Here in CA, if I remember right, the rough figures are 10% of water used for residenntial, 10% industrial,and 80% agriculture. If “Big AG” here in CA just did the equivilant of fixing all the leaky sinks, they’d save about as much water as every resident uses. And, a lot of that water is potable, or could become so with minimal treatment. All the leaky sinks, low flow toilets and low flow shower heads and such don’t do squat in the real war in water conversation. At most all that saves 10% of residenital use- which translates to 1% of overal usuage. OTOH, waste is waste. Rather than “low flow toilets”- just don’t flush after you urinate, and you’ll save several times as much. The problem with “low flow” is that sometimes you need a higher flow- OTOH most times you need about a pint. (If you really need to “flush” after peeing, keep a bottle of “grey water” next to the toilet and pour about a gallon or so in, that’ll do it fine.) Or- pee in the bathroom sink, and rinse it down with a pint of water.
Gorsnak- you’re right. I have seen those figures that Shalmanese uses (PETA makes much of such figures) and they assume the steer only eats corn raised by what would be rather wasteful irrigation processes, and that the corn never gets a drop of rain. In other words- they figure out the maximum water it takes to grow a pound corn, then the maximum amount of corn to get a pound of steer, then double that from bones, by-products and wastage. In other words- it is a theoretical maximum of water you’d have to use to get a pound of steak, and assumes all the water comes from irrigation, none from the sky. :rolleyes: Beef usually gets corn only for the last months of it’s life, when it is being fattened in a Feedlot. The rest of it’s life it grazes and the water it uses for all that weight comes mainly from rainfall. I admite it takes quite a bit of irrigation water to grow a # of corn, and it takes many pounds of corn to fatten a steer up a pound. And, of course- it does drink some. But 8500# is off (considering water usable for us) by a factor of ten or maybe even a hundred. It is hard to tell, and YMMV.
I have to admit, I’ve never understood the need for low-flow toilets that don’t adequately flush. Why not just keep your full-size and put bricks or rocks into the tank until you get a sufficient flush with minimal water? It’d take just a few experimental flushes to get a pretty good estimate.
One of my CRC instructors had worked at a sewage treatment plant.
He had a story about a group of middle schoolers coming in for a tour one Monday. Generally, the mix of foreign objects that got flushed down toilets got, er, interesting on the weekends… and their appearance in the plant’s influent lagged behind by about 2 days. Memorable questions from that group. [/hijack]
Personally, I prefer the “shower experience” offered by LF showerheads that produce a high-velocity spray. Spartydog mentioned Oxygenics®, which seem to work similarly. Though, the generic head I bought cost under $10 from the Blue Polyester Satan, and didn’t have any of the spiel about oxygenating the water.
I absolutely despise the LF showerheads that are basically just HF showerheads with a flow limiter. It’s like someone’s peeing on you.
True. Them, along with every sngle other human who has ever had to investigate the rate of voluntary compliance to any energy-saving, recycling, water-saving, or any other measure of any kind anywhere at any time in any society.
Years ago I read that the amount of water on Earth is essentially the same as it was billions of years ago. Too long ago to even hazard a guess for a cite, so maybe someone can tell me whether this true or not.
If it is true, it seems more an inconvenience to those in areas in a dry cycle, than actually “wasting” water. Anyone ever notice these problems usually occur in areas where people choose to live in deserts?
This is a pet subject of mine. I shall attempt to sum up arguments that came before (without re-reading them all again so I may miss some) and add my mostly informed blather:
Benefits of low flow toilets:
Lower usage cost to toilet owner (minimal impact)
Lower cost to city or consumer (depending on local model) to treat water at sewage plant (moderate impact).
Available capacity of existing in ground water and sewer lines greatly increased due to lower use, thus postponing future tremendously expensive upsizing of distribution and collection lines in already built up areas (Large cost savings).
Environmental benefits vary wildly depending on area from useful to none. Even in the midwest there is some benefit in some areas. Many areas in the Midwest get water from wells. Increased water use takes more water from the aquifers and it ends up being discharged to surface waters and flowing to the gulf, thus lowering the water table for other wells. Areas that use treated surface water for domestic water have almost no environmental benefit from lower flows.
Costs of low flow toilets:
Occasionally have to flush twice if you bought a poorly designed brand. Whaaaa!!! What a terrible terrible inconvenience! Be an informed consumer and buy a better brand.
Low flow toilets were a government mandate that industry fought tooth and nail, but once they were in place, industry was able to create models that work just fine, cost the same, but use less water (which has many benefits other than environmental). Seems a complete win for the regulations.
Low flow showerheads on the other hand are the tool of evil. Benefits of low flow showerheads are about the same, but you also add in the energy savings from using less hot water. BUT a low flow showerhead cannot be flushed twice for the same effect. It just leaves you cold and soapy.
As to the OP… (as stated by others earlier) the answer is “It all depends.”
