Period Toilets (Rant)

[Keithj]

[Having turned away in horror, manages to return to the screen].

We were "required" by building regs to have one of those dual-flush thingies on our new loo. It needs two presses of the "long flush" every time to clear the loo properly, which means waiting for it to fill for the second one. The short flush provides a very brief squirt that won't even clear a solitary piece of loo paper.

The cistern is too small to do the job asked of it. No, I may not replace it with a sensible size one.
SWMBO's aunt had one of these, and kept a bucket beside the loo. She filled that before flushing, and used it to "assist" the wimpish flush.

Fortunately, our upstairs loo has a good traditional syphon and is my preferred venue for contemplative times.

 

[Moo]

Our old traditional loo really took its time about flushing (and refilling) and used a lot of water, but it was maddeningly ineffective.
Our new ones are fast, ferocious, and very effective indeed.

 

[CliffordPope]

There aren't any valves in our cistern. It has a large heavy bell, lifted by pulling the chain, and then when it's released it starts the syphon. The water falls down about 6 feet of pipe so there is a good gush at the bottom.

We don't actually consume water at all. It rises in a spring at the top of the garden, goes through the house, and us, and then gets processed in the septic tank and reed bed, and flows out again at the bottom of the garden.
In a dry summer if water is getting low we use the compost loo.

 

[tobydog]

Well, I'm not sure a visit to the little boys room will ever be the same again. In Australia I was worried about all sorts of multi legged things grabbing the danglies from under the seat but never a dog. Mind you, they do have Wolf spiders down there that are the size of your hand :shock: .

I too am one who doesn't lose too much sleep over having to flush the loo again and 'waste' water. We receive way more than we need overall so if it's in that short supply then just catch more of it. Pretty simple really. We are on a meter and pay £28 per month and I'm in credit!. I don't think you can physically lose water, it just reappears somewhere else in the world as rain. I do accept that extra energy is required to make potable water but the message we are always getting hit with is that water is a limited resource. No it isn't - at least in this country.

One easy option is to make it a requirement that every new house built must come with an underground water harvesting system so it traps everything from the roof and all grey water. Why doesn't the goverment push this if they are that keen?. In Japan they have toilets with a sink on top of the cystern. The grey water simply goes to help fill up the cystern.

 

[Penners]

the message we are always getting hit with is that water is a limited resource. No it isn't - at least in this country.

That's a considerable over-simplification. You are, of course, correct that there is theoretically more than enough water for the entire planet's needs. But the problem is that it isn't always available in the correct place, in the correct volume and to the correct purity.

 

[d49xc]

Rainwater harvesting systems are often great in theory - but sh*t in practice.
The problem is in the filtering of the rainwater as it goes in.
What usually happens is that microbes/fungi/leaves/moss/younameit from the roof gets into the tank(s) and starts to grow and ferment.
So the water that comes out really is "grey water" as its called - and foul.

Sure you can set up very expensive sedimation tanks, filter stages, have pumps to keep the water moving around so its not stagnet, UV clarifiers and the rest - but then who is going to do the maintenance on them.......?
Then there is the expense of the holding tanks
Your simple rainwater garden butt doesn't cost a lot.
But try looking at the prices of some really large storage tanks and you'll see why no one really bothers.

 

[tobydog]

the message we are always getting hit with is that water is a limited resource. No it isn't - at least in this country.

That's a considerable over-simplification. You are, of course, correct that there is theoretically more than enough water for the entire planet's needs. But the problem is that it isn't always available in the correct place, in the correct volume and to the correct purity.

Penners - I agree, it was an over-simplification. Isn't the problem in the UK more to do with the fractured way in which the water networks were privatized?. Under the old national water board (or whatever it was called) cooperation across the country would probably have been more practical and achievable. Now we have companies that are only interested if there's something in it for them which tends to block progress.

 

[agbagb]

Other problems, building loads of houses where the natural aquifers can't support the development, paving everywhere so they don't refill, then building even more on flood plains that sit in path of the extra run off. My rant over :roll:

I'll be able to do an experiment now - Outside toilet with Jappak, original syphon worked first time after sitting unused for ?? years. - New upstairs cistern, just finished it, fitted with a dual flush valve.

I'll not bet against the new one failing first. In fact, after reading this I wish I had gone for a syphon type. It was the cable operation that swung me, thinking it would be easier to fit but it has to be so precise a lever operation would have more reliable.

 

[Zebra]

Very funny story middi. Had no idea that dogs would eat human c**p though.

 

[Penners]

Isn't the problem in the UK more to do with the fractured way in which the water networks were privatized?. Under the old national water board (or whatever it was called) cooperation across the country would probably have been more practical and achievable. Now we have companies that are only interested if there's something in it for them which tends to block progress.

I agree, tobydog. The best possible solution would be a national water grid, just as we have a national electricity grid. But given the fragmentation of the industry, I can't see that happening. The old Water Board could have constructed it - but they didn't. However, even if we still had a nationalised water system, I wonder how the tax-paying public would have reacted to being told that their bills were going to increase by XX% to fund the construction of a water grid.

 

[Flyfisher]

I also agree. As for funding a national water grid, I'd suggest scrapping HS2 and using that money. Surely a national water grid would be more valuable to more people than saving 20mins on the journey time between London and Birmingham?

 

[Penners]

I also agree. As for funding a national water grid, I'd suggest scrapping HS2 and using that money. Surely a national water grid would be more valuable to more people than saving 20mins on the journey time between London and Birmingham?

Seconded! And if I had 100 votes it would hundreded!

 

[Moo]

Thirded!

 

[middi]

Thirded!

I will buy another dog.

Middi

 

[wobs]

Why worry about water?
I'm much more concerned about other things when it comes to waste.

Because we don't want to be wasting something that society has treated, pumped, and built an infrastructure to transport.

Its not just the fact that we are wasting it (although this is bad enough), its the fact that we are doing so under the name of more efficiency.

Case in point....
I was talking to a friend the other night about this, and he said:
"Oh, we have a super efficient dual flush toilet".
"Oh dear" says I.
"But its great, and we're on a water meter. Mind you, our bill shot up when it leaked"
"Exactly" says I.

And they didn't even notice the leak until the bills arrived, and they had to trace where the leak was. So their super efficient toilet cost them dearly.

The devices I mentioned in the original post are not some high tech solution, they are simple devices, and should be relatively cheap.

At work, we strive to find the best available technology for a job. We should be making the best available technology available for the public to minimise our impact, and Government and business is failing in this.

As others have said, grey water systems are not worth it (both financially and practically) in the UK. None of this should require us to spend extra money, but when we come to revamp a bathroom, we should have the best available technology (BAT) available to buy, and the public informed of the options.

 

[worms]

the message we are always getting hit with is that water is a limited resource. No it isn't - at least in this country.

That's a considerable over-simplification...

The really big issue is not the water itself but the power consumption that the water industry uses to pump and clean new and old water. We use very, very clean water for everything, when most of it does not need to be any cleaner than when it runs off the land.

 

[Lime]

Why worry about water?
I'm much more concerned about other things when it comes to waste.

Because we don't want to be wasting something that society has treated, pumped, and built an infrastructure to transport.

Its not just the fact that we are wasting it (although this is bad enough), its the fact that we are doing so under the name of more efficiency.
.......................

Yes I know.
I don't disagree with your point re- poor design etc.
But water is not wasted, it is used and then discarded back into the water cycle of the planet.
Water is never lost or changed into something that means it cannot be used again.
Unlike many other items that get consumed or wasted, water only costs money, whereas many other items cost the planet.

"Wasting something that society has treated, pumped, and built an infrastructure to transport" AND PAID FOR is normal every day life, isn't it?
People do that all the time and often what they waste is lost forever, but water is not like that.
However making everyone feel guilty about "wasted" water has done the plastic and ceramic industry a really BIG favour by boosting sales meanwhile allowing the water companies to get away with huge profits with minimal outgoings.

 

[wobs]

Yes I know.
I don't disagree with your point re- poor design etc.
But water is not wasted, it is used and then discarded back into the water cycle of the planet.
Water is never lost or changed into something that means it cannot be used again.
Unlike many other items that get consumed or wasted, water only costs money, whereas many other items cost the planet.

"Wasting something that society has treated, pumped, and built an infrastructure to transport" AND PAID FOR is normal every day life, isn't it?
People do that all the time and often what they waste is lost forever, but water is not like that.
However making everyone feel guilty about "wasted" water has done the plastic and ceramic industry a really BIG favour by boosting sales meanwhile allowing the water companies to get away with huge profits with minimal outgoings.

This seems like a pedantry.
When I say we are wasting water through leaking toilets, the waste is a waste of resources. The pumping, treatment and investment in infrastructure is wasted. Yes the water goes back into the environment and isn't "lost" in the same way as consuming fossil fuels are lost, but it still has an impact. It is a shorthand to say we are wasting water.

Wasting something is normal, but we don't want to do it. We need to be doing less of it. Would you rather we stop repairing leaking pipes? If a water main bursts, would you rather leave it, as we'll get it back when it falls as rain again? Leak management does have programs to work out the economics of repairing a leak, but some water companies are better than others at managing this.

I should also point out that while towns water (tap water) is clean, it does carry additives, such as fluoride that does have an impact (albiet small) on the environment. There is a reason you need a consent permit to discharge even towns water to river, and yet a dry dock that had flooded in Hull, from the River Hull was pumped dry without the need for one, as it was river water (this was still controversal though).

If we ignored leaks far more, we would need far more infrastucture to supply water for a growing population (this would be good news for the pipe manufacturer). While there is a natural loss that becomes uneconomic to stop (many small leaks in the pipe work), there are many leaks that are necessary (and economic) to fix.

As I said earlier, if we were sold the appropriate toilet, millions of people would be preventing leakage that didn't need to happen with no real extra cost. This would save water loss, and cut down on demand.

 

[agbagb]

I'm with you Wobs in that we're sold a product with a "benefit" that it saves water (or the resources required to get it to our homes). But as you point out on balance it might not. Someone somewhere might have done the calculations taking in to account the factors, how many times the half flush facility is used, how many leak and for how long, replacement cost (including everything from materials to diesel for the plumbers van) etc. It might be that overall there is a small saving but one that doesn't justify the product cost and subsquent replacement costs.

It's another example of those thing which are sold to save us but could potentially end up costing more... upvc double glazing, condensing combi boilers, low voltage lighting, electric cars...

 

[worms]

I don't disagree with your point re- poor design etc...

I would argue that neither version is poor design per se but the method in which the fail has a different set of consequences. In my experience a failed syphon no longer flushes but tends not to leak, while a failed dual-flush will eventually leak but will still provide a functional flush, pending replacement. Both are susceptible to cost-cutting reductions in the quality of manufacture.