Americans are walking contradictions when it comes to the environment. Case in point is the new 1.7 gallon flush toilets that were legislated in order to save water. Not only are they more environmentally friendly, but they are much sleeker than their former water-sapping predecessors. And I must say that even if they don’t flush well, they look lovely sitting next to the 100-gallon jacuzzi tubs that are so popular now.
I just feel that i have to say something about the talk of ‘low-flow toilets’ and water conservation. Water is a renewable resource. It’s not gone for good after you flush. It goes to a sewage treatment plant or septic tank. It then, through either natural or man-made means, becomes clean and drinkable and is put back into the water system. The water ain’t going away anytime soon.
actually I thought it wa proven that most of the claims concering that the dryers were more cleaner and cheaper to use than the towels were found to be bunk and misleading …How ever i read this a couple of years ago and im relying on memory
I wish you were around to talk to my neighbor, and the cops.
bouv,
I don’t think the water issue is as simple as you make it out to be. It is very location dependent. Sure, in some places like here on the East Coast, we don’t seem to be in imminent danger of depleting our fresh water reserves.
However, there are places in the Southwest where I believe that underwater aquifers are being rapidly depleted. And, rivers are drying up. In other words, the fresh water is being used at a rate faster than it is being renewed.
Of course, one could imagine either transporting freshwater from regions with a surplus to those with a deficit or using desalination to get fresh water from sea water, but in either case you are talking about intensive use of energy resources.
As a starting source of information, see http://www.jhuccp.org/pr/m14/m14chap1.stm
puddleglum,
Sounds like a good story here! Pray tell, tell us more!
bouv wrote:
No, but, if a community consumes more fresh water in one year than is replenished in its local reservoirs the next, then one of two things must happen:
(A) The water level in its reservoirs will fall. Generally speaking, most reservoirs are lakes containing their own wildlife, which will be negatively impacted by draining them in this manner. Or:
(B) The community must import fresh water from some other, more distant reservoir. This water has to be sent through pipes, which are resource-intensive to build (and not terribly cheap to maintain, either). And more often than not, said water also has to be pumped to make it all the way from the remote reservoir to the community. Which takes electric power. Which is generated by power plants. Which usually use non-renewable resources.
What I want to know is, why hasn’t anyone designed a compact urinal for private homes?
Everytime I flush my piss down the toilet with about 3 gallons of water, I think, “this is ridiculous.” A urinal in hte bathroom would enable me to save thousands of gallons of water each year.
But I must admit I’d like something a bit less ugly than your standard public-bathroom urinal. It doesn’t have to be nearly as big and wide, for one thing - I can aim, after all.
Given the trend toward bigger bathrooms in contemporary houses, the foot of wall space it would take to fit in a urinal isn’t exactly a problem. And given that the width of a urinal can easily be less than the space between adjacent 2x4s in the wall, it would be easy to recess the urinal into the wall, and hide it behind a cover of some sort - a bit of wood cabinetry, say - that could be swung out of the way when in use.
I’d like to see the gummint pushing bathroom-fixture manufacturers to come up with something like this, rather than the low-flow toilets.
They have–it’s called “the sink.” 
Note: Wives are NOT fond of this joke. So don’t get caught.
RT: Spoken like a man who doesn’t clean the bathroom! The problem with urinals in the smell.
Wow, I never get this kind of response. I really should post my inane musings more often.
To respond to some of the messages that directly addressed my post:
Beagle:
Obviously, I’m making a generalization. And I explicitly said in my OP if my observation were to be proven true.
cheesesteak:
I don’t have a cite as in a scientific study of the environmental effects, but I definitely recall many of the plaques on the dryers make such a claim. I suppose people could be disregarding this due to skepticism…such a theory would indeed disprove my tentative hypothesis.
RickJay:
But the hot-air driers do work. It just irks us (myself included) that it takes 30 seconds to a full minute rather than the 5 to 10 seconds that a towel-wipe takes. And if people aren’t willing to take a stinkin’ minute out of their time for the environment…well, that was the basis for what I was musing about.
Kimstu:
I agree that this isn’t the “Greatest” debate in the universe (although I do think it’s the longest thread that’s yet been spawned from a beginning of mine), but it really didn’t seem like an IMHO-type thing.
In any case, considering the little amount of time it really takes to let the air drier do its job, I think the “minor luxury” argument of yours is a bit specuous. But my musing was not based on people being unwilling to make significant personal sacrifices, but on their unwillingness to sacrifice a mere minute, at best, of their time.
Chaim Mattis Keller
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_279.html
This is the letter I was referring to in my earlier posts as according to this hand dryers arent any better than paper towels So it basically comes down to your enviromental concern
Isn’t that what the little blue hockey pucks are for?
I’m a U.S. forest policy analyst with more than a passing familiarity with forestry’s environmental impacts. I’d like to see what you consider “average” clearcutting and “worst-case” disaster scenario. You mean a spill around the well-head, or a spill like the Exxon Valdez?
Certainly, some forest species and forested ecosystems are negatively damaged by clearcuts, but in others, the most successful way to regenerate that particular tree species (and the related ecosystem components) is by clearcutting. Of course, you have negative environmental impacts even then.
IMHO, the clearest sign of American’s lack of environmental awareness is our insistence on bigger homes on bigger lots in areas that were once forested. Suburbia is worse for a forest (or wilderness) than a carefully sited oil well or a poorly-considered clearcut.
RTFirefly wrote:
Ooh, ooh, I just had an idea! (Okay, I heard this idea a couple of decades ago, but I can pretend like I just thought it up.)
Is there any reason why the water in a toilet has to be fresh, drinkable water? Why not use second-rate semi-potable low-grade water? Heck, why not just use ocean water! There’s no chance we’re going to run out of that any time soon! Plus, it’ll discourage the dog from drinking out of the toilet bowl. Bleah.
I wonder what would happen if you made an observation of American people in a bathroom that only had hot-air hand dryers and no paper towels. What percentage of those people do you think would skip directly to the understood step 4 and wipe their hands on their pants, shirt, dress, etc., bypassing the dryers entirely? From my personal observations, I would guess that that percentage is rather high. Wouldn’t this be the choice that wastes the least natural resources of all?
My WAG: Many Americans do not like hand dryers because they waste a precious resource–time.
Go to the hardware store. You can buy them nearly everywhere. About $69 at the Lowe’s near my house.
Two reasons:
- The USEPA, absolutely prohibits it.
- And what is the expense of having two entirely seperate water systems in a residence? Or a building? Or in a municipailty?
Yes, there are all sorts of ‘ingenious’ ways to rig up things, like re-using shower water in the toilet, etc. They are a lot of trouble and cost a lot to set up.
Your best hope is to at least re-use the “brown water”, as the EPA calls it, for such things are watering your lawn - which, if you absolutely must water your lawn, would save water (“brown” water, roughly defined, is not toilet water - such as water from your washing machine, sinks, dishwasher, and showers/tubs).
The EPA has brouchures and free programs on their website on how to use brown water. Unfortunately, local zoning laws often greatly restrict or outright ban the use of brown water.
Three words: pressure assist toilet. Why don’t people get them? Simple - it comes down to three things:
-
They are much more expensive than the cheap pieces of shit (no pun intended) that the average contractor buys to put into a house.
-
They are less reliable, and have more expensive parts.
-
“Won’t someone think of the children???” Seriously - many fussy parents, from what I’ve found in my research on purchasing a PA toilet (as posted in GQ), will not install a PA toilet in their house because they are loud, and might “frighten” their children.
(side rant - great Jumping Jesus - if we as a society have devolved so much that our children can’t experience a slightly louder toilet without needing years of intensive psychotherapy or mood-changing drugs, then we as a society deserve to be eliminated and thrown on the ash heap of history. Parents like that make me sick.)
That having been said - I hope to buy a PA toilet this weekend. No more problems, and environmentally sound.
This is good, you should have stopped right there. Instead, you went on to say…
You see, when you blanket condemn SUV’s or other low-fuel-economy vehicles, with no concern as to their actual use, you have already lost validity. My Mustang gets 19 MPG - pretty low gas mileage. And I fill the tank less than once a month. Assuming we meet the same emissions standards (which mine meets the latest ones), if you use more than 15 gallons a month, for any purpose at all, then you are impacting the environment more than me, regardless of what car you drive. For shame.
We’re not the only ones to reject Kyoto. How many people have fully ratified it? Is it up to three countries now? I expect, out of fairness, you will come back and list all the other countries that have not implemented it as showing a “complete disregard for the future of the planet.” Aside from the fact that that is a fallacious statement anyhow.
You are correct about CAFE, however. So you redeem yourself in the end. CAFE should be about 40 MPG, IMEO.
Those aren’t breath mints?
Marc