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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

Not the only debate

[Daengbo]

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

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 :)

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.

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)

Ugh...

[NMZNMZNMZ]

has plumbers and water conservationists taking aim at one another

Intentional or not, that's a horrible pun.

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.

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: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: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.