make you not disturbed by it? What does the humor value of the text have to do with whether it is disturbing or not?

Re:Not the only debate

[Ex Machina]

In Korea, only old people pee on the floor.

Re:Not the only debate

[iantri]

Not sure where you go to college, but the sign was probably explaining the difference between an Asian-style toilet (i.e. hole in the ground you squat over) and a Western-style toilet.

Re:Not the only debate

[Fishstick]

Wow, I don't even understand what you're talking about.

I didn't think I was pre-judging anything. I think the sign is funny. I don't get what you're on about. Were you offended by my comment in some way?

Re:Not the only debate

[Kumkwat]

Yeah could be, this was when I was doing postgrad at Canterbury Uni in ChristChurch, NZ, a lot of Asians there.

Gravity doesn't stop odors

[Tux2slack]

I work as a government electronics contractor onboard U.S. Navy ships....some of the smaller ones have a similar urinal installed. It just collects urine until a certain amount has been collected (about 2 pisses or one really long one) and a level switch trips a vacuum suction device that sucks it away. The only drawback is that the urine that naturally coats the urinal walls and drain STINKS as it ages and never gets a water wash-down. It's nasty, but that's what you get when you piss in a hole and let it sit. I think they used to call it an outhouse back in the day.

Re:Gravity doesn't stop odors

[adrianmonk]

I work as a government electronics contractor onboard U.S. Navy ships....some of the smaller ones have a similar urinal installed. It just collects urine until a certain amount has been collected (about 2 pisses or one really long one) and a level switch trips a vacuum suction device that sucks it away.

Well then, it's not all that similar then, because the one described in the summary has a "floating layer of oily liquid". It sounds like the US Navy ships' urinals that you're describing let the urine sit there in contact with the open air for indefinite period of time, whereas in these toilets, the oily liquid serves as a barrier between the urine and the air. Presumably this prevents certain volatile (meaning prone to evaporation, as opposed to unpredictable) chemicals from evaporating and smelling up the place.

The point being, although they may be similar, it seems like the oily liquid is a key difference.

Re:Gravity doesn't stop odors

[maelstrom]

Interesting, you'd think they would be able to use salt water for this task.

Re:Gravity doesn't stop odors

[evilviper]

Sea water does have a tendency to corrode pipes, and a submarine isn't exactly the best place for materials that tolerate salt, or for regular maintenance of pipes in the walls.

Besides that, these are nuclear subs we are talking about, and they can produce more fresh water than they know what to do with. Why they are using waterless urinals is a good question.

Re:Gravity doesn't stop odors

[elgatozorbas]

Not quite. The way I understood it is as follows: there are two sources of smell: - coming from the drain - coming froms the 'walls' of the toilet The drain problem can be handled by washing the pee down with water or by this oil layer thing (what the article is about). The 'wall' problem can only be handled by rinsing the wall and this doesn not happen, neither with the Navy, nor with the toilet from the article. Of course it happens in a conventional toilet.

I don't care what they do...

[CastrTroy]

I don't care what they do, provided they can stop those public restrooms from stinking so much. It's amazing that they can clean them every hour (there's a timesheet on the wall that says so) and still have them eternally smelling like Piss. Also, if they could just provide dual flush toilets in all public restrooms, that would probably clear up a lot of the water issues very easily. You probably wouldn't even have to replace the entire unit, just parts in the tank, to be able to make them dual flush. Urinals aren't where the problems are with water usage. It's the other half of the population (women) using 5 gallons on every flush, and going to the bathroom twice as often.

Re:I don't care what they do...

[Tmack]

I say we just replace the whole restroom with a giant metal grating for a floor. If you gotta go pee or poop, just pick a stall and let it go through the floor. When your done, the flush just rinses off the section of the grid you used through a common drain. No fixtures to clean, and when they do their hourly "cleaning" of the whole room, they just get everyone out and flush the entire thing with bleachy water to kill the smell....

tm

Re:I don't care what they do...

[Anonymous Coward]

THAT is a fucking FANATASTIC idea!!!! Its a lot like the slatted floors underneath cows and pigs.

Re:I don't care what they do...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, not so extreme, but that's similar to what we call a 'turkish toilet'. It's a hole in the groun, sort of like a buried toilet, with places for your feet, if you face the hole, you pee into it, if you face away, you poo.
  Still smells bad.

opposition?

[0WaitState]

Uh, just who is the opposition here to waterless urinals?

Re:opposition?

[bhav2007]

Emporer Palpatine, Darth Vader, the Borg, Microsoft

To pee or not to pee

[Anonymous Coward]

... that is the question.
"If it's yellow, let it mellow.
If it's brown, flush it down."

Let's Go Back To Potty Training...

[Gryle]

From the Article: "They seem clean and you don't have to flush them and I like that," said Philippe Van Nieuwenhuyse, a sophomore business-law student. "I always hate to flush with my hand. A lot of germs can collect on one of those handles."

Philippe, that's why Mommy told you to always wash your hands when you're done...

Re:Let's Go Back To Potty Training...

[pikine]

And why can't urinals in the great United States have electronic infrared sensors in place of those flush handles, like all those third world countries have?

Oh, silly me. I forgot that it's already patented. At least now some of us can go on our marry ways to argue about intellectual property.

Re:Let's Go Back To Potty Training...

[Anonymous Coward]

Flushing with his hand? Isn't that how they do it in Turkey? See, that's why we have flushing toilets here. That way, you can use the handle to "flush", and not your hand...

Re:Let's Go Back To Potty Training...

[Doppler00]

Actually, most of the ones I've seen in any building built in the last 5 years are automatic.

Re:Let's Go Back To Potty Training...

[InvalidError]

Bacteria will collect on the water handles/buttons... you touch those both before and after washing. (Unless they have automatic shut-off.)

IIRC, it is a scientific fact that the genitals are typically the cleanest (bacteria-wise) area on the human body. I would not be surprised if people accumulated more bacteria from stuff they touch on their way out of the bathroom than from themselves.

Sure do

[blueadept1]

Does anyone have these fixtures installed at their place of employment? Yes. But it smelled real bad and had a handle on it that did nothing. Could never figure out the technology. Must be too advanced for me.

hmmm

[orbit86]

how can you waste water, when you flush it gets filtered again..It's not like Water Disappears..or am I stupid?

Re:hmmm

[CastrTroy]

This is why in countries in europe and asia, you see devices that are made to save water, because they could run out, if they can't filter it fast enough and get it back into the system. This is less of a problem in the US, where there is quite a bit of water, at least in most places. It's even less of a problem in Canada. So much so, that I would hardly call it a problem at all. They say, per capita, that Canada is the (or one of the) largest users of water. Well we got a tonne of it. We can't really do anything else with it. I guess we could sell it to the americans. But they aren't hurting that much yet. As long as the water we used gets filtered and put back into the environment in a clean form, then there's many more important environmental problems to worry about like coal power plants.

Re:hmmm

[orbit86]

if Water ran out we would be doing the same thing as if it was Oil..;)

Re:hmmm

[destiny71]

This may be true, we may not have to worry about wasting the water. It will just get recycled back into the water supply.

But, think about the power used to get that extra bit of water to all those toilets. By not using as much water, we're not using as much power to pump that water. Less water in the filtration systems, means less power needed to filter, etc, etc.

Re:hmmm

[petermgreen]

its very hard to clean waste water perfectly so nearly all systems dump the waste back into the environment (usually after some level of cleaning) and use water freshly drawn from the environment for supply (with some cleaning and addition of disinfectant)

the problem is sometimes finding enough suitable source water for producing mains water is expensive and there is also an environmental cost in preparing it for use and in cleaning and dumping the waste.

Re:hmmm

[GigsVT]

It's not uncommon to have a wastewater treatment plant a mile upstream from a drinking water treatement plant. Happens all the time.

Re:hmmm

[Nivoset]

drinking it like there is no tomarrow?

Re:hmmm

[petermgreen]

but presumablly the waste is being sigificantly diluted by the natural river water.

i'd imagine the biggest problem with recycling waste water to make normal tap water (which has to be drinkable as our cities don't have seperate systems for drinking and non-drinking water) would be build up of chemicals.

Isn't that called a tree?

[caffiend666]

Isn't a no-flush urinal called a tree? Why not simply avoid the sewer system and start installing shrubberies in all men's rooms :)

Re:Isn't that called a tree?

[Chucklz]

So, umm.... bring us a no-flush urinal... and make it a nice one! Not too expensive...

Re:Isn't that called a tree?

[l33td00d42]

that would RULE! fill that trough with soil!

Re:Isn't that called a tree?

[thebagel]

And cut down the largest tree in the forest...with a HERRING! Yes, a herring.

Re:Isn't that called a tree?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

You could always do like Gene...

If you don't get that reference, watch the movie. There's this guy named Gene that lives in Jesse and Chester's closet. He comes out every morning an urinates on the plant behind their couch. Funny movie. Watch it. Super Hot Giant Alien.

Yeah

[EvanED]

That's an attitude I always find refreshing. Let's not worry about making small improvements and only go for the big ones. After all, slow and steady loses the race. There's no point in making things better if we're not making them a LOT better.

Flush?

[ThatGeek]

Hell, I've never flushed with the old kind, why would I need a NEW toilet???

Used them at Acadia National Park

[Sugarcrook]

ANP, in Bar Harbor, has these at the summit of Cadillac Mountain. One of the major attractions at ANP, these urinals get a lot of use. No noticeable smell and the rangers seemed happy about the reduced maintenance.

Yes, I went to a national park and asked about the urinals.

My local community college has them...

[Anonymous Coward]

My local Comm. College has them in their main office building where the cafeteria is.

About a week after they put them in, there is a strong urine smell in the room. I stopped using them immediately and either went upstairs where they used regular ones and did not smell at all. I just basically avoided using that particular rest room.

I think they don't help out that much. Which would you rather have: clean restroom, or one that stinks but saves water? Urinals use much less water than toilets do, anyway.

Re:My local community college has them...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Which would you rather have:
> clean restroom, or one that stinks but saves water?

A clean, good-smelling and water-saving restroom.

Not good for cigarette butt disposal

[Velox_SwiftFox]

It makes them oily and hard to light.

The interests of business over public interest

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see much of a debate here at all. Look at what happened to all the typewriter repairmen when the PC (and word processor) got big. They'll have to adapt, so what? There's no reason the non-plumbers among us should have to suffer inferior urinals for this reason.

Water conservation is important!

[cobras2]

Because, after all, there isn't much water on the earth.

Re:Water conservation is important!

[bhav2007]

Hey, that a good point! Why the hell are we using freshwater in out toilets? Seems like if a city really felt like saving water, it would be able to convert some part of the system to saltwater. Heck, we could just pump the crap back into the ocean!

Re:Water conservation is important!

[cobras2]

Yeah, I mean, the fish do, and I don't hear the ecologists muttering about them polluting the oceans :)

Pee in the Sink

[diakka]

Seeing as how urine is fairly sterile, I just pee in the sink. no splashback, and it all gets washed down when i wash my hands. I learned about this environmentally friendly tip from Adam Carolla.

Re:Pee in the Sink

[audacity242]

Urine is sterile when it first comes out.

But it makes a really great breeding ground for bacteria (which can colonize it from the air, or the remnants of some guy's puke in the urinal, etc.).

-Jenn

Re:Pee in the Sink

[Anonymous Coward]

+5 funny sure. But hell, I do this. Works a lot easier, and saves water.

Re:Pee in the Sink

[bradbeattie]

80% funny, 20% informative... Informative?

Re:Pee in the Sink

[identity0]

I know you're kidding, but I thinik I've done that before, at least inadvertantly.

I was on the ferry that connects Seattle with some big island or something(yeah, can you tell I was a tourist?), and I went to pee. When I got in the men's room, I was greeted by a sight I'd never beheld before: instead of individual urinals, they had a big long trough that ran the length of the bathroom. Which was rather ingenous and clever, I thought. But one problem - there were *two* troughs of different designs, one apparently to pee in, the other to wash your hand in. They both had water squirting into them from above, so you could wash your hand in either one - but which?!

I hesitated, and watched what the other men did - but apparently they were also tourists, and they waffled for a while trying to figure out which one was the urinal. After a while, my bladder was starting to get the better of me, so I just decided to pee in the one that was further from the door and washed in the one that was closer. I still don't know if I peed in the right one.

Re:Pee in the Sink

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we need to focus our efforts on making Non-Stampeding Wal-Marts.

When I use the urinal at department/grocery stores, it seems like I'm flushing for the last 10 people. There's plenty of water being saved. And it's all being wasted on giving the vegetables that wet look.

Germs on the flusher? I don't touch the handle, I kick it.

The incentive to wash your hands is that you get to use the neat-o motion sensor on the paper towel dispensor.

The hand dryers are great for that "I ride a Harley" look.

my .02

Re:Pee in the Sink

[bugg]

Really? It should have no sugar/carbohydate content at all (unless you've got diabetes) and the pH is pretty alkaline. What can live in there?

I have a hard time believing most bacteria can live in urine, let alone reproduce in it -- water seems to be far more suitable for life.

Re:Pee in the Sink

[zsau]

Are you saying you've never seen a metal wall urinal before? Are they rare in America (I assume that's where you come from), you almost always have individual porcelain urinals? Or is is the fact it didn't actually reach the floor that baffled you? (I've seen that before, but it's relatively rare. Normally wall urinals reach the floor, or a raised platform just above the floor, often with a grill beneath your feet so that you couldn't miss unless you tried.)

Given that, I imagine you did indeed use the wrong urinal.

In my experience, the wall urinals are much the commoner in Australia, or at least in Melbourne. I remember the first time I saw an individual urinal (as a child), I had no idea what to do with it so I went and asked my mum, but she wasn't about to come in so I just used the normal toilet. Wall urinals have the significant advantage that it doesn't matter how tall you are, the urinal's always in front of you, so I couldn't comprehend a school using individual urinals...

Re:Pee in the Sink

[cerberusss]

When I first moved out of my parents house some ten years ago, I got this cramped little room with a sink. For the toilet, you had to get down the hallway which was unheated. In the year I lasted there, I could never get myself to walk down that cold hallway to take a leak.

The downside is that I felt obliged to really, really scrub that sink whenever my gf came around. Not for my friends, though.

Re:Pee in the Sink

[pstils]

no he's right. that's why I have to keep my piss in the fridge if I don't want it to go off.

Re:Pee in the Sink

[DeBeuk]

Sink? You mean the shallow urinal with the tap?

Re:Pee in the Sink

[jafiwam]

Oh for fucks sake.

It is sterile. So is beef broth.

Go watch Mythbusters for the "3 second rule" test when they used beef broth uniformly contaminate a surface.

It doesn't matter if it is sterile. It is only sterile if you are doing golden showers or other piss-porn. Once it hits something, bacteria quickly breed in it. Ever hear of pungi-sticks? That was piss they used to fill them with bacteria.

Go piss in a bucket and leave it in your bedroom for a night and you will realize that "fact" is useless nerd-wanking.

Piss is biologically active about .4 seconds after it leaves the pipe, no amount of pseudo-educated "knowledge" is going to change that.

Seriously, piss in a bucket and leave it in your room over night. I dare you.

Re:Pee in the Sink

[CPUGuy]

All urinals, at least in Florida, are individual porcelain, and very very very rarely do you see one that comes all the way down to the floor, most just, basically, hang there.

Re:Pee in the Sink

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a garbage disposal you could eliminate
the toilet altogether.

Re:Pee in the Sink

[Narcissus]

A little off topic, but regarding wall urinals: I've never seen it anywhere else, but the Home nightclub in Sydney has a wall urinal not of steel, but mirrored glass.

It's a little offputting, and a fair bit harder to avert your eyes :)

Re:Pee in the Sink

[Luthair]

Mods were being funny

Re:Pee in the Sink

[identity0]

The design did not go all the way to the floor, both troughs were about the same height off the floor(maybe about knee high), and they both had jets of water pouring into them, so I couldn't tell which one was the urinal. They were of slightly different designs, though, so I assume one was for peeing and the other was for washing.

To answer your other question,yes, I live in the US, but I am from Japan and have been to western Europe(Fr, UK, Swiss, Be, Ne), and I have never seen a wall urinal like that in those countries. In the US, the Seattle ferry is the only time I've encountered it. Not elsewhere on the west coast(CA, OR, WA, NV), in the south(TN, AR, MS, AL), or the gulf states(LA, FL).

In Europe/Japan/US, we always have individual urinals, either going all the way to the floor or raised up. Sometimes they have little dividers between them. I think the reason for individual urinals is that it gives guys a specific place to pee, and they don't have to think too hard about how far to stand from someone. I've noticed in the US, guys don't like having another guy standing next to them while they pee, so they go to the furthest urinal from the guy already there... that is, if they don't just go in the stalls. So they might be a little uncomfortable peeing next to guys with nothing standing between them or keeping them at one spot.

Wall urinals do sound practical, though. Are they the only kind in Australia?

Re:Pee in the Sink

[zsau]

It's a little offputting, and a fair bit harder to avert your eyes :)

And for you, that's likely to have been very important! I'm surprised you managed to get away at all to write this message! (I assume you meant "avert your eyes from your own reflection".)

Re:Pee in the Sink

[Sjobeck]

I am inspired to put one in down the basement & if works out, I'll start moving up levels of the house.

A side note to this

[gcnaddict]

I think it was just under 100 years ago that we were using waterless urinals. Why is it that we need to patent them now?

Re:A side note to this

[Belseth]

I think it was just under 100 years ago that we were using waterless urinals. Why is it that we need to patent them now?

I grew up in Michigan and we called them trees and if some one hasn't patented them they will any day now. I'm quite sure no one has patented trees for the express use as a traget for dogs and the odd hunter or wino.

Re:A side note to this

[radu124]

That would be useless because of "prior art"

Re:A side note to this

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept behind the waterless urinal might be as simple as a drain and a pipe. These are, of course, well known and generally not patentable. What is patented by Falcon Waterless is the combination of the liquid-filled canister in cooperation with the construction of the drain. Reference US Patent No. 5711037.

Incidentally, I am unaware of anyone obtaining a patent on a tree. However, check out this patent issued for a stick. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patents/US_6360693.pdf

Re:A side note to this

[odourpreventer]

Backpacker hostels in Australia are/could be ahead of the game. They saved plenty of water, because in the men's restrooms, noone flushed and noone certainly didn't wash their hands. Is it only filthy people who go backpacking?

Re:A side note to this

[Boltronics]

Heh! You could be on to something there... when I stayed at a backpackers once, the toilets were very bad. The only ones worse are the ones you find at national parks and the like - many which are quite cheap water-wise to run also, since they are just a huge hole in the ground with a seat on top.

We have them

[Anonymous Coward]

My University has them in the new CS building. I was pretty sceptical at first, but after about a year of usage, I have to say I am positively surprised. If anyhting, there is less odor, since people can't forget to flush. In our previous building we hat light sensors that would auto-flush, but since half the students wear black t-shirts, that didn't seem to work too well.

We have them at University of North Texas

[nbahi15]

One of our newest buildings on campus (1998) is the EESAT (Environmental Education, Science and Technology) Building. There is a picture of the building at http://www.ias.unt.edu/about/. It is generally a favorite building on campus to have classes in, with a giant earth population clock, all native plants landscape the facility, and other conservation and science exhibits exist in and around the building.

The mens, can't speak to the womens, have urinals that are the flushless type described and there is a plaque above them indicating that they save water and trap odors. However the contractor went ahead a outfit the urinals with a water pipe in case they didn't work out. It stops short where an L shaped pipe would normally connect to a standard handle flushed or motion activated unit.

They have been there for several years without complaints, and they don't smell, so in this instance they are a success.

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[FuturePastNow]

The mens, can't speak to the womens, have urinals that are the flushless type

I'm gonna wager that the womens' restrooms do not have flushless urinals.

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[driftingwalrus]

At the local community college here they have those in one or two of the men's rooms. They don't work well. The odour of ammonia rising from them is always very strong. I do my best to avoid those washrooms.

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[Victor_Vega]

We also have them at UTD and Richland. They smell really bad, so bad to the point that I will walk to the older end of the building just so I don't have to put up with the smell. I think the only thing they really conserve is the school's water bill.

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[KWSN-MajorKong]

I know the men's room you mention. I am a student at UNT myself (physics major), and this semester have two classes in the EESAT building. Those waterless urinals are all well and good... until the filters clog. Then, you get the "lake 'o pee" that someone else mentioned above. The janitorial staff usually tape up a trashbag over the urinal until they get around to replacing the filter, and I have sometimes seen that take a few days. Once, I saw all THREE of them 'down' at the same time. It was more than a little ripe in there then, but normally, like you said, there is very little odor. They really do need to work on the reliability of the waterless urinals, because about half the time I use that restroom, at least one of the three is out of order.

I do find it interesting, however, that the waterless urinals are only used in the 1st floor men's room. The men's rooms on the 2nd and 3rd floors use reqular flush-type urinals. Is it that those waterless urinals were just a 'demo' project of the company that made them (getting free adverts from the plaques mounted above EACH one of the three -- at nearly eye level... you can't miss reading them while you are taking a leak), or is there just some reason they can only be used at ground level?

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[nbahi15]

So they have the regular flushing kind?

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[hiadam]

I study at University of California, Santa Barbara and the university recently installed the no-flush kind in all the men's bathrooms in the University Center. The result has been that the men's room smells much cleaner around the clock, even during high-use times. Our urinals are produced by Falcon Waterfree Technologies.

From their website:

- First, they are touch-free so there is little chance of bacteria transfer possible with manual flush systems.

- Second, since there is no water used there is no breeding ground for bacteria. In several studies, bacteria counts in restrooms with Falcon urinals were significantly lower than those with manual or auto-flush urinals.

Falcon urinals create more pleasant restrooms because they eliminate the ammonia odor caused when urine reacts with water to cause ammonia oxide. No water means no reaction.

Anyway, I'd be excited to see them installed in more places.

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[dubl-u]

The mens, can't speak to the womens

It took me a while to parse that. I first thought that the University of North Texas had to be some sort of strict Baptist school with a hillbilly English department.

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[dubl-u]

I'm gonna wager that the womens' restrooms do not have flushless urinals.

You'd be surprised. At the University of Michigan they built at least one of the dorms so that it could be used by either gender. I presume that was to give them extra flexibility in deciding which sections were which, but I definitely saw girls-only sections with urinals in the bathrooms.

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[d3matt]

At UTD, they actually removed them in favor of regular urinals in the administrative MP building. And yes, they smelled horrid from the moment they were installed.

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[Morgalyn]

I'll back this up for the University of Florida. Every dorm floor I was ever on or visited that had 'gang' bathrooms (rather than suite bathrooms, which are like regular house bathrooms) had both urinals and toilets. They did this since the dorms are co-ed by floor, that is, women on one floor and men on the next, and they just adjusted to fit the dorm population needs from year to year. My freshman year we put plants in our dorm urinals (except one, for visiting males), and used the flush handle to water the plants :)

Re:We have them at University of North Texas

[Drakkenfyre]

No, sadly. But I bet there's a way to make it work...

http://www.msmagazine.com/aug99/what.asp

Also, I was intrigued by this idea of waterless urinals. So I had to check one out for myself. One of our public recreation buildings (well, public if you can pay) is trying to achieve LEED certification. After standing outside the men's bathroom shouting, "Helooooooooo?" for a time, I ventured inside.

These ones were relatively new, granted (probably only half a year old), but they seemed to lack much of a smell at all. The surface didn't feel any differently than regular porcelain, but I didn't touch the inside. Also, the male friend who told me where these were said they were no worse in any way than regular urinals.

I might have even tried it out, but while a parka and long johns don't seem to be all that much of a hinderance to you guys, I didn't want to go home in -18C with wet pants. Not that there are many women on Slashdot, but if anyone has any tips, do let me know.

this has nothing to do with whats better

[Brigadier]

Sorry to break it to you bro, but this has nothing to do with what is available. The only thing that will mandate new methodology is political mandates. The only problem is no politition is going to back a bill that will raise contruction prices and help them lose all there campaign dollors from big developers. I'm an architect and I've seen it over and over again where a product will come out that will help either the environment or energy conservation. A contractor will look at it and go " what the heeelll is that I can install ya ten american standards that I gots sitt'n in back it will save you $$$$$$$$$$$$" ofcourse the developer doesn't care these are being sold to deseperate homeowners no.349835439

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[GnarlyNome]

A political Mandate to save water is what got us saddeled with Low flow toilets ann restrictors in shower heads(that any idiot can bypass) in the first place.
When you "Mandate" something people will comply with the letter of the law as cheap as possible. Laws written for toilets by lawers instead of plumbers don't work as intended.(and neither do the toilets)

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[Anonymous Coward]

Good fucking God, that's got about 3 misspellings, just about all of which can be typos. Fuck yourself.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe its just me, but why do you bother capitalizing "God" if you are using it in a vulgar, vain instance such as "Good fucking God" ?

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[aichpvee]

Your shower head restrictor must suck, since mine does fine and I actually like it better than the old one.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[tacocat]

The most effective way to encourage people to conserve water is to increase the price of water. You have to turn it into an economics structure.

Now the more socialist minded will balk at the idea of water prices going up for everyone. So you could take some queue's from California, add some creativity and end up with something like this: You get a tiered price structure per person in the household. No exceptions of any kind, period.

In California, according to relatives who live there, they had to conserve water they they fined people who used "too much" water. Those who continued to use too much found there water shut off at the street, no exceptions.

It might sound draconian, but it isn't really. You have a reasonable limit and a known set of parameters. If people know their limits ahead of time, then they become responsible for management of their own behaviour. And yes, the limit should be such that almost everyone pays a higher than the minimum price so that everyone has a greater incentive/reward to make conservation work more for them than it does today. That is to say, everyone would sit somewhere above that flat part of the curve.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, mine doesn't suck.

I drilled it out, it's not low flow any more.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[Ucklak]

The problem with raising water prices is that you have the conservative minded folk who use water when needed (like don't keep the water running when brushing teeth, etc.) and then you have those idiots that gleefully waste water for whatever and don't have the concept of a leaky faucet.

I lived in a state that had drought conditions 5 years ago for a period of 3 years. There was a watering ban for neighborhoods where it ended up that you couldn't water your lawn or wash your car.
It started out that you shouldn't water your lawn and shouldn't wash your car. It ten went to if you have to use your outside water supply, use it on odd/even days depending upon your address.
In year 2, the odd/even days stuck and if you did have to use water, it was before 10am and after 7pm . Warnings and fines came into play if you broke the rulesand people started to get pissed.
In year 3, you were prohibited from using water at all.
Year 4 had record rainfall so it went back to normal.

The point I'm making is that you had the neighbors (like me) that didn't water the lawn or wash the car and you had the idiots with blatant disregard for the water shortage that eventually got their water cut off and had to pay a hefty fine to get it back on.
These are the same people that have parties at 2AM that wake the neighbothood.

You can charge whatever for a service and lazy idiots will pay as long as they can still do what they want to do.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[Anonymous Coward]

In Elgin Tx, a good solution was found. The price of water is fairly cheap for a family of four that doesnt wash their car, water their lawn etc. Once that limit is hit, the price triples. They actually use the upper price to fund a low income program, since everything above the base price is profit.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[tacocat]

And that is why you have a graduated pricing curve. That was the whole point of my post. you have a pricing curve that follows something like x-squared or exponential curves. You pay 1X for most of your water and maybe 1.25X for a little bit to give you an incentive to look for better solutions. Meanwhile the jackass down the street is paying 50X and higher that that last part of his monthly water bill.

If he wants to keep going he can, but he knows the rules and can't complain about it. Just make it really painful for the jackass.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[sjames]

A contractor will look at it and go " what the heeelll is that I can install ya ten american standards that I gots sitt'n in back it will save you $$$$$$$$$$$$"

That's one advantage of a no flush urinal. Since it doesn't require a water hookup, there's no excuse for the installation NOT being cheaper than for water flush versions. One less hole in the tile, less pipes to connect, and no joints under pressure that have to be solid.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[AB3A]

Speaking as an employee of an east coat water and sewer company, we have an interesting take on it. The first so many gallons are priced pretty much at cost. The second band of usage have extra added on. The third band of residential use is seriously expensive. Typical use will result in a very reasonable bill. Lots of laundry, high flow toilets and so forth will result in a moderately higher water bill. Leaky plumbing, especially leaky toilets, can result in an astronomical bill.

Our customer service agents usually forgive the first really large water bill, but following ones are expected to be more normal.

In any case, we do try to use economics to encourage water conservation.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[Yert]

All pipe, whether it is waste, storm, or water service, has to hold pressure. Other than that, you're right - it's just a drain, no water service.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[sjames]

All pipe, whether it is waste, storm, or water service, has to hold pressure.

But the amount and duration of pressure makes a big difference. That's why a toilet can be (and often is) successfully mated to the sewer pipe with just a soft wax ring around the pipe but the water line must be threaded, washered, and possably teflon taped.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[Moonwick]

How in the hell does such a poorly-written comment, rife with misspellings, manage to get "+4, Insightful"? Our moderators need a swift kick in the balls.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[cygnus]

Laws written for toilets by lawers instead of plumbers don't work as intended.

that's maybe an overdose of common sense. you don't really want plummers writing laws, do you?

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[jbengt]

Waterless urinals save construction costs.
The reason they're not used is that they're relatively new in the market, and the construction industry is very conservative about spec'ing things without a long history of success, or a code mandate. New technology only gets adopted very slowly because it is much easier and faster to do what you already know how to do. Also, the estimated savings of most innovations is trivial compared to the percieved potential costs of demolition and reconstruction if something doesn't work.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[jbengt]

Couple of points:
I read the article, and it is not talking about mandating waterless urinals, it is about allowing them.
Also, this is about the Uniform Plumbing Code, which is historically reticent to allow anything that will be easier to install or use less materials. Most of the other codes already allow waterless urinals.
The Uniform, Standard(Southern), and BOCA model codes have recently been merged into a single model code - the International Codes. Most of the country follows the International codes (with notable exceptions of some jurisdictions that have historically had their own codes). Part of the Uniform code split off and refused to join.
I work for a consulting engineer, and we have used these in a couple of instances where it was important to be "green".
There is a growing trend to have buildings certified as green, see www.usgbc.org for info on LEED ratings. Without that kind of incentive, most engineers and contractors will not try anything new.
Never heard any complaints about the installations, but never designed any others. I have pissed in some waterless urinals in my travels, and didn't find any problems. However there are concerns without flushing about lack of carry thru the pipes and the corrosivity of undiluted urine in metal piping.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[Brigadier]

your thinking logically and rightfully so. You would be suprised how many change orders such an instance would generate. RFI: " where is the water hook up" Ofcourse this ouwld be after the plumber already ran the water lines which are set in concrete.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[tacocat]

The important part here is, does it have any effect?

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[AB3A]

Some. Let's get real: anything delivered to your house in pipes is going to be pretty cheap anyway. There will always be a few nitwits who will think that the perfect lawn is worth the risk --even in the middle of a serious drought. We do our best to ticket them if there is a mandate to do so. Yet there are always a few idiots out there trying to show the rest of the world how arrogantly stupid they are.

I say this despite an experience when a large pipeline broke. We were desperately pleading with everyone to conserve because we simply didn't have enough remaining capacity to keep the area wet. Despite our plea for help and even mandatory conservation edicts from local county government our consumption patterns barely changed. Most people are not too bright about their water use. Not until it is either contaminated or stops coming out of the tap altogether do they stop to wonder about what they take for granted every day.

I wish mere billing could cure this problem. However, not until we are forced to track each drop of water we consume do we appreciate the gift of cheap, clean water.

Re:this has nothing to do with whats better

[Baloo Ursidae]

Another problem with the mandate: In places where traditional plumbing is typical but traditional toilets are unavailable (Oregon), you're stuck replacing your broken PowerFlush 9000 with a toilet incapable of clearing the bowl on the first flush, or push all that stuff to the street line at all.

Anybody who has had a low flush toilet in a house built prior to the introduction of low flush toilets (almost everyone) has this problem, which will usually come to a critical point while entertaining guests during the holidays. This happened to us. The low flush toilet would supply enough water to flush wastewater to the main sewer line, but solid waste just kept building up until it backed up into the kitchen and bathroom sinks, as well as the bathtub, on Christmas Eve while entertaining guests about 5 years ago. The plumber's bill was astronomical.

We went out of state, bought a real toilet, took the low flow toilet out back and smashed it to tiny bits with a sledgehammer in revenge.

That's What Phasers are For!

[Anonymous Coward]

But actually, saving 24,000 gallons of drinking water per urinal, per year.

Wow!

That's like bigger than Lake Erie,
considering all the Urinals used during baseball and football games.

Saves a Tree,
Saves a Fish,
and saves on the water bills, and municipal taxes too!

I find that..

[ltwally]

I find that it conserves water if I just piss outdoors. Sure, the neighbors might not like it, but ... it's for the environment!

Yup, they block

[vik]

We had one installed at work - then ripped out and replaced with an old-fashioned water variant. It kept on blocking up. We asked why, and the answer came back that people were pissing in it too often.

Well sucks to that idea. Out it went.

Vik :v)

Re:Yup, they block

[B3Geek]

Where I work all the flushables were replaced by flushless, probably fifty or more. They lasted about a month then the blocking up thing happened. I was in there when the unfortunate facilites worker was attempting to fix it - he was making the Most Distressing Noises working on this thing that I've ever heard. It was not a pretty sound. Afterwards I asked him about it - he said he told management to just try it in one bathroom first but no, they replaced all of them in the plant. Shortly after this they ripped them all out and put the flushable back in.

I wonder if they sent them back and got a refund?

Re:Yup, they block

[Nimey]

More like management just didn't want to pay to have the filters replaced as often as was needed.

Technology? I think not!

[Drosophila_R_Us]

Let me say one thing- No Flush Urinals stink to high hell! It's incredible. I work in an ~20 million dollar building on the University of California, Santa Cruz campus (Engineering 2- for those who know UCSC) which was completely 2 years ago, and it has only no flush urinals. They're nasty. Yes they save water, and that's a good thing, but to be lauded as new tech! Give me a break. Imagine that design meeting? "I've got an idea! No water in urinals!! We'll save water and then spin some horse#$%! about how they are odor free!!!" Thanks Guys!

Re:Technology? I think not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, buddy... you should just be glad that they finally finished the God damned elevators! I had to put up with climbing those five flights of stairs for weeks.

But as an aside, UCSC is just generally laughable for the braindead ways they attempt to be environmentally friendly or just liberal in general. What a horrible, wasteful bunch of people run that school.

Isn't urine sterile?

[OsirisX11]

Why should we be worried about diseases if urine is sterile?

Is it not?

Re:Isn't urine sterile?

[hazem]

It is, for the most part. But it's nutrient rich and a great source of food for the bacteria living in the bathroom environment. By peeing on the floor, for example, you're not really adding bacteria to the environment, but you're feeding the ones that are already there.

Re:Isn't urine sterile?

[Velox_SwiftFox]

Only while liquid - early microbiological researchers famously used it as a growth medium for bacteria. When urine dries it is too osmotically thirsty for anything to live in it. Same reason you don't get moldy salt shakers or bacterial colonies growing in your sugar bowl.

One solution I've seen

[MoOsEb0y]

The college I go to recently built a new building which follows all kinds of "Green" standards. One of the features of the building is a rainwater reclaimation system. Rainwater is collected from the roof and held in cisterns in the basement. When needed, water is pumped from these tanks and placed into toilets. Thus, there is a huge water savings at the cost of the amount of energy needed to pump the water from the tanks into the toilets.

Re:One solution I've seen

[RITMaloney]

Rainwater is collected from the roof and held in cisterns in the basement.

Meanwhile all the nearby streams are drying up and the fish are dying. The trees and shrubbs in the landscaping around the buildings are shriveling up, and the sprinklers need to be used twice as much.

Re:One solution I've seen

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, shut up, you loony fucking treehugger.

uh, low flush toilets are often REQUIRED...

[SuperBanana]

However, here in the US, particularly in water restricted areas you see standard high-flow toilets.

Uh, no...maybe in high-traffic public restrooms, but everywhere else I've seen low-flush toilets. MANY towns and cities in the US REQUIRE them.

The problem with adoption in the US is partially that many early low-flush toilets didn't work well. I know because I vacation in an old cabin where we have very limited water supply, so all the cabins were required to replace the toilets ASAP with low-flush units. The first cabins that did ended up with toilets that constantly clogged. Cabins that waited a few years ended up with toilets that worked far better.

Re:uh, low flush toilets are often REQUIRED...

[Lehk228]

IIRC the high pressure public toilets use less water but are not used in homes because they require higher capacity source pipes for a powerful burst and because they are noisy.

Re:uh, low flush toilets are often REQUIRED...

[LurkerXXX]

They are used in homes sometimes. I was visiting my folks a few years ago and it startled the crap out of me (pun intended) when I flushed their new low-flow toilet. It was a very loud high-pressure system.

Re:uh, low flush toilets are often REQUIRED...

[Lehk228]

i would love to have one of them i don't personally care about the sound. i have NEVER seen one get clogged by anything remotely belonging in a toilet, not even small amounts of paper towels.

Re:uh, low flush toilets are often REQUIRED...

[phoenix.bam!]

I know this is just anecdotal story from living in my dorm but I'd figure i should share. 25 guys shared one bathroom which had three toilets (and two urinals). One toilet stall was for handicapped people so it was nice, large and comfortable. This poor toilet saw the waste of ever gentlemen every day and invariably it would clog during the weekend, every weekend. Just didn't have the power to deal. RUM+COKE

Re:uh, low flush toilets are often REQUIRED...

[WiFiBro]

and this one was low flush?
or poorly connected?

Re:uh, low flush toilets are often REQUIRED...

[Thing 1]

King of the Hill did a great treatment of low-flow toilets: the manufacturer lobbied the government to change the law, to mandate low-flow toilets to save water.

Hank Hill found that generally these low-flow toilets take twice the flushes, meaning they actually waste water.

I like that a somewhat children's cartoon (it's on at 7 pm Sunday nights) can teach us to question authority. And, that any time the law changes, there's usually money involved.

Re:uh, low flush toilets are often REQUIRED...

[Anonymous Coward]

Was one of the super flush public toilets the great grandparent was talking about.

yea, but...

[gcnaddict]

If the system switches to a water based method once the filter "craps out," many people will become lazy and simply not buy the filter for it, citing the fact that its doing its job as is.

Re:yea, but...

[MechaStreisand]

What would be nice would be if places with limited water supplies had some way of metering water usage (I don't know if they already do). Then they don't have to mandate that anyone use low-flow showers or toilets or anything. Instead, they can just watch how much water people use and when they exceed their monthly limit, just shut them off for the rest of the month, rich or poor. That way, they still have the freedom to use whatever kind of supplies they want, but if they are wasteful, then it sucks to be them.

Re:yea, but...

[jamesh]

Our water supply is metered, as is anyone in Australia who is on 'mains' water. Reading my water service contract, they won't cut off your water supply completely if you fail to pay your bills, but they will install a choke to cut down the flow so you can use it for drinking and cooking but not much else. I guess it will fill up a toilet too if you wait long enough.

Re:yea, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

increasing the cost after a certain point would be a better way of dealing with it. Adam Smith's invisible hand is better at bitch slapping people into line than anything the stupid leftists have ever thought of.

Me, too

[lheal]

But only when I'm too drunk to know which is which.

Sadly, the older I get the less often I get that way.

Re:Me, too

[Akaihiryuu]

I used to have a roommate that often took showers that lasted in excess of an hour. The apartment we lived in only had one bathroom, and there were no convenient bushes outside either. He always locked the door when he was in there too. On more than one occasion I woke up having to go really bad, and he was in the shower with no indication of how long he would be. I usually ended up peeing in the kitchen sink on those occasions.

Re:Me, too

[Hugonz]

You should have peed on his clothes...

Re:Me, too

[evilviper]

I usually ended up peeing in the kitchen sink on those occasions.

Didn't you know... That's why most people keep house-plants around.

Re:Me, too

[Anonymous Coward]

He was probably having a nice leisurely wank in there, using your shampoo as the lube. Followed by a nice piss, of course.

Re:Me, too

[DiveX]

Cadets in Military Colleges (e.g. The Citadel, VMI, West Point) and even boot camps learn to do this real fast when the fourth class system goes into effect. It is less of a hassle to pee in the sink in the room rather than go outside the room and be taken down and hassled for a couple of hours by some upperclassmen looking for a target as you try to make your way to the common bathroom.

spread of disease?

[_Shorty-dammit]

I thought urine was sterile? Or does my doctor not know anything about bodily functions?

Re:spread of disease?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: just because it's sterile when it comes out doesn't mean it stays that way.

As soon as it hits the air, it starts growing bacteria.

"Sterile" and "germicidal" are two entirely different concepts.

Re:spread of disease?

[Celsius 233]

Urine is sterile as it comes out, but when it makes contact with the air, it starts to accumulate bacteria and produce ammonia.

magnitude?

[bigdavex]

My gut feel is that we're wasting far more on watering lawns. People are literally just spraying water out onto the ground. Anybody know the numbers?

Re:magnitude?

[Anonymous Coward]

Around were I live we use rain. I feel that if you live somewhere were there is not enough rain to keep grass alive you should think about an alternate landscape.

Re:magnitude?

[trout0mask]

It depends on where you live. I recall reading that in the midwest, something like 60-70% of water usage is on lawn watering. In wetter climates I believe it's more like 40%. [pdf]http://www.energyrating.gov.au/library/pubs/w a-wateruse.pdf is a relevant study done in western Australia; page 32 has a nice pie chart that shows 51% of water is used on lawns, and 8% on toilets. In non-pdf land, Concord, California says their breakdown is 40% grass / 7% toilets (http://www.ci.concord.ca.us/living/recycle/env-wa ter-use.htm These are both from reasonably rainy areas. So yes, your gut feeling is very right.

Re:magnitude?

[bigdavex]

Thanks, that's good stuff.

IKEA has 'em

[fiji]

The new IKEA near Boston has them, and I have seen them elsewhere (perhaps at other IKEAs)... I have never noticed a smell, but that may be the strict cleaning the bathrooms get.

-ben

Slashdot.org

[nickgrieve]

News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

Re:Slashdot.org

[saskboy]

"Stuff that matters."

It not only matters, it's #1.

Everyone has to deal with this topic, on a daily basis. Everyone who reads Slashdot that is, we're all male right? ;-)

Re:Slashdot.org

[Anonymous Coward]

News for turds. Stuff that splatters.

Odor issues with waterless.

[mikus]

I'm not entirely sure what to say about these, other than my experience with them has been quite unplesant. Property management has been steadily replacing traditional urinals with Falcon Waterless units in our building, and to many people's dismay due to an ever increasing urine smell that doesn't go away. I don't know if it's a matter of needing special care the average slack-jawed janitors aren't aware of, or if this is just normal for the units. Anyone else have experience with the Falcon Waterless units (or other) perpetually reeking of old urine, or is it just misuse?

    With any choice in the matter, I'll not ever purchase them based on present experience...

-mb

Re:Odor issues with waterless.

[kalislashdot]

I agree, I first used one of these at Hoover Dam and it stunck. Not all the urine slides down, there is always a fine coat and it smelled like the piss on the floor does. I hate them.

Re:Odor issues with waterless.

[Anonymous Coward]

I first used one of these at Hoover Dam and it stunck.

Why the hell do they have them at Hoover Dam? If there ever was a place where one wouldn't need to conserve water, I'd think that'd be it.

Drinking urine

[3dWarlord]

> From: Willett, J.R. > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 3:16 PM > Subject: PUR > > Hi > > I received a PUR Water Filtration Pitcher (Plus LX, Platinum Edition) as a > Christmas present, and I have a question about what things it can't > filter. > > I have been very satisfied with its performance in removing chlorine from > tapwater, however I am wondering what the limits are in its filtering > capabilities. Could it, for instance, remove ammonia from an ammonia-water > solution? In other words, could I use it in the desert to recycle urine > into > drinking water? The box says a lot about what it can filter, but not much > about what it can't filter. It only says that the water must be sterile, > and > everyone knows that urine is completely sterile on leaving the body. Upon > leaving the urinary tract, it provides an ideal environment for growing > bacteria, but it is completely sterile inside you. The reason we don't > habitually drink our own urine is because the water in our urine carries > bodily poisons with it, including ammonia. If, however, your pitcher can > remove these poisons, I can see how my PUR Water Filtration Pitcher could > come in handy when water is scarce. > > Although my roommate has offered to sample my filtered urine, I thought I > would ask you people first, before I pee in my PUR pitcher. > > Thanks, > > -J.R. Willett -----Original Message----- From: Beckenbach.Mark [mailto:Beckenbach.Mark@purwater.com%5D Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 9:38 AM To: 'Willett, J.R.' Subject: RE: PUR Hello J.R., Gee-Whiz, I must admit that I read your e-mail with some skepticism. Upon further reflection I came to the conclusion that you could indeed run human urine through our filters. If you do this it could very well hasten your way to death, but you can filter urine. We don't normally test urine or the body's by-products associated with it. Drinking urine is a bit out of the main stream, if you'll pardon the pun. The filter may have some effect on the potency of the ammonia. If you're in an emergency situation with out water, drinking urine will only make your day worse. The ammonia in urine isn't what's going to ruin an already pisser of a day, its the salts. By constantly reintroducing those salts into your system, you are increasing the amount of salt in your system, and decreasing the amount of usable fluids. This salt will draw water from other tissues in your body, as will your kidneys. Your kidneys need the extra water to flush the salts out. It's a viscous circle. As your kidneys are shutting down, the poisons in your body will increase; thereby playing havoc with your heart. The lack of electrolytes in your in your brain can cause the synapses to misfire eventually causing you to get delirious and run screaming into the desert waving your hands over your head chasing Elvis. All levity aside, I am not a physician. However I do understand our products and have a thorough understanding of human physiology. My recommendation is not to do it. Carry a bladder of water in your trunk. Being prepared is the best way to keep from having to drink pee. Mahalo, Mark -----Original Message----- From: Willett, J.R. Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 10:17 AM Subject: RE: PUR Mark, Thankyou for your timely reply in this matter. Not only have you saved us from what could have been a disasterous science experiment, but you have provided a tremendous amount of amusement to several college students with perhaps too much time on their hands to wonder about such things. I assume that if the filter cannot remove the salt from urine, then neither could it be used to filter ocean water to obtain something drinkable, another thing we were wondering about. Your skills in customer service extend even to answering the questions I did not ask. Have a pleasant day, and let me know if your R&D boys ever come up with a filter that can desalinate sea water and/or recycle human waste. I'll be the first to buy, if only for the bragging rights. -J.R.

Re:Drinking urine

[gameboyguy13]

It's a viscous circle. A viscous circle? I'd hope the water with which the kidneys flush out salts isn't viscous; that might cause them to shut down earlier than drinking urine would... Nice idea to write a letter about, though.

Re:Drinking urine

[ryanov]

It takes a LOT more than a filter to desalinize water. Reverse-osmosis machines deal with forcing water through membrane that is only barely permeable in order to remove the salt. Requires quite a bit of power, not just gravity. Got a tour of a desalinization machine -- pretty interesting stuff, even if that isn't your thing.

Waterless

[DeathBunnyRanger]

At my office we have a waterless urinal, it kicks ass! the walls are made of this anti bacterial, super slick substance that even reduces splatter. our model is easy maintenance, a cup of the blue jell once a week and every 2 weeks a quick rinse with water for the walls. I have found that I can piss and run and safe precious coding time by not dealing with the flush handel, (nor washing my hands for all it is worth, since I know how clean the rest of my body is)

Re:Waterless

[Anonymous Coward]

I have found that I can piss and run and safe(sic) precious coding time by not dealing with the flush handel(sic),

If the quarter-second it takes to hit a flush lever is so valuable to you, why do you waste time walking all the way to the bathroom? Just piss in a jar at your desk. Or better yet, get a catheter. With all the time you'll save, you'll be able to mis-spell so many more words than you can now.

Re:Waterless

[acidrain69]

Wash your hands, dirty man.

Regardless of how clean you THINK your body is, how many door handles did you have to touch to get in that bathroom? Is that YOUR keyboard and mouse, or company owned (ie, other people's dirty hands have been using it)?

Headline

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see the newspaper headlines now: "The Number One Issue in America Today: Flushless Urinals?"

Apologies in advance.

I am not a doctor

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

If a doctor contradicts me then ignore everything I say here.

Kidneys are wonderful microfilters and normally don't let bacteria through. On the other hand there are kidney diseases that let things through that shouldn't be there. The vet monitored our late cat's kidney disease by checking whether bacteria were showing up in her urine.

Then there are bladder infections.

Normally though urine is considered the most sterile of body fluids.

Re:I am not a doctor

[v1]

I don't know if it's urban legend or true, but I recall reading somewhere a long time ago that field medics in vietnam were authorized to piss on open wounds to intestines if they were going to be stuck in a combat zone awhile and there was no sterile water was available. Apparently intestines exposed to air die very quickly from dehydration, and without keeping them damp the patient may later require removal of his intestines. Unless you have a bladder infection, urine is apparently sterile.

Re:I am not a doctor

[agentkhaki]

It's not urban legend at all. I have, sitting right next to me, an official survial manual from the Department of the Army (FM 21-76 -- dated March, 1986) which states the following regarding open wounds:

Rinse (do not scrub) the wound with large amounts of the cleanest water available. You can use fresh urine if water is in short supply. Fresh urine is sterile.

Re:I am not a doctor

[AutopsyReport]

Someone mod these two up. Most interesting thing I've read/learned in a couple weeks!

Re:I am not a doctor

[Nehmo]

So if you said "piss on the mods", you would actually be advocating first aid, assuming their intestines were showing.

Brilliant idea

[mysterious_mark]

This sound like a great idea! especially for LA which has no local water supply. The water from LA is pumped from the Owen's Valley (where I happen to live). The impact of water pumping from the Ownens Valley has caused massive environmetal degredation for the eastern sierra and the Owens Valley including the complete draining of Owens Lake, and has severely damaged Mono Lake. So anything that would help this problem would be a step in the right direction. Now if we could just stop everyone in LA from washing their SUV's twice a week, we'd be on a roll!

When I was a kid my grandparents had an outhouse.

[ernunnos]

A few months ago our restrooms at work were remodeled and we got no-flush urinals.

The outhouse smelled better.

washing hands

[SuperBanana]

Does running some tap water over part of the urinal really help stop the spread of diseases and germs?

This may not apply to urinals, but with toilets flushing ends up atomizing some of the contents. Which means it's spraying a little bit of urine alllllll over the bathroom...

That's not really the problem with germs and bathrooms though; it's WASHING YOUR HANDS. Hot water, soap, lather, and get it under the nails as much as possible.

I recall at a conference on infection control for doctors and surgeons, they put some researchers in the bathrooms and counted how many people (doctors! Many of them infection control specialists!) did/did not wash their hands. A HUGE number of them didn't bother. And we wonder why staph infection rates in US hospitals are astronomical...

One doctor recently infected several patients via a staph infection in his nose- he knew about the infection because several patients came back with staph infections, and he continued to operate. A woman he performed a back operation on (AFTER he KNEW he had the infection!) died as a result of a massive staph infection in her body.

The doctor was even told by the hospital prior to the operation that given the number of staph infections coming from his patients post-op, they wanted him to take an antibiotic regimen. The asshole REFUSED...and was still allowed to operate.

I have zero sympathy for doctors these days complaining about malpractice insurance costs; I see plenty of evidence they just don't give a shit about their jobs. Sloppyness on their part accounts for a huge number of prescription errors. You're willing to spend years studying the best way to care for someone, and you can't be fucking bothered to PRINT LEGIBLY on their prescription so that they don't get a drug overdose? And you can't wash your hands after going to the can, so your patients don't die from staph infections?

Re:washing hands

[Penguinoflight]

For some reason you're not my friend but I have to agree with you on this one just because I don't like doctors either. Having some jerk/idiot who doesn't care about anything but academics yell in your ear is hard enough for 2 years. Try taking it on for 8,12... (how long is the average stay to get surgeon status?) years, and I imagine you wouldn't much care what anyone says.

That's not to take the guilt away from sloppy doctors. I'll just stay sick, thank you very much. Oh yeah, don't get me started on orthodontists.

If its yellow, let it mellow...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about these fancy urinals, but at home I just don't flush the toilet when I urinate. If it's brown, flush it down.

narita

[Maglos]

I'm pritty sure I seen these no flush toilets in narita airport. They worked fine. Their argument about not being able to clean the inside is bull, because it seems like they could easly modify the design so it could flush for cleaning.

This is just like when the milk delivery men protested fridges.

Wireless Urinal

[Wolfier]

Am I the only one who read it this way at a glance?

Why not electronic?

[RelaxedTension]

Electronic flushers are the way to go. They use infra-red sensors to flush when used, can be retrofited to almost any existing urinal, and save huge amounts of water.

Seems to me they are a far superior choice to the cost of replacing whats's already in place.

Let me clue the editor in...

[Fahrvergnuugen]

No flush urinals came [i]before[/i] flush urinals.

The article makes them seem like they're a new invention or something and that the USA is somehow behind the times when it comes to technological advancements in bathroom.

Now that that's out of the way... flushing urinals were invented for a reason. That reason, undoubtedly, was to help reduce the smell of dried urine.

read the small print

[adeydas1]

not recommended for people with constipation.

If It's Yellow

[midnightblaze]

If it's yellow let it mellow. If it's brown flush it down.

Re:If It's Yellow

[Pig Hogger]

It it's pee, let it be. If it's brown, flush it down...

Re:If It's Yellow

[Anonymous Coward]

If you sprinkle when you tinkle.
Be a sweety, wipe the seaty?????

INtermittent flush urinals

[oscartheduck]

Everywhere I went when in England there were intermittent flush urinals; no handle at all, they just gave themselves a spray down every hour or so. Used less water and kept the smell down.

Ugh...

[NMZNMZNMZ]

has plumbers and water conservationists taking aim at one another

Intentional or not, that's a horrible pun.

Re:Ugh...

[cciRRus]

"Intentional or not, that's a horrible pun."

I'm relieved to see that you noticed the pun as well. It would be a waste to have this pun left unoticed.

Well, I guess that the pun didn't turn out well for you as you seem rather pissed off.

PS: I hope I'm not being a "loo-ser" for posting this!

Re:Ugh...

[Sam Nitzberg]

Yes - a piss-poor pun,indeed :-)

For No-Flush - Use Ice

[ckedge]

.
A lot of the clubs and bars in Toronto often have their urinals filled with ICE. You don't hit the flush button, your urine melts just the right amount of ice to flush itself away. Very clean. Very nice looking. No smell since it is washed away and the ice cold keeps odors down too. Very cool.

But I betcha it requires a "high traffic" zone to be cost effective - as opposed to letting the ice sit there for eons.

Most awful smelling bathroom I've been to lately - an otherwise VERY nice 4 story restaurant/lounge in Dublin, had a trough for the urinal - smelled like *hell* since the trough had a flat bottom and as such didn't drain all that quick.

.

Re:For No-Flush - Use Ice

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet it improves AIM, too.

As long as there aren't observers, it's all good

[saskboy]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/arts/sofitel.asp

It's more important to have privacy, than it is to worry about flushing. But some hotels just don't understand that, as you can see in the link's photo.

flush less often?

[Mike_ya]

How about the automatic toilets just flushing less often? This would work well with the automatic walkup male urinals. Hockey game I went to last year was standing 10 people deep waiting for a urinal during intermission. Instead of flushing after every piss, they could flush after every second or third piss. Put it on some sort of timer.

Re:flush less often?

[91degrees]

They all work that way in Britain. A lot of them have sensors and only flush if they've been used since the last flush.

Given the prevalence of workplace drug testing,

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Drinking urine might be classified as "destruction of evidence" under some obscure provision of the Patriot Act. :)

Of course, I have always said that the only sample an employer would ever get out of me would be for a taste test...

got some here in the university of manchester.

[petermgreen]

there are a couple in the sackville street building in the university of manchester and i've never noticed anything nasty about them. i don't think they are in a location where they get used that much though.

GWU has them

[germanStefan]

My college, George washington has these only on the first floor of the academic building which leads me to believe that they have them for visitors to see, so that they think that GW is trying to be environmentally friendly when in fact we don't recycle (that I know of) or do anything to help the environment. I'm just speculating here, if it works great and saves water (and thus money thru utilities) I don't see why they don't install more of these or atleast replace broken ones with these.

Re:GWU has them

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you meant General Workers Union...

Oops.

Opposition? Plumbers...

[Ellis D. Tripp]

They claim that it is a public health concern, so you don't think about all the money they would be losing by NOT having to run water supply lines to all those rows of urinals....

My two cents...

[Antony-Kyre]

I'm going to make my opinion as simple as possible.

1) Sanitary issues are more important than water saving issues. I'm sorry to say, but health is more important than saving water.

2) Urinals naturally save more water than toilets do. I think we need to consider putting urinals in our residential homes, as odd as that may sound.

3) Consider having one's gutter system, whether on a house or a place of employment, drain into a tank. Of course the water will be filtered to remove some of the particles. Use that water for the toilets and urinals. It will save on the fresh water that can be used for drinking, correct?

Correct me if any of the above have flaws in them.

OMG THEY STINK

[SauroNlord]

you think they would at least have it flush 'once' after say X uses (using sensors or something

Yes but that's not the problem

[DarkTempes]

Urine is typically quite sterile (except for the occasional malfunctioning kidney or urinary tract infection letting some bacteria through)

The problem is urine tends to have a composition that fosters the growth of bacteria as they somehow manage to get into it. In fact this is one reason urine smells, typically urine is quite odorless when leaving the body. The 'stale urine' ammonia smell you remember from bathrooms is a biproduct of the decomposition of urea by bacteria.

I worked somewhere where they were trying one

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked somewhere where they were trying one, and it stunk. Like stale urine. All the time.

Think parking garage stairwell, people.

The I haven't been back there, but I heard they were trying out very-low-flow urinals now...

SLAC

[Satai]

We have one of these in the office building adjacent to me at a DOE lab. In fact, when it was installed, it was a big deal. Some of us got together, walked over, and (with girlish glee) used it (one after another.) It was a little underwhelming.

How hard can it be??

[Zane Edwards]

If it's yellow, let it mellow, if its brown, flush it down.

hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Wireless and now waterless? Where will it end!!!?!

athf 4 life

[ImaNihilist]

Do you have any idea how much water gets used up everytime you go to the bathroom?

Three gallons.

AQUA TEEN HUNGER FORCE FOR LIFE!

a different approach to the same problem

[zark]

The building where I work (in Adelaide, Australia) has waterless urinals, which use a different system: http://www.desert.com.au/ Note that our urinals were originally water-based (big stainless steel trough things), they just disconnected the water and used the cubes instead. Works well, no smell. Only time we had a problem was when the outlet got blocked in one bathroom and the urinal slowly filled up with urine... but at least it didn't flood the way it would have with a water flush.

Eastfield college is cursed with these...

[RecycledElectrons]

Eastfield college is cursed with these. They seem unsanitary, and they do smell.

I agree that a flush every x users would be nice.

Andy Out!

Low flow toilets caused enough problems.

[Murphy Murph]

This is just going to add to the problems the sewer systems face in heavily commercial districts due to the use of low-flow toilets.

In residential areas there are not as many problems with clogged sewer lines. Laundry machines, showers, dishwashers - these all add lots of water to the sanitary sewer system and keep the percentage of solids low.

Commercial districts, OTOH, are having increasingly large problems with plugged sewer lines. Low-flow toilets are pushing (or failing to push as the case may be) sanitary lines over the edge. The point is being reached where there just isn't enough water introduced into the lines to move the, um, solids.

The only solution is either decreasing the solids percentage in the system by increasing water use, or increasing the pitch at which sanitary lines are laid. You can only increase the pitch so much, though, before you run out of drop and need to install lift stations (bringing their own set of environmental costs.)

Re:Urine Drinkers

[mikapc]

Let me guess, the person who modded me down was an offended urine drinker? Come on it was only a joke.

wasting water!?

[radarsat1]

This is something that I've thought about recently.. feel free to criticise with more enlightened (ie, informed) opinions. Is there really a reality to the concept of "wasting water"?? I mean, there is a certain amount of hydrogen and oxygen, and it is constantly being recycled in the atmosphere, and in our own sewage systems. We filter it, we dump it, we do all sorts of things to get rid of it in ways that we deem "safe". But it's not like we dump it into a big sealed holed in the ground where it can never be used again. It's not like it disapears into some kind of abyss and vanishes off the face of the planet. Is leaving the tap running really a "waste" of water? If you leave the tap running the water goes through the pipes and comes out into the sewage system. So does the rain when it goes in the sewers. All you're doing is mixing extra relatively clean water with the dirty water. I really don't understand how, here in North America, we can really be "wasting" water. It's not like it GOES anywhere.

Sure in some countries FRESH water may be scarce, but that is simply not the case in NA. Are we taking the idea of "wasted" water from places where it does make sense and applying it to our own systems where it no longer has meaning? I just don't understand how flushing the toilet or leaving the tap running while I brush my teeth is really hurting the environment. How it is ending up in a net result of less available water than before? All it's doing is cycling water through the plumbing! What is being "wasted"?

Please inform me, I claim ignorance. It's just a question.

Re:wasting water!?

[electroniceric]

There are two big problems with this. One is that in many regions of North America (i.e., the Southwest and the West Coast, except in Washington and Oregon right on the coast) there is much less fresh water than there is demand for it. Hence the competing demands on the Colorado's water.

The second is that because all of our water is drained into one single sewer system, your house's urine and excrement are joined by toothpaste, laundry detergent, motor oil, street runoff (every wonder what happens to the stuff that was shed as your tires wore down?), industrial solvents, agricultural chemicals, etc. At that point it must be thoroughly cleaned by a sewage treatment plant just to be re-released into the water table, where dilution and filtration through soil tends to remove residual pollutants. That's a lot of work to get the water back to being potable. And if the water happens to escape out of the sewer system before it is cleaned all of the nasties in it are dumped into rivers, streams, and the water table and eventually make their way back into the things that draw from that ground water. in older US cities, a storm will flush all the excess water out of the sewer system untreated (so-called "combined sewage outfalls"). So while "wasting" water does not destroy it, it makes the supply of clean water smaller and the amount of mixed-dirty water waiting to be cleaned (or to escape out of the sewer system) bigger. In countries where sewer systems do not adequately clean water and/or many residents aren't on sewer lines, cities very quickly contaminate their water supplies - this is part of the reason why so many kids die annually from diarrhea.

One of the best things we could do to conserve water would be to separate and reclaim household grey water without combining it with nastier pollutants (although there's some unlovely stuff in laundry soap). A few places are starting to do this with filtration systems in the basement, but doing it on a larger scale would help alleviate the water crunch in a lot of places.

Re:wasting water!?

[radarsat1]

Thanks. :)
Some things to think about...

uh...

[jizmonkey]

Your loaded question implies there's a serious problem with the current system in the U.S, and that's just not the case. Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon.

Einstein, you might have noticed that the article appeared in the Los Angeles Times. There is a huge water problem throughout pretty much the entire state of California. The San Joaquin and its tributaries have been totally tapped out by Northern California, the excess of which is sent down a concrete-lined artificial river hundreds of miles long to Los Angeles and the rest of southern California.

There is basically no more water available in California, yet water use continues to grow. San Francisco is seriously considering building a desalination plant for its water system, which supplies the peninsula and much of the south and east bay including parts of San Jose. SoCal is already way beyond sustainable water usage.

The only way to mitigate water usage growth is through conservation.

Re:uh...

[RollingThunder]

You're forgetting the sabre-rattling that's been going on regarding NAFTA and access to Canadian water. The prospect that we may be forced to send our water to idiots living in a desert is not one that pleases folks up here.

Re:uh...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The prospect that we may be forced to send our water to idiots living in a desert is not one that pleases folks up here.

You know, it's a treaty, not a law. I, for one, wouldn't hold it against you guys ;)

Re:uh...

[n6mod]

Too true. I'm on vacation in Victoria and a friend of mine (a local) just expressed the same sentiment: As global warming moves the deserts north, what will the US do for our water.

NAFTA is a *trade* agreement. Sell it to us.

Those of us in NorCal have been wishing we could do the same to LA.

-Z

Re:uh...

[Kadin2048]

In regards to the Canadian water, my guess is that we'll "take" it from Canada in the same way we currently "take" their natural gas: in exchange for hard currency. Even if we in the U.S. were of a mind to drive the Army up there and steal it, there would have to be a water shortage of Apocalyptic proportions for that to be economical, and even then a water supply is an awfully easy thing to contaminate and render useless. Even in the most extreme scenario, I doubt any water will ever come across the border without those on the Northern side agreeing, and probably helping every step along the way.

OT:
Those of us in NorCal have been wishing we could do the same to LA.
Yeah, really. I've always thought that Northern California really got the shaft politically and in terms of taxation/welfare, and now they're taking your water and piping it down South? That's rough. I guess you guys could always try and pull a West Virginia, although I'm not sure how well it's worked out for them there in the long run.

Re:uh...

[Vellmont]

Einstein, you might have noticed that the article appeared in the Los Angeles Times. There is a huge water problem throughout pretty much the entire state of California. The San Joaquin and its tributaries have been totally tapped out by Northern California, the excess of which is sent down a concrete-lined artificial river hundreds of miles long to Los Angeles and the rest of southern California.


I have absolutely no problem with water conservation efforts in places where there is a shortage of water. What I have serious problems with is the "environmentalists" who take the water conservation movement in places like California and try to import them in areas where there is NO water shortage whatsoever. They've taken on the idea that "conservation is good" but they've forgotten why we need to conserve. It's taken on a religious dogma like not eating pork because your religion forbids eating pork. Nevermind that the original reason (avoiding disease) has long since gone away.

Re:uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Einstein, you might have noticed that the article appeared in the Los Angeles Times. There is a huge water problem throughout pretty much the entire state of California.

Well, Pinky, you might also notice that Kalifornia != all of north america.
Perhaps they don't teach geography in your schools anymore, I understand Cal. schools rank near the bottom.

Anyway, Kalifornia's problem is not water.
It's people. Too many mostly useless people.
Actors, for example.

Get rid of 2/3 of the population, it would be a nice place to visit. And there would be enough water.

I am not a nephrologist

[cbnewman]

but I once had dinner with one.

actually, the real reason that urine sterile is because, under normal circumstances, the kidneys are filtering a sterile fluid (blood).

there are five normally sterile fluids in the body: blood, urine, cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid (on the outside of the lungs) and peritoneal fluid (on the outside of your intestines). your mouth and gut are full of bacteria which makes fluid that comes out of them (spit, sputum, mucous, feces) contaminated.

<speculation> i would think that urine is an extremely poor vector for disease transmission. for one thing, it's pH is low enough that it is an unfavorable environment for bacterial or viral growth. it's relatively acellular and is loaded with osmotically active molecules (urea). certian viruses and bacteria could i suppose slip through the glomeruli or more likely catch a ride on the end of the urethra as the pee squirts by, but i doubt that it could concentrate into a fluid with a clinically significant viral load.</speculation>

the idea of urine accumulating on porcelain posing a disease risk doesn't ring true to me. are the plumbers going to lose money on this by having fewer moving parts to maintain?

Re:I am not a nephrologist

[Hektor_Troy]

If your urine has a low pH-value, you need to visit a doctor. Your urin should be a weak base, maybe around 9 or 10.

Re:I am not a nephrologist

[Nexx]

Actually, no. Its pH is normally from 6.5 to 7.5ish. When you have UTI, you're told to drink more cranberry juice, to bring it down closer to the 6.5 range.

No Chance with UBC...

[ElitistWhiner]

the code is a minimum standard which all building materials must conform. In the instance where no minimum standard exists (ie. new product), a standard must be submitted, tested and approved. Years, if ever, are required to make it into the "code". Where no compelling reason exists like Health and Human Safety reasons the code will remain silent, usually. That leaves the manufacturer lobbying the "Industry", submitting UPC approvals and establishing "standards" for measuring compliance-to-code.

The last great revolutionary product entered into the plumbing code was "polypro pipe" which was supposed to obsolete copper pipe. It later earned the name "weepy pipe" when thousands of polypipe installations began to leak through the walls. The materials inherent property to leak relegated it to the category of irrigation piping for watering gardens.

It will be a dry day in hell for waterless urinals to make it into code.

Re:Pee in the Sink - Lenny Bruce

[Alea]

For those who might be fans, Lenny Bruce had a funny bit about pissing in the sink.

Excerpt here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/b ruce/brucemonologues.html#Pissing

Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[iamnot]

Ecological sanitation will be the only choice available to countries like India and China who are water-scarce. There is no way that all 2.5 billion+ people will be able to use water-based flush sanitation. Yet sanitation must be safe, clean, and easy to use. Ecological sanitation (or ecosan) is based on dry, urine-seperating toilets. No water is required, no major infrastructure, and all urine and faeces is safely composted without any need for electricity. The composted urine and faeces can be safely used on cropland for fertilizer. Currently, over two million Chinese use urine-seperating toilets in the south of China, and there is a major urban pilot project in Inner Mongolia. Additionally, some African countries are committing to 100% use of ecosan. No water, low-tech, no smell and no flies - plus fertilizer? No question of why, merely when and how!

Re:Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[evilviper]

Ecological sanitation will be the only choice available to countries like India and China who are water-scarce.

That's interesting, because last I checked, both countries are right near THE OCEAN, which has more than just a little water available.

Re:Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[Anonymous Coward]

Both countries also have a rather large area and tend to lie above the ocean, so once you get more than a few miles away from the shore, getting the oceanwater there is going to get problematic. Not to mention all sorts of fun stuff that happens when you regularly flush salt water down metal pipes...

Re:Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[pstils]

right yeah but full of salt so it can't be used in piping. ever been to india or china? I can tell you that in Goa (which, unlike the mass of india, is right on the beach) the pipes are so poorly laid that there are water shortages pretty much all the time. Even more so in the monsoon rains when the pipe beds are undercut leaving the pipes exposed. how did you score 2? fool

Re:Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[bad-badtz-maru]

How in the heck would you compost urine?

Re:Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[iamnot]

It's called composting, but in the sense of rendering a product useful and safe (sanitized). Storage of the urine for six months to one year ensures that the urine is completely sanitized and safe to use to fertilize crops.

Re:Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[iamnot]

And part of the point of using ecosan is that all nutrients from the urine and feces are reclaimed and used for agricultural production. Flushing with salt water would make it impossible to use on cropland (plus there is still the high cost of major sewage infrastructure...)

Re:Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[evilviper]

right yeah but full of salt so it can't be used in piping.

It can't be used in METAL piping. Big difference there.

There are numerous types of materials that pipes can be made of, which will stand-up to salt very well.

Re:Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[pstils]

so you prepose a network of plastic pipes to supply a countries toilets when the country cannot even maintain a network of pipes to supply people with water to drink? and I use the word drink very loosely. do you really think they're gonna be able to do this? there are solutions - such as the earth toilet discussed above. salt water is not gonna help.

Re:Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[bad-badtz-maru]

Wouldn't urine be damaging for effluent irrigation? I didn't think it contained any useful nutrients and was instead loaded with salts.

Re:Ecological Sanitation - way of the future

[iamnot]

There is lots of research on application rates for urine - and urine is in fact jammed-packed with nutrients, specifically NPK (nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium). Test trials comparing a crop grown with and without applications of urine all show a big increase in crop yield with urine fertilization.

In what alternate reality...

[Anonymous Coward]

...do the majority of men actually flush a urinal?

There's one at the Washington Monument

[Anonymous Coward]

In the National Park Service restroom just to the south of the Washington Monument in DC.

outhouse.

[generalbeard]

Yes, I know of one, it used to be next to my cabin. It's called an outhouse.

Western Australia - "Desert" brand products

[Goraek]

my University (UWA) has fitted out almost all of the male urinals with the "Desert" waterless system.

There seems to be two models, a "blue cube" that replaces the urinal-cake or soap (propaganda speaks of microbes that takes care of the smell, etc..), and the "oil trap" that everyone is familiar with.

The units have been installed for about the last 12 months, and they have since removed most of the cisterns and "buttons" for flush. So far, the only departments that I've found not sporting these innovations are Animal/Human Biology, and Medicine (my faculty).

No complaints as of yet, haven't noticed any smells or dodgy-stains. The maintenance crew on campus is pretty good, and as long as the "polish wax" is sprayed onto the steel urinals, it's all good.

as an extra plus, the "blue cubes" make for a good "target". A good solid stream can cut one in half over a morning of coffees/colas in the library ;)

_____________________________
Bone jokes aren't necessarily humerus

Re:Western Australia - "Desert" brand products

[shirro]

I have seen the blue blocks at a few places around South Australia as well. A local pub has them. They seem to work well. The place has very clean toilets and doesn't smell.

The distributors have a website at Desert Ecosystems.

Re:Western Australia - "Desert" brand products

[p00ya]

The little blue cubes do have a different smell (not worse than normal urinal cakes), and they do seem to erode pretty quickly (I tried to bore a hole through the centre of one... beware of splashback!). There was a urine smell outside the social science lecture theatre for a while last semester, but the actual toilets behind the theatre were fine AFAIK.

I read on the propaganda sheet sitting next to the urinals that they're meant to be flushed with 20 litres regularly anyway, which I would expect to be enough.

concern

[Anonymous Coward]

The article only talks about end user friendliness and how no one has gotten hurt from these USING them, but what about the one's FIXING them? its bad enough drains have stuff collect in them but now the stuff doesn't get rinsed clean down the pipes??!?!?! Have they considered the ramifications of long use?

I don't know whatt to think of this. My question is if its put in the building code does it end up being mandated? or is it more of a optional thing. If its optional then its less objectable.

Apparently you've never been ....

[Bake]

At an out-door music festival for a few days, where beer is sold and people usually just walk up to the nearest shrubbery to get rid of "processed beer".

It REEKS!!!!

The best thing about being a man...

[catdevnull]

The best thing about being a man is that the whole world is your urinal.

Would the debate could be moot if we just followed the German Feminists?

Consider culture

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a Muslim in Malaysia, and have spent time in the US.

Some cultures and beliefs in the world insist on using water for washing down after business, and Islam is one of them. Muslims undergo a water ritual to cleanse themselves for prayer, and prayer is five times a day. For prayer, you can't even have dried urine or fecal residue anywhere on your body. Getting into clean gear five times a day is very impractical, so muslims tend to focus on keeping themselves and their gear very clean.

For the devout muslim (yes, I'm drawing a line here; all kinds of muslims in the world), standing urinals are a no-no. There's a chance of getting some dried urine residue, and unless you change clothes or wash the area throughly with water, you can't do your prayers. For the devout who insists on being very clean for their daily prayers, the suspicion of a dried excrement residue somewhere on him can seriously ruin his day. So I don't think a waterless urinal would work in countries where water-reliant cultures dominate.

The urinals in Malaysia has a compromise built in; a separate jet of water that stays within the bowl, yet does not touch the inside walls. Those who wants cleansing can use the water without touching the urinal, so the design works well in adapting to the culture here.

Strangely enough, the article did say Malaysia is one of the customers. I seriously have no idea where it'd be installed; I have never seen them. Certainly not in public places like malls.

Re:Pee in the Sink - Lenny Bruce

[Anonymous Coward]

wow! I only piss in the sink. It makes my wife really mad. But its so easy, its just the right height, and your urine washes away while you wash your hands. plus, not many other people do it, which makes it less disgusting to park up to a sink than a slimy urinal.

Disease?

[CaptainCarrot]

Urine is normally sterile, unless someone has a bladder infection. Is this really the best counterargument that can be made for the things? It's specious.

Re:Disease?

[NerveGas]

    It's sterile coming out, but not after it's sat around. Urine is high in nitrogen, and bacteria looooove nitrogen.

steve

if it's yellow...

[coltrane]

...let it mellow.

if it's brown...flush it down.

I've got a no flush urinal

[Allnighterking]

Not by design, but by the fact that I have small children *sigh*. However I am familiar with the end result of similar "designs" The problems I've seen are not with regurgitated sewer gas but rather the result of bacterial growth in the "leavings"

The assumption in these kinds of toilets is that there is a 100% movement of urine from the location of initial entry (man it's hard to dance around this) to the "downspout" However if anyone here as ever pourd a liquid out of any container knows. There is a small but potentially significant amount of fluid that remains.

Now not only do you have to deal with the various "odor levels" of peoples urine. But you also have to deal with the bacterial growth in the droplets left behind. This is a greater problem in Womens restrooms than in Mens, as men tend not to "hover". Resulting in greater "splatter" and more of those, unwilling to drain, droplets.

So my solution is. Send all the "No Water" advocates to the Snake Pit at Indianapolis, on a really hot day in May. Then remember, that odor, isn't sarin, it's urine.

NTNU

[Atypic]

The university I attend has a few water-less urinals installed - and I can't really tell the difference between those and the old-fashioned water-urinals - they both reek just as bad. The water-less ones looks more fancy though... err, provided there is a certain limit to just how cool-loking a urinal can get.

They smell

[fsterman]

They smell like urine, the whole bathroom does. It's not too bad though.

Re:They smell

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter either way, most mens restrooms tend to reek anyways!

they have them at Merrill Hall

[adpowers]

I took a tour of our new green building at the University of Washington named Merrill Hall. They took us in the bathroom to show us the no-flush urinals. They also had the half/whole flush toilets. The urinals didn't smell (they are wiped down every day), but they still had a problem. With no water going through the urinals and very little water going through the toilets, the main sewer line leading from their building would get clogged. The matter leaving the building was very thick, and the limited amount of water wasn't enough to get it through the sewer line into the mains.

We have these urinals at my office...

[Demerol]

We have these urinals at work and they are fine. No smell, clean enough (they need to be wiped down regularly by the cleaning people because without constantly running water, there's nothing whisking away the urine that his the wall of the urinal before going down the drain).

They are a good idea, I think and have not been a problem for us.

Take Aim

[MDMurphy]

I'll take this all seriously in a minute.

A story about urinals that contains the line "... plumbers and water conservationists taking aim at one another." is just too funny for now.

Toilet Humor

[surfdaddy]

Is this really a worthwhile debate or just an excuse for toilet humor?

Toilet Humor? At Slashdot? I don't think that kind of humor runs around here.

Re:Isn't that called COMFREY

[j-stroy]

This plant comfrey is a nitrogen fixing bush. It grows quickly and can deal with a fair bit of peeing on. It can be cut back heavily and spreads well by the roots. It makes a good corner or compost heap plant and has medicinal qualities.

It uses lots of nitrogen in leaf growth, so it uses nitrogen rich pee as fertilizer. It would be good in areas people pee.
PS: A community building here has some type of no flow urinal, it works great and is clean, in spite of the steady beer sales.

Good Idea

[POds]

This is an exceptionally interesting topic. Many dont perhaps know just how bad Australias Water supplies have been in the last few years. Very bad. Many people think Australias population could not sustain any more growth. Many other people think we should start working towards reducing our population.

Most of the nations main water supplies during the last 3 years have been bellow 20%. Some, including the largest have been well bellow this, in to the single figure percentile range.

Anything that saves water is worth while considering. There are now perminite water restrictions in the state of victoria (i believe), such as watering during the day (prohibited, perhaps with other conditions). This sounds like a good idea.

Open irrigation seems to be the largest talking point on saving water and i'd think that may be a better area to focuss on now, whilst its a problem. If its ever fixed, i'd recommend coming back to the to flush vs not to flush topic.

The real problem here...

[NerveGas]

    Is not whether or not a toilet spreads germs, it's about a form of non-representative government. The plumbing code is the same as the electrical code, where the vast majority of municipalities have simple said "Whatever the N.E.C. (or IAPMO) says is law."

    That means that laws are effectively passed by a small group of people - who may have nothing more than the economic interest of their own trade union in mind - and there's no vote, no deliberation, no senate, no president, no governer, nothing - it's law, and you can shut up and take it, or you can... well, shut up and take it.

steve

Re:The real problem here...

[GigsVT]

And until a recent supreme court ruling, you had to pay to even know what the law was!

I'm surprised no enterprising person has put the NEC up for download yet, in a public manner. It's legal now since that court ruling.

Re:The real problem here...

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Wouldn't whoever is hosting the file be liable if the NEC were downloaded onto a machine located in a jursidiction where the NEC isn't law and thus not subject to that ruling?

Re:The real problem here...

[GigsVT]

I don't think it matters. As long as it is law somewhere, it's public domain. Like it wouldn't be illegal for me to post a copy of the laws of georgia, even though I don't live there.

Re:The real problem here...

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Thanks, that's interesting. Wonder if anyone would get very far starting a municipality and citing entire movies as law :).

Re:The real problem here...

[GigsVT]

Heh, well if you are planning on doing something I'd at least talk with a lawyer first, the NEC might try to sue even though their case would have little merit in light of the precedents.

My school has somthing better

[Anonymous Coward]

My school is like 60 years old and we have a row of urinals where the urine drains then every so often they all flush at once.

Umm... they're plumbers, not doctors.

[NerveGas]

"But plumbers argue that the devices could spread diseases such as cholera and severe acute respiratory syndrome and emit deadly sewer gas into restrooms -- allegations both conservationists and manufacturers strongly dispute."

    Evidently, the fact that cholera has to be ingested is lost on them... it's a no-touch toilet, and if you get down on your knees and lick it, you have what's coming to you.

    As for acute respiratory syndrome, they'd have to come up with some plausible way to show that respiratory infections are spread in urine. Plumbers should stick to tightening leaky fixtures, and leave disease control to people that actually went to school(*)...

(*) I'm sure that any plumbers here will be offended. But you're seemingly atypical, I have yet to speak with a plumber that had anything more than a high-school education - if that.

steve

Re:Umm... they're plumbers, not doctors.

[plbg32]

a union plumber goes through a 5 year apprentiship, most college students only do 4 years. the main concern of a plumber is to protect the health of the population. do you really want splash back to hit you from a urinal that just been used by someone else and not been rinsed by a flush! California has a lot of ways to save water besides going to a no flush urinal. they could ban the use of clean water for irrigation purposes and use out flow from wastewater treatment plants. there are many such proposals out there. the water problems in california will only get worse.

Re:Umm... they're plumbers, not doctors.

[NerveGas]

    A 5-year apprenticeship that teaches them how to sweat a fitting, tighten fixtures, and adhere to the plumbing code. That's it. They should stick to that, and leave infectious disease to someone who, again, actually knows something about that area.

steve

Jimmy Carter's got them

[Noelix]

I took a trip a while back to the Jimmy Carter Presidential Museum...which was boring. I do however remember vividly that in the restrooms there they had these "no flush" toilets that let your urine drip down into this little compartment which had chemicals in it to take care of it. There were signs telling you all about them to read while you were pissing there, and about how Jimmy Carter had these installed because he believes in conservation and all that. Then, I went to wash my hands and discovered that the faucets there were so leaky that it was in total hypocrisy of the whole "water conservation" movement started by the waterless urinals.

No flush

[Anonymous Coward]

There is at least one (unknown) person in my office building who believes in the "no flush" system. Specifically, he craps in the last stall in the men's room almost every morning and doesn't bother to flush.

No-flush urinals

[achesloc]

We have them all over in all the new bathrooms at our law school. It smells HORRIBLE. Honestly. I have not yet met somebody that doesn't think it is the worst thing ever. All the bathrooms are super extra disgusting.

we have those

[Anonymous Coward]

We have those at UQAM and they _do_ smell a lot. Sure its nice to save water but to say that there is no smell is a blatant lie.

Stinks

[Anonymous Coward]

We had these at our high school. they made the whole bathroom smell like urine.

Sorry guys...

[shaneh0]

... but this is the only place people might understand.

I've always been a windows developer and 6 mos. ago I took a job and started learning and writing PHP on day 1. Over the past 2 mos. I've been using the command line more and more on my dedicated server. Two mos ago I asked for sudo access and ever since there's been no looking back.

I LOVE SSH. I LOVE THE COMMAND LINE.

It's just so easy to GET THINGS DONE. I love that VI doesn't choke on a 65MB SQL file. I love that it barely flinched. I love how easy Linux is to understand once you just sit there and force yourself to figure out how to navigate in the strange land of no c-prompt.

The answer, of course, is with a BASH prompt.

Anyway, I'm SURE i'll be modded offtopic, but I don't mind. It's worth it. I was going to post about Flushing the toilet but after I clicked "reply" I saw PuTTY just sitting there, idle, in the tool bar. Hanging on every word I say. Waiting patiently for the next command I send it. It made me fuzzy in my stomache and I just couldn't think about anything else.

A RADICAL proposal

[argoff]

Let the market decide the price of water, and then let anyone use as much as they choose to pay for accordingly. I mean, shouldn't it be telling us something when the government has to regulate our tiolets in the name of good causes?

Re:A RADICAL proposal

[Omestes]

So money = right to necessity of life. I find this reprehensible. How does money make you more entitled to a natural resource vital to survival? It's like saying that someone should charge for air.

I'm sorry. Regulate EVERYONE, rich or poor, since the water that these rich asshats can waste by virtue of bankroll (as if that determined the value of humans) support those who need it just as much, or more in certain regions of the world.

Fresh water is a rare, and severely limited resource, that is the most essencial resource for human (and all life's) survival. To say that some fat rich guy has a bigger entitlment because the fact that he happens to be rich, is absurd.

Re:A RADICAL proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, suppose someone RICH constructs his own desalination plant working from sea water, transports it with his own fleet of trucks, fills his own private reservoir. All to be able to flush with abundant water. What's wrong with that?

Re:A RADICAL proposal

[bearave]

Hell yeah. Let's do that. A let's put a market up for air too while we're at it.

We could start with the bulk air polluters like car makers/petroleum cartels and eventually work our way down to the makers of stinking no-flush urinals.

accountants know the price of everything, and the value of nothing

Re:A RADICAL proposal

[everphilski]

Well, water quite frankly is cheap. Here in the US (this is a US board after all) I pay less for water for my entire house than I do for the one online game I play each month. Grandparent is quite correct in saying water is cheap, and if there is a looming shortage the market should play a role in deciding how much water should cost. I pay 8-15 times as much for power each month - would you not consider power a "necessity of life"? How can you justify it costing so much then? I'd be interested to know...

Fact is water is cheap because its freely available (to most of the world) and cheap to process. Electricity is not because its harder to manufacture and comes with strings attached (regulations to meet, inefficiencies, more maintenance, etc.)

-everphilski-

Re:A RADICAL proposal

[Omestes]

I wouldn't consider power a necessity of life, people can survive without electricity just fine, we have until pretty recently. Water is the basis of life itself.

As (fresh) water becomes more and more scarce the prices will rise to the point where it does become restrictive to the poorer regions of the world, and of the US.

Re:A RADICAL proposal

[everphilski]

As someone who grew up somewhere where the ambient temperature is less than freezing more than 4 out of 12 months of the year (Wisconsin); I'd beg to differ. Not to mention if we are bringing into discussion people who regularly live without power (the homeless, etc.) they have freely available water (albeit not ideal sources).

The long and short of it is water is cheap - the first 20 minutes I work each month pays for water, easily... compared to rent, electricity, etc... its a piss in the lake. Its really not a concern. This globe is 70% water by surface area: desalinization is not that expensive a process energy-wise (I am an engineer) this is a moot point.

-everphilski-

Re:A RADICAL proposal

[Omestes]

Point granted with the Wisconsin/heat thing. Up there electricity or gas do become necessities for part of the year. I used to live up there, but moved to Arizona for the same reason, too damn cold. Here electricity becomes semi-essencial 4 months of the year to, in the form of cooling (at least in the desert regions). Too much, or not enough. But it still is not essencial to life. People lived in Wisconsin before electricity for heat, or even regular heating oil/coal. Ditto for Arizona and the air conditioning, and I'm not talking strictly about indigenous peoples.

Sadly, while not energy inefficient, desalinization isn't cost freindly, unless this has changed.

Re:A RADICAL proposal

[everphilski]

People lived in Wisconsin before electricity for heat, or even regular heating oil/coal.

They have. But the problem is, in the modern world their house will not be up to code and will be condemned. You live in the modern world, you have to deal with the modern world.

And as to desalinization no, its not the cheapest route - thats why we're not doing it ... and that's why its obvious there is no water crisis (if there were a crisis we'd be scrambling to build desaliniation plants)

-everphilski-

For more toiletry news...

[mhh5]

Check out the International Center for Bathroom Etiquette and its blog. I assume this discussion will have to be incorporated into the collection of international urinal do's and don'ts.

Recycled water

[HermanAB]

In dry countries all big cities recycle water. Eg. Windhoek, Johannesburg, Pretoria. Those are large cities with millions of people. If third world countries can clean up waste to the point where it is safe to drink again, why can't the USA???

Newsflush!

[Jerry Smith]

Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon.

Same goes for oil, and yet people worry about that too. Water from rain is a fairly harmless source, mostly because man can't interfere with the production, but excessive extracting water from the ground has salinated precious soil all over the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_salination(yes, including the US). Even in the Netherlands (being wet, significantly below sea-level and rainy) fresh water is considered a precious gift, not for granted.

What we need is a no-flush frictionless system. Or at least a low-flush low-friction system.

What would the US do when they found out they used up all their fresh water? Of course: they'll have developed alternatives for it by then!

Re:Newsflush!

[Kadin2048]

What we need is a no-flush frictionless system. Or at least a low-flush low-friction system.

How would that work? Use a Teflon-coated toilet bowl?

It seems to me based on my experience that most clogs in toilets happen in the U-bend: this is where you need the most water (or highest velocity, anyway), to push the waste through this bottleneck and into the pipe. I don't think the problem there is friction-related as much as it's simply mechanical; it takes some velocity to force the waste around the 180-degree turn that a U-bend is, because often the waste is bigger or longer than the internal radius of the pipe, and you have to break up the waste to get it through. I'm not sure how lowering the friction inside the pipes would really change anything too much. If you don't have enough momentum to break up the waste, it's not going to go around the bend and you've created a clog.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on what you had in mind?

Re:Newsflush!

[Jerry Smith]

Thing is: you NEED the U-bend (communicating vessels?) to keep the sewer-odor out of your toilet. But it also (as you mentioned correctly) thé place for clogging to happen. The lower the friction, the higher the speed with which waste can pass the U-bend. Since the waste does not have to come up as high as it started out, it should not need energy for that. It only needs energy to overcome the friction, and for travel through the underwater bit. I have no idea how big/small the internal radius is, but I'd think it would be fairly big. Because sometimes things pass sideways. I'll have to think it over: either a lot of water, or something pressurizing the water-flow. Cause you need the momentum.

With an ideal toilet, you wouldn't need a second flush for the excessive waste after Christmas and other feastivities. One flush fits all.

Self-solving problems

[symbolset]

Really this article and the previous one about global warming (and many other problems) have this in common:

If you take a long enough view, you will see these problems work themselves out. Your goal is not to find the solution. It's to survive it. If you are in an area that's resource poor, move.

The fact that so many otherwise smart people have trouble with this simple answer defies reason.

If you live in a country with a repressive regime, escape. If the drought has been going on for more than five years, it's a climate change. Move. If your city is below sea level, you should not live there. Move. If your climate is inhospitable to human life, leave it for the creatures that like it and move. Is your region so crowded with other people that life there is unsustainable? Get OUT.

This is not so complicated. You are blessed with the power of locomotion. Use it.

Re:Self-solving problems

[Jedi Alec]

If your city is below sea level, you should not live there

So, ehmm, where do YOU live? 16 million Dutchmen would like to know, considering more than half of the bloody country is below sea-level.

Oh wait, you're just a troll. My bad.

Re:Self-solving problems

[symbolset]

Where I live the environment isn't going to kill me. I would say exactly where, but while I would hope people would evacuate their own unsustainable environments, I don't want them coming here and making mine unsustainable.

As for the Dutchmen, it seems their government can be trusted to maintain their flood control system for the medium term. In the long term water seeks its own level. Water does not tire of this endeavor, it does not rest. It does not stop. Ever. Humans can resist natural forces like this for a very long time, but we make errors. Some of us cheat, lie, steal, or neglect our duty. We forget. We die. Sometimes we try and fail by overestimating our abilities. Ultimately one day some concatenation of failures will let the water in. Where did the Dutchmen live before they drove back the sea? If the answer is that there were fewer of them, then you have your answer. The excess should have fled rather than develop an answer that's unsustainable in the long term.

Why is it a troll be be simply honest?

Re:Self-solving problems

[Mr. Slippery]

If you live in a country with a repressive regime, escape. If the drought has been going on for more than five years, it's a climate change. Move.

Works good if you're Bruce Wayne, with near-superhuman martial arts skills to get past those border guards, and more money than God so as to be able to move whenever and whereever the mood takes you.

Down here IRL, however, there were people who couldn't afford a frickin' bus ticket out of New Orlease to avoid the flood, much less to pack up and move. And escape from repressive regimes is notably difficult, what with the secret police and the security walls and fences and all that.

Re:Self-solving problems

[Grishnakh]

The biggest problem with the parent poster's idea is that most people can't just live wherever they want: they have to have employment. This is probably the #1 reason so many people live in California, which a lot of people on here are complaining about. People go where the jobs are; they've been doing this since the Industrial Revolution, and before. I'd love to move to a nice house in a remote area in the woods someplace, but no one is going to pay for me to do that, and then pay to support me there. So I live someplace where I have gainful employment, and can find a balance between a job that pays decently and that I like, people that I like/friends/fiance, cost-of-living, an area that's nice to live in (rather than an arctic wasteland like upstate NY or Minnesnowta), an area that isn't as susceptible to natural disasters as some, etc.

Everyone has to find their own balance in these things; for many people, that means California. Yeah, the water situation sucks, but it's better than being homeless in the midwest in the winter because there's no jobs there. For other people, that means New Orleans because they have a job there and don't have the means to find a better job elsewhere. If you don't like this situation, would you favor that the Federal Government took over employment to make sure people are employed in more sensible places, and that companies locate in these areas that the government prefers? After all, this is exactly how the Soviet Union worked....

About the repressive regimes, though: sometimes I've wondered if it'd be possible, if you were actually living under one of those, to just get a few people together and run around killing cops and government employees at random in order to effect change. Sure, you don't want to go straight for the well-armed border guards, and you don't want to try to kill Saddam/Kim Jong Il/whoever himself since you'd just get yourself killed in the process and be unsuccessful, but somewhat random killings of government workers and police (at least the corrupt ones that perpetuate the problems) would be extremely difficult to pin on you, and would at least help the problem a little. Oh well; luckily I don't really have to contend with this in my lifetime, hopefully. If I ever get sick of it here, I can just move to Canada.

Use grey water

[Gordonjcp]

You can filter grey water (from baths, showers, sinks and such) so that it is clean enough to be used to flush toilets, water the garden, wash cars and so on. Have a look at the design of the water system in an Earthship, which uses rainwater and careful filtering to provide enough water for a house and its occupants.

Re:Use grey water

[drsquare]

What if I piss in the sink?

I think that would need the whole house replumbing which would be more expensive than just using more water.

Re:Use grey water

[Gordonjcp]

What if I piss in the sink?

Don't do that. Didn't you learn any manners?

I think that would need the whole house replumbing which would be more expensive than just using more water.

But it would be very effective for new-build houses, or during renovations. Of course houses in the US don't appear to be designed to last a long time, being built the way we build garden sheds over here...

I can't resist. . . . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

They're taking the piss!

Outhouse Smell

[Anonymous Coward]

We have no flush urinals at my University... bathrooms smell like old people.

We have them at Michigan State University... urgh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I lived in the Emmons dorm last year. Community bathrooms there. During winter break, without asking residents or the RA, they replaced our urinals with the no-flush kind. Now, our old ones were CONSTANTLY flushing. They had a resevoir on the wall and the urinals would self-flush every 30-60 seconds. While that was a horrible idea, it was replaced with another.

They stunk. Bad. We learned this after about hour 6 of having them. Rest of the year, we all used the normal toilets to take a leak.

Guess that water conservation idea fell through.

We have these at my school..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and they are absolutely disgusting. You might think aversion to flushless toilets is an irrational knee-jerk reaction to something that merely *sounds* gross. No, it really is gross. In case you thought it might not be so bad. As our administrators evidently thought. Whenever I have to use one, I am struck by the irony that in one of the great technology centers of the world, we don't even have basic plumbing. Men basically pee in an open pit. I understand that they save water, and maybe it's worth it. But let's not dismiss the things we are giving up. Hygiene. Dignity. Okay, maybe I'm being melodramatic, but they are still gross. I'm sure that if the person who decided to install those actually had to use them, they would have decided differently.

Flushless smells

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I work we have some of these flushless urinals, they smell of amonia so badly. I don't care how much water they save, they wreck horribly.

Use water from sink drains to flush waste

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgive me if anyone else had this idea...

Do you wash your hands after you urinate?
Why not use the water (that you washed your hands with) to flush the toilets? No need for a tank or anything - just have the water go straight through to the toilets.

Being Slashdot, I'm sure some genius will come up with 100 reasons why this is not feasible, but really, why isn't it? Water can be filtered (if need be?) pumped (if need be) stored (if need be) shut offs, overflows and other plumbing safety systems could be devised. Just think all the soap from your hands will make the toilets smell pretty.

Re:Get your $#!^ together,

[aywwts4]

Never really trolled before, but hell, might as well give it a try.

Fresh cheap water _IS_ Plentiful in most of the United States, You decided to use for your example the reason why parent poster used the word "Most" and not "All"

"waters from the Midwest and East to relieve water shortages in the West, and vice-versa when the need arises."

To this I say, Fuck You. There never will be a Visa-Versa, You would just leech off of it entirely and never find a solution to your own damn problem. it was entirely the prerogative of the population in west to build a paradise in a desert, it was entirely their decision to drain the Colorado for water intensive farming, to put a swimming pool in every backyard of vast stretches of Arizona suburb complete with matching green grass. status symbol accessory.

I live next to the great lakes, cheap water is more than plentiful, and you almost never see farmers ever have to use (let alone own) irrigation equipment, our farmers farm In an area perfectly suited for it, and our population drinks the same plentiful waters.

Oh dear, California cannot provide for its population, Boo Hoo, do yourself a favor an cry a friggin river.

I'm not saying water conservation isn't important, Though I would say water pollution is a bigger problem that needs immediate attention. California is not the rule. California and the surrounding states are the exception, You built a metropolis in a desert, and you reap what you sow, Enjoy!

-Sincerely, Your friendly pessimist to the north.

Sinks

[Tux2slack]

If no-flush urinals are desired, why waste time and money? Just piss in the sink. Rinse as often (or not) as necessary!

Arent we talking urinals and not flushing toilets?

[Anonymous Coward]

enough said.

Desert Golf or not?

[dogbreathcanada]

Visit Palm Springs or Las Vegas if you want to witness the ultimate in water waste. Hundreds of golf courses being watered daily in the hottest and driest climate in the United States. Perhaps just banning desert golf courses would solve a lot of the problems.

Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[HighOrbit]

First, lots of cities in the US are changing their building codes to get rid of "low flush" after having them for years. Low flush toilets actually waste water because they frequently don't carry away all the waste on the first or second flush, so people end up flushing them repeatedly. After five flushes on a low flush, you've wasted like 3 times the water to accomplish what a regular toilet would have done in a single flush.

As far as "no flush" oil based systems, I've actually used one and I was disgusted by the smell. The state of South Carolina has (or had during the early-mid 90s) a "zero effluent" rest area on I-26. It used a mineral oil based system. They had big signs explaining how it worked and how it was so evironmentally beneficial etc etc etc. The problem is that it smelt like the monkey house at the zoo on a bad day. And I don't mean like a normal rest stop smells, but like a normal rest stop x12. I lived in the Carolinas back then and I frequently traveled that interstate, so I learned to "hold it" and skip that particual rest area and pay $.85 to buy a cup of coffee at McDonalds so I could use their regular bathroom. The smell is a dead give-away of bacterial growth. There is *NO WAY* an oil based no-flush system could ever be sanitary.

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[Stephan Schulz]

I don't know about your experience, but are you aware that while urine is considered "icky", it is, indeed sterile, and even mildly sterilizing? The smell is ammonia, which is what the body gets rid of with urine. It's a different thing about feces - they can indeed cause the spread of disease, and they are the hygenical reason for plumbing.

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about your experience, but are you aware that while urine is considered "icky", it is, indeed sterile, and even mildly sterilizing? The smell is ammonia, which is what the body gets rid of with urine. It's a different thing about feces - they can indeed cause the spread of disease, and they are the hygenical reason for plumbing.

You are right, (healty) urine doesn't even contain anything that bacteria can eat. In fact, in "survival conditions", urine is the only sterile fluid you have available to wash out wounds, so in that case urine is a hygenical, sterilizing thing.

The ammonia smell is disgusting to almost all humans however.

I've used some of these oil based things, and they excrete a terrible ammonia smell. You can usualy tell whether it's water or oil based before you enter...

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[JabberWokky]

I thought the distinctive smell was urea? Maybe it's just a top note?

Regardless, the new no flush urinals do have a significantly reduced smell, although I have no idea whatsoever if it is due to them not having been used as long. The urinals at the newly rebuilt Pennsylvania Military Museum are several months old and have no whiff around them (other than a general "clean public bathroom" smell).

--
Evan

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[twoflower]

After five flushes on a low flush, you've wasted like 3 times the water to accomplish what a regular toilet would have done in a single flush.

No, you haven't. Low-flow toilets use approximately one gallon per flush. Standard-flow toilets use approximately 3.5 gallons per flush. After three flushes on the low-flow toilet, you're still saving water over a standard-flow toilet.

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[vortigern00]

actually, the urine of *healthy* people is sterile.... That's a subtle but important point.

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[BeeRockxs]

The no-flush urinals we have in the department of Geography at the University in Cologne don't smell at all.

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[rthille]

It seems to me that most of the smell of urine is from the piss all over the walls and floor because men in a public bathroom can't seem to aim to save their life. Either that or the urinial design is such that 90% of the stream splatters back all over the floor and your light-tan slacks so you walk out of the bathroom looking like you've been in a rainstorm.
At home I always sit down to pee because I'd rather take an extra few seconds to sit than spend my time wiping up the urine spray all over the place.

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[Stephan Schulz]

I thought the distinctive smell was urea? Maybe it's just a top note?

Given that is is used in fairly high concentration in skin products, that it is used as a browning agent in pretzels, and as an alternative to salt for de-icing walkways, I'd be surprised if urea had any distinct smell at all. See the Wikipedia article for more fascinating information...

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[Mikkeles]

GP: 'The smell is ammonia,....'

P: 'I thought the distinctive smell was urea?'

Urea has the formula (NH2)2CO and is ammonia and carbon dioxide based.

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[Mikkeles]

Low flush toilets are 1.6 gpf (see, e.g.: http://www.dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/WhattoKnowBefor eYouGoLow-Flow.pdf or http://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading/2002_J une_July/Water_Wise_Toilets.

Regular toilets run 3 - 5 gpf.

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[Chuckstar]

... in Cologne don't smell at all.

There's a joke in there somewhere. :)

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[JourneyExpertApe]

Fresh human urine does not contain ammonia (or at least not much). Cat urine on the other hand (ewwww), contains a lot. Humans excrete excess nitrogen as urea. I don't think it matters much from a health perspective what type of urinal is used, because there will always be idiots who can't seem to use them without pissing all over the floor.

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[JabberWokky]

See the Wikipedia article for more fascinating information...

I did, before I posted that. There's nothing about the smell in the Urea entry, and I won't draw assumptions from usage. Plenty of things that reek by themselves are used for various flavoring and scenting purposes.

A bit more research reveals this under the wikipedia entry for urine: "However, after that, bacteria that contaminate the urine will convert chemicals in the urine into smelling chemicals that are responsible for the distinctive odor of stale urine; in particular, ammonia is produced from urea".

And now I go to one last source...

Okay, my fiance pursuing a PhD in chemistry has worked with urea and says it has a strong odor. It smells like ammonia, but she can't recall offhand if it's the actual smell of urea or a result of it breaking down into actual ammonia.

My recollection is hazy, with plenty of room for it to be "it's the urea that smells because it breaks down into ammonia".

Interesting little side tangent here.

--
Evan

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[bar-agent]

And it is only sterile for a brief time.

Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work

[pnutjam]

At home I always sit down to pee...

HAHA!

Good or Bad?

[JDStone]

These waterless urinals were installed about a year ago in my community college here in Southern California and I hate them. Yes, they do conserve a lot of water, but that oily liqued does not seem to keep the odor out, it still stinks!

Re: location of flushless urinals

[Anonymous Coward]

Stoneridge Mall in Pleasanton CA has them. They look almost the same as regular ones, no odors, very clean.

Good engineering

[Mr. Freeman]

I've used these toilets before in public places such as hospitals and restaurants. I noticed no foul odors coming from the urinals. (Better than the bathrooms that try to cover it up with crappy air freshener).

The design seems simple and efficient. Though, it would be interesting to see if the toilet could dispense the blue oil-like stuff by itself.

"Seeing as how urine is fairly sterile, I just pee in the sink. no splash back, and it all gets washed down when i wash my hands. I learned about this environmentally friendly tip from Adam Carolla."

Sterile as it may be, it's disgusting.

They STINK!!

[B4RSK]

Yah yah, water conservation, yadda yadda yadda. Like many things, flushless urinals seem good in theory, but WOW do they ever STINK in practice. Literally.

Sure, gravity pulls down the urine. But it certainly leaves a coating on the urinal. Combine constantly urine-coated urinals with warm air.... They make you wretch. The whole bathroom reeks.

Baaaaad bad idea.

I have never flushed...

[OBeardedOne]

and I'm not about to start.

Another Old Joke

[R3d M3rcury]

Old University Joke from years ago:

A Harvard Student and a Yale Student are in a bathroom taking a piss. The Yale Student finishes and goes to leave when the Harvard Student says, "At Harvard, they teach us to wash our hands after we urinate." The Yale Student replies, "At Yale, they teach us not to piss on our hands."

The Follow-Up:

From the stall, someone calls out, "Doesn't matter, guys. Somebody from Dartmouth was just here and pissed in the sink."

Splashback

[dresgarcia]

If someone else peed in that toilet shortly before you did with a venerial disease it could still be lining the toilet and I'd think your splash back could theoretically infect you. . .although im sure the chances are minute.

Re:Splashback

[Anonymous Coward]

If you get splashback, there's something wrong with your aim or technique. Tryvarying the angle at which the stream hits the bowl.

Re:Splashback

[Anonymous Coward]

Either that or he has some serious flow pressure issues. :)

We have them at UNC Chapel Hill

[sailor420]

A few of the buildings at UNC Chapel Hill use no-flush urinals. They seem to work pretty well, and do what they are advertised to do--except for one problem. Things splatter. Everything doesn't go right down the drain--the sides of the urinal catch the splatter, which then isn't washed away. And so it starts to stink. It's nothing so terrible you can't go in the bathroom, but it definitely isn't the perfect solution they advertise, either.

Perhaps if they can solve the splatter problem...

Urimat -The solution already exists

[uss_valiant]

See:
http://www.urimat.com/homepage_gb/index.htm

We have these already since a few years at our university. They replaced all our urinals with such urimats. I guess we received the very first models of urimats and in the first year, the odeur was all but prevented to develop.
But now there is really almost no odeur at all, even in a hot summer. At least less odeur than with a conventional urinal.

And you start to see these urimats everywhere, but not yet at home, of course. Or do you have a urinal at home? :)

I don't get it

[Trogre]

I just don't get the whole water conservation deal.

I mean, it's apparent that some rivers and lakes are being drained dry and that's bad for the locals and all if they're not being replenished, and that should be enough for local water conservation in those areas for sure.

But on a global scale? People go on about wasting water like it's a resource that's being consumed. How does one waste water? When it goes down the plug hole, it's still water. From there when it finds its way into the ground or ocean is it not still water? Then it evaporates and rains down somewhere else. Is it not still water then?

It's not really like oil that we actually burn and consume is it?

The way people go on about it I'm almost expecting someone to start seminars on Peak Water in a couple of years...

Re:I don't get it

[chivo243]

the water gets tied up... like in us... think about billions of bags of water walking around and the billions more to come.... and water can be polluted and unusable for a space of time, but you're right, it's water it can be filtered and reused, transferred etc.

Re:I don't get it

[nsayer]

It's quite simple: The population is rising, but the local supply in just about every place on the planet where people live in large numbers is fixed (over the long term).

These are in use in the NSW Department of Health

[Anonymous Coward]

The building which houses the NSW Department of Health uses something which sounds similar. I have noticed no particularly strong odour (well, apart from the odour from the crunchy urinal cakes), certainly no more than a water-based urinal and indeed less than most water-based urinals I have used. (Of course, water-based urinals need to be flushed and quite often aren't whereas these are designed to work without flushing.)

One might think that HM's Dept of Health would have something to say about it if these were particularly unhygenic.

Conductivity of solution in U bend.

[chris_sawtell]

in parched 'Aust, I came across one which had a conductivity meter in the U bend which could tell the difference between tap water and a urine solution. Change in conductivity triggers a small motor to pull the chain. Somewhat un-nerving first time.

Re:Get your $#!^ together,

[Anonymous Coward]

do yourself a favor an cry a friggin river.

Nice.

save water?

[egarland]

Where did this insane concept of using water up come from? The stuff just goes right back in the ground we pumped it out of.

Non-flush urinals stink

[Wolfger]

I mean that literally. The major corporation I work at has installed these stinky urinals at the "busy" restrooms, just outside each of the cafeterias (or at least outside the 2 that I frequent (yes, we have more than 2 cafeterias)). They always smell (surprise, surprise) like piss, and they clog up surprisingly often. Does it save water? Sure. So does pissing on a tree, which (unless it's freezing or raining outside) is vastly preferable.

What about vandalism and proper disposal?

[Anonymous Coward]

The disadvantages are that you have to change the filter every, like 3,000, "non flushes".

So when you change the filter, where do you put the old filter? In the garbage can? That's what the manufacturer at http://www.waterless.com/how.php seems to recommend. But isn't that unsanitary -- all of the urine, excess bodily fluids, and any grotesque skin tissues that have sloughed off during urination end up in the garbage truck, and will be crushed by the compactor. Then the refuse will be dumped into a landfill and the urine (and whatever else) will seep into the ground...and into the drinking water.

The manufacturer also claims that the filter is made of recylable materials; but who actually will do the job of reclaiming the materials? Do you give the filter to the recyling center? And how will "they" (whoever they are) get rid of the urine and other stuff in the trap?

It seems from the article http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-urinal23no v23,0,7986169.story?page=2&coll=la-home-local that one of the issues is how to clean stuff such as "spit" out of them. I think this is the most important problem of all: Urinals in public restrooms aren't used correctly by stupid people, who will intentionally toss in their chewing gum, cigarette butts, used condoms, and other garbage, either because they are trouble makers just looking to vandalize, or because they are intoxicated, or because they just don't give a darn. Private restrooms, hopefully, will have more conscientious caretakers, because the owners have to live with the things.

I have no problem with agreeing that low-flush toilets should definitely be installed as opposed to high flush ones. But I'm not so sure about "no-flush".

Better approach to Water Conservation

[bugmenot_rocks]

I have been doing some research on the notion of "Decentralizing the Poo Structure," and came across a very appropriate article, " Re-engineering the toilet for sustainable wastewater management ," which discusses the "NoMix Toilet" concept. Essentially (for those unable to RTFA), this has a separate flush mode for urine, enabling it to use a fraction of the normal water needed. Personally, this sounds better than putting oil into the black water stream or disposable filters. The NoMix, combined with a storage tank or with a specialized wastewater exit infrastructure allows for many possibilities:
You can store and release into the regular wastewater stream during non-peak hours (e.g. NOT during a storm or early morning); you can reuse--since urine is so high in phosphorous and other useful nutrients it's perfect for agriculture, especially organic farms; etc. Reuse offers you the possibility of saving significantly more water than the "no-flush urinal." Redirecting from the normal stream is then not only useful, but important and necessary because the current WasteWater Treatment System is unable to handle all the nutrients it is currently receiving.

This is definitely the way to go, separating streams of wastewater. Granted it seems very difficult, but then you have to factor in the need to build up current systems further, and you start to realize what a great alternative this can be. To me, this is all notably suited to areas that lack good sanitation infrastructure, so that they can start off right the first time.

Supposedly, people can learn from others mistakes, or so I've been told! Well, that's my 5 paise. To see some of the other interesting links I dug up, or read the paper I'm working on, you can check my files for my Natural Resource Economics class.
All from me, hasta luego, -Ajay

Re:Better approach to Water Conservation

[Morgalyn]

If I had any modpoints left today I'd mod you interesting, because I found a lot of what you said (and the links) to be interesting (more reading later!). However, it seems like the majority of /. who are suggesting alternative /toilets/ that are 'smart' about urine seem to forget that half the population uses toilet paper when they urinate... how do these NoMix toilets handle all that toilet paper? Will they have a third setting for when there are OTHER substances involved than just urine or feces? (I'm thinking: women on their periods, people vomiting, etc.)

thats right, bottled water companies steal water

[Anonymous Coward]

thats right, bottled water companies steal a lot of water,
robbing local communities to export water to the desert

well move from the fucking desert ya losers

So how often do US urinals flush?

[jjeffrey]

Are most urinals in the US the kind that you flush after each use (be that via handle or motion sensor)?

The vast majority in the UK just have a large tank high up on the wall, and a timer flushes them all every hour or so. They normally don't smell particularly (except the infamous "public toilets" that only the very desperate use) and I guess this saves a lot of water over ones that flushed every time?

Re:So how often do US urinals flush?

[Surt]

There's a whole range, but the basic options are manual lever, motion sensor, and timed. Motion sensor are by far the most common in public accomodations in the US. Up to maybe 10 years ago, it was all levers, then the motion sensors took over. Timed are comparatively rare, but you do see them. Another common category is 'broken and flushing constantly'.

mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not informative. I work in Redwood City, CA and (as other repliers have noted) there certainly are not "alot of" Redwood trees there.

Also: even a lot of people in the Bay Area don't realize how dry the greater Silicon valley really is. If it wasn't for the piped-in water that's used in abundance it would be pretty dry here. Not quite a desert but certainly not very green either.

The thread-starter is correct: CA has major water issues coming up.

Low Flow = No Go.

[TenLow]

Low Flow toilets and water conservation in general dont work. I've yet to see a low flow toilet that actually flushed properly, not counting the "power assist" models that had been discussed earlier in the comments. Those things work.

But on to the water conservation idea in general. It could work. Just not the way its currently handled. Growing up, every time they announced a shortage of water, my parents would flush the toilet an extra time, water the lawn more than it needed, leave the water running while doing the dishes, trying to use as much water as possible. Why you ask? Because when rationing of water starts, you are given an allotment of water based on past usage over the last few months. The first time this happend, my parents had tried to save water as much as they could. So they used something like 40% less water than normal. Then rationing happend, and they were forced to use 30% less than had been used over the last few months, meaning even if they kept on saving water the way they had been, they would get hit with HUGE overuse fees. They arent the only ones in town who do that. So at least locally, water conservation just plain doesnt work.

Talk about ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about your pissing contests.

Lets not get pissy about it

[sl4shd0rk]

after all, it's not really wasting water as matter cannot be destroyed.

Most urinals are mounted too high

[jimcooncat]

I'm 5'8" (173 centimeters for those not metrically impaired). I don't consider myself too much shorter than the average. So why do I have to stand on my tiptoes to avoid touching the urinal rims? When I'm done, I have to shake like hell or I end up with a dribble when I put it away.

Why do plumbers have to mount these so damn high? Most urinals have lots of vertical aiming area. If they mounted them eight inches (20 cm) lower, what portion of the population would not be comfortable with it?

If they don't have a kiddy urinal, I usually go in the hopper. That wastes water, but I feel as if I have no choice.

Disclaimer: I don't usually expose myself in public fora, but this just pisses me off.

Re:Most urinals are mounted too high

[DeBeuk]

Yeah, especially the shallow ones with a tap.

Re:Most urinals are mounted too high

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the "Fireman's rule". If you can't reach the fire, reel out more hose.

Urine is NOT unsanitary

[Anonymous Coward]

The post says the opposition to low flow is disease. There is not a sanitation issue with urine! Yeah it stinks, gross, etc... but it is not a public health issue. As far as I know no diseases are caught from urine. Now feces on the other hand... or either hand/foot/chin...

Unions

[maino82]

There is no reason (sanitation wise) why these fixtures should not be installed. The only reason the plumbers do not want to see this implemented is because it effectively cuts the amount of work they have in half, which means they don't get paid as much. Because these fixtures do not require a main water feed, and only need a drain, the amount of piping that needs to be run to the fixtures is cut in half. These fixtures have been declared "illegal" in some municipalities due to the strong influence of plumbers unions.

Wide spread in Denmark

[barkholt]

If have seen them lots of places here in denmark, they seem to work perfectly well - though I have seen one or two occurrences where that oily substance has entered the urinal.

Nice to know that it was not someone with a terrible disease that stood there.

Waterless stinks

[henni16]

At my university faculties with high water consumption got those "waterless" urinals installed to save water(*).
THEY STINK!
I guess they aren't designed for the number of students using them
as you can hardly breath in the bathrooms now and your eyes start watering if you enter them.
Those "water savers" have driven me to only use the toilets and they are models that flush the whole tank.
Installing water tanks like the models with a "stop flushing"-button probably would have saved more water.

If you don't have windows or a superb ventilation system for the bathroom: don't install them or you will have to issue gas masks for people to survive the smell.

(*) Well, had the bureaucrats bothered to ask the faculty before simply sending in the workers breaking out the old urinals one morning,
somebody might have told them that the unusual high water consumption in our building just MIGHT have something to do with the roofed over gardens in the inner courtyards and their automated irrigation system.. ;-)

Economic pressure does not always work

[pkphilip]

Don't speak too soon. I live in a part of the world where to get even moderately palatable water we have to dig borewells which go 150 ft or more in depth.

When it gets this bad, you don't want any new high rises in your neighbourhood because in a single high rise there could be 50+ families sucking the little water that is remaining at such speeds that entire neighbourhoods go dry. The situation is so bad in some parts around here that there is ABSOLUTELY NO water even at depths of 300 ft or more.

When it gets this bad, you also don't want your rich neighbours to suck out all the water leaving the rest of the community completely dry.

There are people rich enough in these parts to have swimming pools even as people on the same street have to lug water from miles away.

Please don't live in this utopia where economic pressures somehow lead to a just and fair sharing of natural resources. It has never happenned and it may never will.

We have legislation now which prevents to a small extent the complete wastage of water. But the situation may deteriorate to the point where the state may have to ration out the water for each family. Sometimes desperate measures are needed to prevent total collapse of the system - sometimes the state just has to step in to ensure that all citizens have enough; socialism is not all bad sometimes.

Re:Economic pressure does not always work

[Anonymous Coward]

We have legislation now which prevents to a small extent the complete wastage of water. But the situation may deteriorate to the point where the state may have to ration out the water for each family.

Why? Obviously, what should be rationed is *how
many people are allowed to live there*.

If you want to make laws, make some that encourage people to go away. Keep at it until
the population declines to a point where it
is in balance with the available resources.

You have to where I live

[Chemisor]

In San Francisco, a bathroom is all I can afford on my salary.

hippies

[charliebear]

if it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down. or so the hippies used to say.

it's at my workplace

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

and there is a smell, no doubt about it.

A lot of ignorance it seems

[Izeickl]

There seems to be a huge number of people on here who dont realise that there are water problems out there...yes even in America, so this is one time you cant just ignore it.

One link here http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special06/articl es/0722colorado-conflict.html

points out some of the issues. Water is something that will be causing wars in the future as countries sitting on the same major rivers fight for its resource. YES you can waste water, what comes out of the tap does not just go straight back into usable water and fall as rain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2943946. stm Why world's taps are running dry

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-26-wat er-usat_x.htm Water shortages will leave world in dire straits

Some other quotes ripped...

" - The Colorado River Reservoir System will not be able to meet all of the demands placed on it -- including water supply for Southern California and the inland Southwest -- because reservoir levels will be reduced by more than one-third and releases by as much as 17 percent. The greatest effects will be on lower Colorado River Basin states. All users of Colorado River hydroelectric power will be affected by lower reservoir levels and flows, which will result in reductions in hydropower generation by as much as 40 percent.

- In the Central Valley of California, it will be impossible to meet current water system performance levels so that impacts will be felt in reduced reliability of water supply deliveries, hydropower production and instream flows. With less fresh water available, the Sacramento Delta could experience a dramatic increase in salinity and subsequent ecosystem disruption. "

Policitical Mandates

[jscotta44]

Rarely work as intended. The better solution is education and incentive and even a little shame.

Re:Policitical Mandates

[CyberDong]

Exactly. For instance, where I live, the city is offering incentives to switch to low-flow models. They point out the monetary savings and ecological advantages, and then offer a $50 rebate on a bunch of models.

Re:Policitical Mandates

[Firethorn]

Do they have reviews or some sort of rating system available?

My grandparents have two toilets. One of them is a low flow, which doesn't get used for #2 because of the clogging problems it suffers. Of course, it might be an early model, but still. Anybody who's suffered from these problems are going to be very hesitant in purchasing one.

Some sort of rating system to help people understand that the specific model that they're getting is far superior to the one they had problems with at a friend, neighbor, relative's house.

Re:Policitical Mandates

[CyberDong]

They have a link on the page to this, with more info (including independent testing of several models).

Re:Policitical Mandates

[Firethorn]

The site you mentioned seemed more concerned with material after it left the toilet bowl and continued into the sewer pipes.

While it covered different types of toilets, it didn't seem to cover brands, models, etc. I'm not so concerned with how far the mass makes it down the pipes per flush, I'm concerned about it leaving the bowl in the first place without the usage of a plunger or resorting to flushing three times.

Re:Policitical Mandates

[NateTech]

My wife's parents had some kind of low water usage toilet installed at their house that had some kind of vortex generating crazy-assed system in it that made every flush super-effective.

It also sounded like it was sucking down half the bathroom and part of the main floor of the house with every flush.

It was funny to watch the unsuspecting use it during family gatherings -- the flush heard round the world.

Re:Policitical Mandates

[Firethorn]

And that could get annoying...

Especially late at night. I wouldn't want to be afraid of waking up everybody else in the house/neighborhood when I have to go in the middle of the night.

What can I say? I'm demanding about the performane of my porcelain throne. I hadn't previously considered Decibals to be a needed metric...

Flushlesstoilets or 1 lb. of beef

[dinodriver]

These flushless toilets claim to save 25,000 gallons of water, right? That happens to be the amount of water that is spent growing one pound of beef. So instead of changing your toilet, just eat less meat and you'll save more water.

Re:Flushlesstoilets or 1 lb. of beef

[Grishnakh]

How much water does it take to grow one pound of fish (assuming farm-raised, not wild-caught) or chicken? I like fish and chicken better than beef anyway. Especially salmon and roughy.

Someone's got to say it...

[Eric MB Lard MD]

Quiet news day, or is someone just taking the piss?

Proper way to wash hands

[bluGill]

To correctly wash your hands: do to the towel dispenser and unroll enough towel to dry your hands when done - leave the towel hanging. (if the towel is not on a roll you skip this step). Turn the water on, and adjust to the temperature you like. Wet hands. put soap on hands. Lather for at least 30 seconds, making sure to get the spaces between fingers, and under nails (as best you can). Rinse hands. Remove towel and dry hands. Use towel to turn off faucet. Throw towel away. Leave bathroom by push on door with your shoulder (the doors are supposed to open out, if not use the towel to open door, then your foot holds the door open while you throw the towel at the can).

This is easier than it sounds. I always do it this way, but mostly because I like to confuse other people when they see me do it.

The Women's should

[bluGill]

Or so some women tell me. restrooms.org (Link is work safe, but from afar is looks like it is not, so don't try it. For that matter if you are a male you won't find anything interesting here)

Re:Get your $#!^ together,

[tektrix]

Hey friendly pessimist, at least one neighboring state to Cali is a significantly more sustainable location than just about anywhere else in the entire country, so there, nyaaaa! (yeah, yer troll worked . . . :P )

we have waterless urinals at work

[EccentricAnomaly]

We have waterless urinals at work (overall they are very common in southern california), and yes they smell because the urine builds up on the sides and stinks.

I spoke to the janitor once about them, because they seemed like they would be very hard to clean... and he said that they were very difficult and very unpleasant to clean. He also said that they break all of the time and the oil cartridges need to be replaced every few months (even though the manufacturer claims otherwise) or the urinals will overflow with a very nasty mixture of urine and oil.... and the cartridges are very expensive.

Waterless urinals seem to work fine

[Rich Klein]

I've used waterless urinals in an office building on route 9 in Southboro, Massachusetts (between ACMI and Quizno's). I didn't see (or smell) any drawbacks except that it feels wrong to walk away from a urinal without flushing.

No there's no chance to catch a disease this way

[DrYak]

. .although im sure the chances are minute.

The most widespread bacteria that can spread thru urine I can think of are Chlamydia and Gonorrhoea.
None of them can infect thru skin contact.
They NEED contact with mucosa, like during a sexual intercourse.
So, unless you manage to splash back into your eyes, risks are 0%.

(Note: I'm diplomed doctor, but not specialised in venerology. Maybe I'm missing a critically widespread bug, but I don't think so)

Just spent a year with these!

[Balthisar]

Waterless urinals. My company had replaced them to look environmentally good in a drought area. The cartridges cost more than water ever did. The toilets really stunk if not attended to on a timely basis. The backsplash area was never rinsed, and this contributed additional odors. Luckily we were all engineers and didn't put stuff in the toilet that more immature people would tend to put there.

Those are just the downsides. Not really an upside, other than saving a little bit of a completely renewable and cheap, inexpensive resource -- I mean we're not talking about Tunisia. So, yeah, they're acceptable in a work environment, but I wouln't want one at home.

Experiences with waterless urinals

[Rogue2u]

My company installed these waterless urinals from Falcon about 5 months ago. They were installed as a part of an initiative to satisfy the US Green Building Council standards for our office building. The filters claim to be good for 3000 uses, which brought many jokes about having an odometer instead of a flusher. They urinals work fine and there is no smell as long as the filters are replaced when needed. If you do buy one of these, MAKE SURE you get extra filters as it can be quite an unpleasant experience when they run out. The smell become increasingly apparent and the urine tends to back up and not drain away as quickly. Other than that, I have no complaints and if it's helping our environment in some way I don't see where it's any less convenient than a flushing urinal.

Chicago tried them......

[ShoNuff00007]

They put them in at Ohare International Airport for a while. The urinals stunk of "Ammonia". I was sooo glad that they went back to the flushing kind. I could only assume that they were installed at the request of some lady who was angry with all men.

If you really want to save water...

[MSDos-486]

You could jut go outside and piss in the woods

Toilet Humor

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this really a worthwhile debate or just an excuse for toilet humor?

Imprimis, there is no excuse for bathroom humor - at least not past the age of five or six.

Secundus, there is no need for an excuse for bathroom humor here: this is slashdot.

Okay, the rest of this exposition is left as an exercise for those who can add one plus two...

If your toilet ever overflows (was Re:Get your $#!

[Laebshade]

If your toilet is ever in danger of overflowing and you're quick enough, turn the water supply to the toilet off. The reason it's overflowing is because water is still flowing to the toilet bowl but isn't being allowed to exit. Cut off the water supply (via the turn knob) and it won't overflow, then you can use a plunger at your leisure instead of frantically trying to catch it before it becomes a big mess. I can't tell you how many times this has saved me.

Are you sure?

[cagle_.25]

According to this, HR 776 (1995) outlawed installation of high flush toilets. The fact that he found one for cheap is probably a reflection of demand, not supply.

Out the window

[Tandoori Haggis]

When I was at school, we had wall urinals. I soon realised that if I changed my aim and adjusted the flow I could piss over the top of the wall and out the window.

One day I walked outside and saw the assistant headteacher looking studeously at an empty metal cage waste bin on the other side of the toilet window. I guess he was trying to figure out why there was liquid flowing from the bin but no empty drinks containers!!!

ObSeinfeldQuote

[Anonymous Coward]

Jerry: I went to the movies last night, I went to the bathroom and I unbuckled a little wobbly and the buckle kind of banged against the side of the urinal. So...(throws away belt) that's it!

Clare: So, you're insane?

Jerry: Oh yes, quite.

Experiences from Vienna/Austria

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of these urinals are installed at the University of Vienna. I think they're pretty neat, and seem to work most of the time. The only thing I discovered is that they tend to run over; but that might be an implementation issue of this particular brand. But most of the time they work and you really don't smell anything.

Waterless Urinals at Walt Disney World Resort

[KeithGap]

There are several implementations of these no-flush urinals at Walt Disney World Resort in Florida. For one, the Blizzard Beach Water Park has them. They seem to work great. Haven't noticed any issues with odor or blockages, so far, and as we all know, the toilets in theme parks get lots of use!

Re:If your toilet ever overflows (was Re:Get your

[Dread_ed]

Most toilets have the flow knob stuffed way behind them. Reaching for this (for most people) puts your FACE uncomfortably near the bowl.

I just hope you haven't had any unfortunate colissions with floating debris in your attempt to circumvent an impending overflow.

The real question is...

[writermike]

Why can't men use the urinals properly?

It's amazing how many people completely miss the thing. When this happens, over time a large stream of drops grows further and further away from the thing as other pee-ers attempt to refrain from stepping in the missed shots.

Maybe before we figure out whether we need to flush, we should put people in the bathrooms to train people in Urinal Etiquette.

Already done!

[thejaded1]

This has been achieved actually. Researchers found that they can significantly reduce splash damage by designing a urinal, with the only caveat being you have to hit a hot spot. So, how do you get the average male to hit a target, when the usual response is -not- to hit a target?

The solution, was to have a simple insect, the fly, etched on said target.

According to the net, first introduced in an Amsterdam airport. (http://www.urinal.net/schiphol/)

Googling for "urinal fly", or some variant, leads to a bunch of sources, although I can't seem to find the original news article about it.

Disease? What disease?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweat and saliva will spread some diseases. Urine is sterile and actually kills microbes. I'd worry about the smell, not disease...

Flush vs. No flush...how about more urinals

[cnerd2025]

I was at a baseball game earlier this year (Cubs v. Cardinals) and the bathroom was completely filled. There was a trough (a no flush) urinal, but some drunk dudes (there are many in Wrigley Field) just open pissed in a sink. That was absolutely disgusting. How about more urinals (or perhaps sinks labeled "for drunks' piss only") instead of arguing about flush v. no flush.

In the US, treaties have the force of law

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in the constitution

waterless urinals smell

[plbg32]

i am a plumber here in seattle, some comrades in the trade installed these waterless urinals in the Smith tower here, all though the bldg. well it was not long after that the complaints of the smellls started coming. so i guess if you want to save water you can live with the smell. from a professional point of view i think that they are unsanitary. that flush of water rinses the porcilen of the urine. i know that 99% of the readers here have never had to remove the drain piping from a urinal from behind a wall but its amazing how much scale buils up inside the pipes from a urinal(really one of my least favorite jobs best left to the apptrentice). without water this scale will become even thicker faster causing a failer of the drain. so it ends up costing the customer more in the long run. and finally for those who think i am overpaid , whats it worth to you to stick your hands in a bucket of sh#&....

We have a few at work

[foldedspace]

IF they were maintained and cleaned, they'd be fine. The janitors are overworked and often neglect them, so they don't work as well as they should. Just because they don't flush doesn't mean they don't have to be cleaned. And I've heard the blue "juice" that seals the drain is very expensive, so it doesn't go in the drain as much as it should.

IF people that used the urinals were *cough* caring or at least responsible adults, they'd be decent substitutes. These would be a huge problem in a prison, high school, sports stadium or just about anywhere the public is likely to vandalize things.

Cost

[bill_mcgonigle]

Cost.

You can go to Home Depot and get a toilet for $79. Instead I got an American Standard Champion (IIRC) "never-clog" toilet. It's low-water-volume and when you flush it lifts a cone up in the tank (no float/chain problems) and makes a hell of a lot of noise (from turbulence, not a motor) and clears the bowl of anything you can throw at it (smaller than a cat). It keeps an extra flush's worth of water in the tank to prevent sweating and increase head pressure (and for the second-flush should you initially come upon a non-flushed toilet).

It was > $250 for the in-stock white unit.

But I never have to use a plunger or fiddle with the fill arm and it's a decent height for a 6'3" man, so I consider it well worth the money.

But for some (not so mysterious) reason, Home Depot still carries $79 toilets.

Re:Get your $#!^ together,

[ONOIML8]

"Never really trolled before, but hell, might as well give it a try."

Welcome to Slashdot.

Now that you've started you'll find that it comes quite naturally. In fact, there will be times in which you are serious and don't believe you're trolling yet someone else will recognize it and flag as such.

Again, welcome to Slashdot.

(The second welcome, something we call a dup, is something of a tradition around here.)

.

that's pretty funny...

[YesIAmAScript]

It's actually a great parallel to what Bush 43 said about oil prices. He said we don't need CAFE regulations, we don't need producer regulations (well, except I guess $2B in exploration subsidies to the oil companies this year). He said let the market decide. If we run low on oil, the price will rise and people will find a more economic substitute.

Now, let's apply that same extension to what you said.

We'll just let the useage of water be regulated by the price of water and vice-versa. So, people will just use water until they can't afford to buy it anymore, and then they'll find an acceptable cheaper substitute.

Let them eat cake!

I don't think either scheme will work really. The moment water became truly scarce, there would be massive misery, and likely and economic collapse, and thus more massive misery.

An ounce of prevention is worth way more than a pound of cure here.

Waterless Brand Urinals are Okay

[oldCoder]

I shop in a mall that has the Waterless urinals and regular stalls. The urinals work fine. The stalls do also, of course. The rest rooms are very heavily used.

This place is well-maintained, better than most, so that may be a factor.

Many toilets outside the US flush better than my low-flush in the US. It's about 6 years old. It works but I don't like it much.

Fellow PA person - TESTIFY!

[Chordonblue]

Your 'Flood! Draught!' rant was right on target. Here in Lancaster Country it always seems like it's feast or famine. The way I understand it is that we have very little in the way of 'batteries' for water or permanent aquifers. In Central PA, most of our water needs come from rivers like the Susquehanna which, depending on the Winter that year, might be raging in the Summer, or to the point where it's barely a puddle.

Of course this wasn't such an issue when Central PA was mostly inhabited by farmers. PLENTY of water to go around then. But if you look at the rising population you can easily see why what comes downstream over the course of a full year is so critical to providing a steady water supply.

Re:Fellow PA person - TESTIFY!

[cybrthng]

I live in lancaster and would love to see low water flushing urinals/toilets and more conservation..

It's not about the day to day weather impact in how our water resources are doing, but in the long term impact and how we can better manage what we use.

If not for anything but a cost savings.. All of these anti low flow toilet people need to get a mortgage and a water bill and then come back and post on this subject. I bet these are the same people that won't buy high efficient light bulbs because they cost a tad more. The initial impact will be more ofcourse but the utilization will be less and the cost savings will returen over the products lifetime and well if you know you spent more in the first place you might respect it more.

garbage in garbage out.

large members

[Anonymous Coward]

For some of us, certain anatomical dimensions make such contact unfortunately inevitable.

Re:large members

[Anonymous Coward]

did you think for one second that your post would be considered clever or witty? "ooh, i have a huge cock! it rubs the inside of urinals when i pee!"

have you filled out your college applications yet? and did you pick a safety school? take out the garbage when you're done with that.

Re:large members

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be one of those who think that the life of women with extremely large breasts is pure sunshine as well, no?

Surprise: A huge cock can be a serious pain in the ass. Sounds like a pun but is a valid problem as well. Is it cool that people avoid having sex with you because it hurts? Oh well, who cares, this is slashdot after all.

On the other hand, while urinals are hardly a problem because you can always stand a little farther, where do you place a foot-long organ when taking a crap? Well in your lap of course so that you look like you were attempting a self-blowjob. Just remember to perform only one kind of excrementation at a time.

What about clothes? What if you don't like hip-hop and wish to wear normal-sized trousers? Do you realize how annoying it is when you get a hard-on? But hey, you can easily escape uncomfortable situations by fainting. There's only so much blood in your body.

Oh, having lots of that stuff down there has other interesting consequences as well.. like to the body temperature. You can't imagine how nice it is to feel sweaty all the time while feeling cold at the very same all the time. Unfortunately warming up the testicles still isn't a foolproof birth-control method. (Oh wait I forgot.. but it wouldn't matter anyway as filling the thing up is so damn hard that you are practically impotent anyway)

But think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

One reason for the adoption of cars over horse - pollution. Piles of pollution all over the cities, breeding grounds for vermin and pestilance. Yes, manure has obvious alternate uses, but the cost of transport was prohibitive.

Toss in some abandoned dead draft animals and cars start looking like the clean modern alternative.

you mean besides

[geekoid]

"Are there any real drawbacks? "

You mean besides varies strains of hepititas?
Sorry, I think I'll stick with the health care recommendations for reducing the spread of disease.

Sadly, eviromentalists* have become unthinking, knee jerking, anti-corporate, idiots more bent on have the term 'enviromentalist' tagged on to their name then actually thinking about responsible application of enviromental techniques.

*Not all enviromentalists, but a sure lot of them.

Re:Get your $#!^ together,

[Patik]

Oh dear, California cannot provide for its population, Boo Hoo, do yourself a favor an cry a friggin river.

Well that would certainly solve their water-shortage problems. You, sir, are a genius!

Minor correction

[geekoid]

" Urine is sterile when it first comes out."
Assuming it comes out of a person with no health issues.

It's really a *distribution* issue, not a shortage

[King_TJ]

Maybe some see it as "nitpicking" - but it irritates me when I hear about these renewable natural resources in a state of "shortage". The fact is, all of the water we "use up" has to go someplace. Every gallon we take a shower or bath with or wash our dishes with goes back down the drain, returning to pretty much the same facility that pumped it out to our home to begin with.

A small amount, of course, evaporates, but that just ends up raining back down on us again.

Rather than widespread panic about our toilets flushing too much water and "using it all up", it would make a lot more sense to study the larger issue; water redistribution and processing. If you live in a natural desert climate, of course you're going to lack large amounts of drinkable, clean water. Therefore, you need to live elsewhere OR devise a system of transporting the water in from places where it's much more plentiful. California sits right along a thing called an ocean, which just happens to consist of LOTS of water. Desalination technology advancements should make that quite usable, really. It's just been ignored to a large extent due to cost.

actually, it's pretty sad...

[argoff]

You clearly don't understand a free market. The same could be said about food too. We all need food, nobody can survive without it. Funny thing is, that those countries that controll and regulate the supply of food - have, without exception, more starvation than those that don't.

To flush or not to flush - waterless urinals

[cmdrVimes]

Seems that these are a good idea, but the execution is a bit poor. We have them at work, but the shape of the urinals is wrong. You walk out of the bathroom with a significant amount of "splash back" damage. Because of this most guys use the regular toilets.. I bet that really drives up the water bill.

same to you

[argoff]

Plese see, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169371&cid=141 19637

Re:same to you

[Omestes]

Cite something.

Beyond that, what the free-market does to water supplies contracted out to corporations has borne out a common trend of folly.

Re:same to you

[argoff]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169371&cid=141 20725

Flush?

[Tacky the Penguin]

I use a tree.

To Flush or Not to Flush

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down.

Life in the desert

[Gorimek]

As someone working in Redwood City, I have to say it sure rains a lot here for a desert. And the frequency of floods and mudslides also seems fairly high.

Your dirty hands contaminate the Towell disp

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you do maximize your hands being clean, but screw over everyone else by using your dirty hands to dispense the supposedly clean paper towell dispenser. While it seems that this strategy maximizes your cleanlyness, it actually works against you, because you wind up touching other things that the people who touched the paper towell dispenser touch later on.

Please be considerate of others and don't touch/use the paper towell dispenser with your dirty hands.

Re:Your dirty hands contaminate the Towell disp

[EvilMagnus]

Most paper towel dispensers (not all, but most) are either the 'pull down' type (where you only touch the towel you end up using) or have a level-action which can be used by an elbow.

I'd say door handle contamination from people who don't wash their hands at all is a far bigger infection vector than the folks who try to clean their hands properly.

If it's yellow, let it mellow...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down...

Home-use power flush toilets

[Tacky the Penguin]

Commercial pressure-flush toilets do, in fact, need high-volume supply plumbing. This eliminates the need for a reservoir tank.

Home units have a pressure tank (if you lift the lid, you'll see a small sealed tank). The tank empties quickly when you flush, and takes a while to refill -- just like a standard toilet.

By the way, those old pull-chain units with the tank over your head are pressure flush toilets. You get about 1 PSI for every two feet of elevation.

Desert Golf in Vegas not so bad

[protolith]

Here in Las Vegas, the golf courses are heavily restricted in water use. A few have wells that are supported by the perenial yield in the groundwater basin, the rest are using reclaimed water (treated wastewater used for irrigation), As for the casinos here that so many wave their finger at, They use grey water for the water features (Bellagio and Mirage fountains) and the only significant consumptive use is the water lost to evaporation in the air conditioning systems. The water used for toilets and showers is treated and returned to the Colorado River and a return flow credit is recieved. The single largest use of water in Vegas is single family home turf irrigation.

Re:If your toilet ever overflows (was Re:Get your

[Laebshade]

I've never come across a toilet where I couldn't reach the flow knob easily.

could you support that statement?

[YesIAmAScript]

I've never heard anything like that said, especially unequivocably.

Could you give me a good two or three examples of countries where the regulation of the supply of food causes starvation? Not countries like North Korea where starvation causes regulation of the supply of food.

Anyway, I think I understand free markets pretty well. We found this out in California when the power started going out. We found out the meaning of "whatever the market will bear". But just because companies found they could charge more for electricty and people would still buy it doesn't mean it benefited society as a whole. Nor did it help those (thankfully few) whose health was adversely affected by loss of power.

And I know I surely wouldn't want the same market speculators affecting the price of water who are affecting the price of gas and other petroleum products.

Re:could you support that statement?

[argoff]

Could you give me a good two or three examples of countries where the regulation of the supply of food causes starvation? Not countries like North Korea where starvation causes regulation of the supply of food.

First off, the burden of proof is for you to give the examples. You're the one that wants to place these impositions and restrictions on what people would normally pay and trade - it almost sounds disengenuious, but for the sake of the facts.....

.... We cannot find exceptions to this rule, no matter where we look: the recent famines of Ethiopia, Somalia, or other dictatorial regimes; famines in the Soviet Union in the 1930s; China's 1958-61 famine with the failure of the Great Leap Forward; or earlier still, the famines in Ireland or India under alien rule. China, although it was in many ways doing much better economically than India, still managed (unlike India) to have a famine, indeed the largest recorded famine in world history: Nearly 30 million people died in the famine of 1958-61, while faulty governmental policies remained uncorrected for three full years.... -- Sen, A., Journal of Democracy, 1999. Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen.

And what were those "faulty governmental policies", they were price controlls, rationing, and government controlling the land market.

Anyway, I think I understand free markets pretty well. We found this out in California when the power started going out. We found out the meaning of "whatever the market will bear". But just because companies found they could charge more for electricty and people would still buy it doesn't mean it benefited society as a whole. Nor did it help those (thankfully few) whose health was adversely affected by loss of power.

Do you understand markets? Do you live in CA? I do, and they did NOT deregulate electricity. They deregulated wholesale electricity, but not retail electricity. When the price went up, all the retailers were forced to sell at a loss, and all the wholesalers started to divert electricity away from the state by hook or crook. It is only when all the retailers were on the brink of collapse and the whole system started to collase that the state decided to let the price loose causing a freakin nasty correction. It was state regulation that caused the imbalance to begin with, once again, it's disengenuious to now say now we need the state to fix it.

And I know I surely wouldn't want the same market speculators affecting the price of water who are affecting the price of gas and other petroleum products.

While demand from China, and Katrina caused oil and gas to go up, what has really caused it to go up is http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/Current/ . So lets see, they drastically increase the amount of dollars in circulation, and now people are shocked when those same dollars have less purchasing power, and they think speculators are screwing them? Yeah right. I don't want the same participants affecting the water supply, who are affecting the oil price.

PS. Starting next year, they will stop publishing the M3 money supply statistics. It's because they, and the US has more debt than can ever be paid off anymore, and we all know what they gotta do. (hint: print money) I wonder how many fools are going to blame it on "speculators" as the price of their gas goes to $30/gallon, which it will, and when their utilities jump to $3500 per month, which they will. I would love to feel pity for all those poor people who are predestined to get screwed, but unfortunately, instead of blaming it on themselves for trusting the government (via the fed) to manipulate the dollar - they will almost certainly blame it on people like me (who are prepared for it) with accusations of "speculation" and greed.

Please pee on me...

[SonicSpike]

A friend of mine took his girlfriend to the Virgin Islands and surrounding area (he worked for the airlines). They were walking down the beach and he went to go sit on a rock and apparently got stuck by a sea urchin in his butt.

He said he was in such pain he couldn't move. He knew that amonia would help relieve the pain so he begged and begged and begged his girlfriend to pee on his butt. She eventually did and he said it was an instant relief.

Kinda kinky, eh? ha ha ha

Paranoid eh?

[SonicSpike]

How many people have a survival manual within arm's reach of them? Do you happen to be wearing tinfoil on your head too?

lol

Actually, to be completely honest, I do have a copy of the Boy Scout field book http://www.bsafieldbook.org/ on my shelf here in my home office. As an Eagle Scout I tend to use it for reference every once in a while.

Prior art

[Cobralisk]

Well, I can write my name in the snow, or draw a smiley, but I'm not sure I would call it "art".

SoCal employer has them

[ehovland]

Our waterless urinals were provided at no cost by the city our business is in.

We started out with a plastic frame flushless urinal. They did not last long. They exhibited clogging or backup problems almost immediately. Now we have switched to these porcelian jobs from Falcon. They seem to last much longer between filter changes and do a better job of catching splash.

The Japanese solved this years ago

[Ichijo]

Refill the tank with water you've used to wash your hands with. After all, you don't need 100% clean water to flush down your waste, and you're going to wash your hands anyway after you use the toilet. (You do wash your hands after using the toilet, don't you?)

The Japanese have had toilets for a while now with a spigot on the top of the tank. When you flush the toilet, clean water comes out of the spigot (with which you can wash your hands) and drains into the tank. Check out the picture here.

Re:The Japanese solved this years ago

[belg4mit]

In dry climates grey water is best used for irrigation. In soggy places rain water can be
used for flushing. Here at MIT the Stata center collects rain water for toilets, but where
I work in facilities we've been "testing" a waterless urinal for over a year. It works great,
my only complaint is that the custodial staff need to be sure to keep the oil topped up,
and maybe spray the thing down with orange oil occasionally (to clear the surface of dried
spots and errant hair)... they are largely dependent upon a slick smooth surface to function
properly.

Preach brotha!

[heybiff]

I have personally witnessed my employers -- educational institutions, wasting water by the metric tonne with little regard for cost. I've joked about the pump rooms with inches of water on the floor ( where we stored defunct computer equipment) 24/7 and makeshift shields to prevent the "weepage" from spraying the motors.

The cost is "mostly" a fixed cost for large institutional customers in my region, and unless the cost signifigantly changes and draws attention to itself, nothing will be done. You have to be a maintanance worker to see teh waste firsthand, or be psychic.

By the by, I'm about to purchase my first home, and plan on replacing all the major fixtures and appliances with more enviro friendly counterparts as I can because I do care. Plus they DO lower bills. I plan to live a long time, I'll get my money's worth.

Heybiff

We got one

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we've got one at work. seems fine, actually seems very clean. It's white and futuristic looking. So much so that someone put an apple sticker on the back wall of it. Everytime I use it I think of it as the ibog. ;-)

My waterless urinal review

[Anonymous Coward]

I have actually used these things. The bottom line is that they don't work. They clog up and leave a puddle of pee that cannot be flushed away. Even worse, assuming the urinal isn't clogged up, it is not designed well. If you are not very careful, you will get back-spray all over your pants.

I'm all for water conservation, but we need to wait for version 2.0 of these urinals.

One is at Harry/Whole Foods, Duluth GA

[Anonymous Coward]

I wondered what the hell it was, it was the BIGGEST urinal I've ever seen, saw a little plaque on the wall beside it explaining it, decided to use the regular toilet instead. So much for these things saving water...

Re:One is at Harry/Whole Foods, Duluth GA

[chawly]

Save water - urinate against a tree. It worked before urinals were invented. Natural water filter: water is immediately put to good use: the tree is needed to improve our environment. It doesn't smell bad. What's stopping you.

Atavism

[Anonymous Coward]

Atavistic is not the word you're looking for.

Re:Atavism

[CaptainCarrot]

Yes it is. It's an insulting colloquialism for "throwback".

bullshit

[neuroxmurf]

We have these at my employer and they work fine, but what pisses me off is this "saves 24,000 gallons of water per year per urinal" bullshit.

24,000 gallons is 90,849 liters (plus change). The urinals we have here that they are replacing use 1.8 liters per flush. So 24,000 gallons per year is 50,472+ flushes per year. That works out to one flush EVERY TEN MINUTES, every hour of every day of the year. If you consider 8 hours per business day, that comes to every 2.46 minutes.

There is no way in hell that urinals average a flush every 2.46 minutes, not by a long shot.

Re:bullshit

[chawly]

Question of mathematics, is it not ? Glad somebody else had the thought. Congratulations, and welcome to the club. Thinking about a signature "Urinate against a tree - natural water filter, and the water is put to good use immediately !" What do you think ?

wow, a fiat currency guy

[YesIAmAScript]

If I had known, I wouldn't have bothered responding.

Suffice to say that the long-term inflationary policies of the US government isn't what caused gas to reach an inflation-adjusted low and then an all-time high within 12 months of each other. I mean, if I said "gas is $3 now, and it was $1 in 1980, what's the deal?" it'd be one thing. But when gas prices triples in a year and inflation doesn't, you really need to look a little deeper than complaining about the money supply.

I have to say, I lived through the stagflationary days of the 70s, and I do fear their return. But I'm more worried about the real cost of commodities (fuel, water) than I am the money supply.

I have relatives who are speculators. They are screwing us. They drive up the price of gas because they hear about things (like weather) that mean it might go up later. Given that the consumption of gas is relatively inelastic (esp. in the medium term of a few months), how come we saw prices go through the roof and never any actual shortages? Did you (outside of Florida where the problem was transportation) ever have problems buying gas? No? then why did prices need to be so high? It didn't cause more gas to be refined (we're near capacity), gas wasn't brought out of some reserve, and it doesn't drive down consumption much.

Do I understand markets? Do I live in California? Yes to both. Perhaps you didn't pay attention to the news? Perhaps you heard of the tapes of Enron witholding electricity from California? Or offering to sell 10MW of electricity, knowing the lines could only take 1MW. Yeah, there are problems with the deregulation in California. But mostly the problem is that for commodity items, buying on the spot market isn't always the best idea. Stability of prices and consistent availability of electricity is more important to virtually all consumers (say, excepting aluminum smelting plants) than getting every last penny out. I mean, if I need electricity every day, and the electric company doesn't provide it, in favor of saving me 3% on my electric bills? I have to incur the cost of installing and maintaining an electric generator at my house. And all my neighbors too. That's going to cost me a lot more than $20 (3% of my electric bill) yearly.

Let me ask you this. If we have enough electricity already for the demands on 364 days of the year, who is going to build a new plant? If you do, you'll have to sell electricity below market to keep your plant running all the time, or else you'll only sell power 1 day a year.

Deregulation doesn't even make sense for commodities.

Finally, as to food. The problem in Ethiopia and Somalia wasn't any inefficiencies in government or any bureaucratic snafu. The problem was that the warlords were denying food to people they perceived as being their enemies, or at least worthless. So, we could send all the food we wanted, and it didn't get to them. This was the case when the US went into Somalia and the case when Bob Geldof got all torqued off and created Band/Live Aid in the 80s.

BTW, if you want a better example of a government causing a famine, by accident, instead of as an attempt to kill people, try the sugar harvests in Cuba in the 70s as Castro tried to show how superior Communism was. Things definitely got worse instead of better, even as he mobilized school children to work in the fields.

Anyway, using governments that are purposely trying to kill their citizens or inept central planning as an example of what could go wrong here with the water or food supply is ridiculous. Our government isn't quite that far out to get us yet.

Anyway, I hope you have fun with your fiat currency rants. I really wish Hong Kong were still on its own so you could go there and live in gold standard heaven.

Re:wow, a fiat currency guy

[argoff]

I disagree with you about the currency. While people trust that a currency will be a store of value, they tend to hold it, collect it, and store it. It is only when that trust is betrayed that they start to dump it, which is usually pretty quick to cause a snowball effect.

Currently, the dollar is the world defacto currency, and countries keep a lot of them ( and bonds) on hand in case they need them. But if the dollar starts to loose value quickly, and a few countries start to dump it, then pretty soon everyone will start to dump it and you'll have an immediate inflation problem.

how come we saw prices go through the roof and never any actual shortages?

That's the whole point. Prices going thru the roof stop shortages, and make sure that anyone who has gas to offer makes it a prioirty to get it where it's needed. If prices were just average, why would anyone make it a priority to sell gas there as compaired to anywhere else. Shortages happen in marxist markets, prices happen in free markets.

Let me ask you this. If we have enough electricity already for the demands on 364 days of the year, who is going to build a new plant? If you do, you'll have to sell electricity below market to keep your plant running all the time, or else you'll only sell power 1 day a year.

Answer: anybody who can make a profit. If there selling electricity at $2 per unit, and the cost to manufacture is $1 per unit. Then even if they have enough electricity to offer 7/24 all year round - somebody will build a plant just to get that margin. If that extra electricity is desperately needed, it's value will show up in the price of electricity - if it's not, then it's no big deal and the price is communicating that a plant isn't that high of a priority in peoples budgets.

In spite of some of the corruption, price is a form of communication, not a way for greedy people to screw the poor. The poor are doing a good enough of a job screwing themselves. In fact, many people who want more money will lower prices to get more volume of sales just as easially as they would raise prices to get more profit for unit. In fact, many wealthy people don't want the poor people to be poor, what they want is a larger higher end market. They would love to have the profits from higher prices, rather then the typical ignorance fed shortages. They would love to have the profits from higher volume and more trade, rather than choked off and regulated trade that gives nothing to nobody.

Seriously, if you were running out of water, would you really want to be waiting arround for the government to give you your ration. Or would you want the option of bidding up the price a little to convince that guy from antartica to stick an iceberg on a boat and send it your way. The guy isn't your slave, he isn't a charity, you gotta do something to make it worth it for him?

find them at Stoneridge Mall, Pleasanton, CA

[wcanevari]

they install units by Falcon Mfg several years ago..... they need only to have the oil trap replaced every week or 1000 "P's". They do not smell, likely due to frequent cleaning and because you cant buy asparagus in the mall......

it doens't work that way in gas markets..

[YesIAmAScript]

Like I said, I have relatives who are speculators.

Tankers cost too much to rent to park oil offshore. So oil is delivered on a fixed schedule after it is drilled. And in a short term of a few months, let alone days, oil is not being drilled any faster. Additionally note that gasoline is not shipped in ships. So, the supply of gas and oil is relatively fixed in the short term. So why do higher prices prevent shortages?

And as to shortages not happening in capitalist economies, I would disagree. They are less common, but no market is perfect enough to prevent shortages. Especially if it is open to manipulation. And I would suggest the oil markets are being manipulated. If not to produce actual shortages, then at least to reap extra profits. No, I'm generally not against profits, but when those profits mean someone has to go without basic things like heat, transportation or water, I think that the net effect on society of the profit-taking is negative, not positive.

I think you're not thinking far enough on the electricty. You say that you'd gladly build a plant if you could sell the power for $2 and make it for $1. I see that. But electricty cannot be stored, and plants cannot be turned up and down much, so that means there is a surplus of electricity at nearly all times. That means that electricity will sell for very near cost. Even perhaps below cost. The last guy did a cost-benefit analysis when he built a plant and he found that he could run his plant and sell the electricty often enough to make a profit. That doesn't mean you can. My argument is that due to the variable demands on electricity, it is cost effective to build a plant when there is 98% as much power as there needs to be for the hottest day of the year. It might be cost-effective when there is 99% as much as there needs to be. But it isn't cost-effective to enter the market with a new plant when there is 99.8% as much power as there needs to be. The next guy in would either take a bath, or have to sell below market (which I mentioned is near cost). So he doesn't enter the market, and you never get the level of service that the customer needs to keep from taking on costs like putting in their own generation.

As to your final argument, that wouldn't I rather be able to spend more for water when supplies get tight? I'm not talking about me here. I make more than 10X as much as the poorest person. I can of course afford to get water when he can't. But I do care about my fellow man. I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to get water.

Frankly, I think a better argument from you would be that regulating the cost of water to be artifically low means that places uses it that wouldn't. For example, large customers wouldn't use evaporative coolers if water cost more. And that would leave more water to drink. There might be some validity to that.

But all in all, I think that access to basic needs is a right not a privilege, and I think that the need for these will cause people to undertake expensive measures if they can't get them reliably. These measures are better taken at the source. So I don't support deregulating basic utilities and letting supply and demand determine what days of the year people can afford to heat their houses.

All I can

[Anonymous Coward]

say is ewww what the fuck, you watch unsuspecting family use the can? That is fucked. Voyeurism meets incest. Nasty fucker.

Perverse effects

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

You may be summarizing details away, but doesn't that penalize people with large families? They may have a lower consumption/person but be considered as a high-consumption household.

Re:Perverse effects

[AB3A]

It can, if they're not watching their money. There are no easy solutions.

Jake's Restaurant, Portland, OR, US

[Sjobeck]

... used to have a trough mounted to the front of the bar, at the proper height, that slanted to one side so all the patrons could continue standing, chatting, drinking, at the bar, without having to leave to relieve themselves.

My worksite uses flushless urinals.

[mrflash818]

Greets,

My worksite uses flushless urinals. They look like any normal urinal, but do not have a flush button or lever. It seems that the "filter" gets replaced monthly or so, and indeed there is no heavy urine smell.

So, after getting used no not having to "flush" for them, I find them almost a normal thing to use now.

What I find amusing is, that some of the old-timers (in their 50's or older) seem to avoid them, and use the sit-down toilets instead.

Re:If your toilet ever overflows (was Re:Get your

[Morgalyn]

Are you tall? Do you have long arms? I'm a 5'6" female, and I can say I seriously have issues reaching most flow knobs I've seen without practically embracing the toilet as if it was my porcelian god. The house we currently rent is probably the worst, since its directly behind the toilet, and the toilet is situated between the bathtub and the vanity with very little clearance on either side.

Re:Hmm

[Drakkenfyre]

Given this, isn't it a good idea for society to convince people to wash their hands a few times during the day? Who cares when they do it, so long as they do? It has nothing to do with urination, but the built-in alarm clock of the bladder isn't the worst mechanism to remind people to do their periodic hand waching. And very often (at least if you're eating right) urination will be combined with defecation, which does require a hand wash.

And the soap? It's because you have to touch lots of dirty things throughout the day, like that Coke machine.

Contraband Canadian toilets

[Drakkenfyre]

So I know these Canadians who like to dress up like Klingons. They have trouble every time they try to cross the border, not because of their bat'leths, but because of something they call the Throne of Kahless. Here is a picture:

http://torch.cs.dal.ca/~pconnors/KAGPics//pic12.jp g

and pictures with descriptions here:

http://www.kagkanada.com/photos.html

As you can see, it's one of those contraband Canadian toilets. Well, it's never been used as a toilet, but as a giant punch bowl. And it's been mounted on a block of wood with a plaque. There's even a little roll of "Klingon toilet paper" attached, which is some sandpaper rolled around an empty tube. So it's definitely coming back to Canada after the party.

Try telling that to a customs agent.

Suffice it to say, customs agents may not stop the flow of guns or drugs that goes both ways across our border, but they sure do batprotect us all from high-flow toilets. Whew!

Re:Hmm

[Krach42]

Yeah, you make some good points. And the soap is fine to clean off those dangerous germs.

But to place the specific complaint: "they need to wash their hands with soap, because they just urinated!" Is less than rationally based.

Your assertions make much more sense than "OMG, urine is dirty! Wash your hands with soap!"

Because if you start dictating unrational concerns such as that, you quickly end up in the sort of situations like: "That dress shows your ankles, young woman. What are you a slut?" or, "Masterbation will make you go blind," and "Sex in anything but the missionary position is evil, and don't you even dare think about enjoying it!"

Eventually, it all just becomes stupid hysteria.

Re:Hmm

[Drakkenfyre]

I totally agree with you.

I think the strangest example of this is the whole notion that we teach our children that they must not touch their genetals, lest they make their hands dirty. But rationally, it's the hands that could make the genetals dirty, and we have soap and water for that.

I wonder if that idea ever had a rational basis.

Re:If your toilet ever overflows (was Re:Get your

[Laebshade]

I'm 5'9", I can see the problem where there is very little clearance between the toilet and the bathtub or another part of the bathroom.

Re:Hmm

[Krach42]

Penn and Teller in their Bullshit episode on hygiene hysteria, actually looked into this. They found that the butt crack (is there a medical term for this piece of anatomy?) had significantly fewer bacteria than hands.

It is in fact, quite accurate that the hands are more likely to make the genitals dirty rather than vice versa.

I do believe that at one time there was, and in fact would remain to be, rational for this though. In the early days, the chances for the spread of fecal-oral diseases increases dramatically if you do not treat your hands as dirty once you wipe after cleaning yourself after a defecation. In a natural tendancy of humans to bring things that are somewhat related and group them up into a singular logical group (generalization) we came to think of urine the same way we do fecal matter. Despite the situation that they are in fact hygenically different.

It's likely similar to the same reasons why western culture, and indead many developed countries approach the female developed breast. Honestly, there's nothing about these mammory glands that is sexual in nature... just through generalization (women have them, and men don't, and women also have a vagina which men generally like, and men don't) it became associated as a sexual characteristic of women.