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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[DigitalReality]

Get your $#!^ together

Not in the urinals, ok?

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

So what we have is...

[snevig]

the ultimate pissing contest. :P

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?

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

[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.

Splash

[Anonymous Coward]

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

That's all fine, but...

[The Infidel]

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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

Not the only debate

[Daengbo]

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

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: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.

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 :)

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.

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.

Not good for cigarette butt disposal

[Velox_SwiftFox]

It makes them oily and hard to light.

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

[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

[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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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)

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!

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.

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: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.

If It's Yellow

[midnightblaze]

If it's yellow let it mellow. If it's brown flush it down.

Ugh...

[NMZNMZNMZ]

has plumbers and water conservationists taking aim at one another

Intentional or not, that's a horrible pun.

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.

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.

Re:Just flush once a month

[jbrader]

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

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: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.

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.

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!

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?

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: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.

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

[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 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.

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: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.

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

[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

[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.

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!

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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#&....

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.

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.

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

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.