We had a water shortage in California when I was attending college, late 70s, which is when I first heard the OP’s jingle. I believe I read a French equivalent given in a column by Herb Caen, San Francisco Chronicle. I think he gave it in jest - don’t remember who he said he got it from, and I doubt it was ever actually used by anyone other than in jest.
Sorry 'bout the following mess - I don’t speak French myself. Still, here goes nothing:
Not to derail my own thread too much, but briefly: Saltwater desalination is expensive both in terms of money and energy. It isn’t done except where absolutely necessary. More often, water (in America, at least) comes from rivers and underground aquifers. Rivers are subject to competing uses between agriculture, ranchers, fishers, industry and utilities. As one example, California often has minor crises around who gets to use the water rights, with the central valley (where much of the state’s agriculture comes from) up in arms a while ago because they were losing precious water for irrigation due to some new legislation. In many dryer areas like Los Angeles, water has to be piped in from hundreds of miles away. This can deplete surface water, such as Mono Lake (stopover habitat for migratory birds).
You are right that toilet water doesn’t need to be freshwater, but it is because of our plumbing network. The water that flushes your toilet is usually the same as the water you drink, meaning it depletes the same limited sources and has to go through the same filtration methods.
Why is it so cheap, then? I suspect that, like oil, it is because we’re borrowing against the future instead of competing for it in the present. Around the world, accessible freshwater is becoming increasingly scarce and there are some that call the phenomenon “peak water”.
Right now, for now, those of us in the first world can live with seemingly infinite cheap water. I haven’t studied this in enough depth to be able to estimate how long this can last, but an altogether casual, throwaway attitude probably isn’t the best way to look at the situation. Just sayin’.
Neat, thanks!
It translates to “It’s yellow, it’s good! It’s black, goodbye!”
Going by what Nabokov knows about early 20th century Russian culture, which is a lot, if you were polite in the Middle Class–I don’t think he gave a reason–you would not flush if you peed.
I can’t think at the moment in which novel this little detail appears.
Of course, in a culture that already habitually doesn’t flush for urine, there wouldn’t need to be a catchy jingle to promote the practice, any more than we Americans have reminder jingles about using toilet paper.
The reason we have a catchphrase about not flushing urine is because it’s not standard practice so not everybody already knows about it.
Did you miss the part where you were replying to people in Sweden, where water conservation by not flushing just doesn’t make sense? The only form of water conservation promoted in Norway and Sweden is using less hot water. We’ve also got water saving toilets, that need less water overall and has the option to use a minimal amount of water to flush after a number one, but not even the most rabid of environmentalists are promoting not flushing, since running out of water just isn’t an issue.
Ah, so Sweden has also unlimited renewable free energy, too? I didn’t know that. :dubious:
I was confused by the recent push by the Swedish government to reduce oil usage, apparently those know-nothings in the Swedish government think that about 1/3 of the energy in Sweden comes from imported oil. :rolleyes:
Mind you, Sweden is doing pretty good, since about 40% of it’s energy does come from renewable source, but still, the Swedish government thinks they are using far too much oil.
Unless- you didn’t know that purifying and pumping water uses a lot of energy? This is why they are promoting low flow toilets, etc.
It would be annoying, if I ever mentioned it directly to him*. Mind you, when a group of us was sitting around bullshitting, yes, we did discuss “to flush or not to flush”- not surprisingly, he was pro-flush.
of course you do know dudes don’t talk to dudes while using the urinal, right?
I think you’re missing the point here. Every form of water use does have a cost in both water and energy, but not every cost savings in water use should be given equally high priority.
Sure, even in areas where water scarcity isn’t a problem, not flushing urine still saves valuable energy. So would not showering more often than once a week or not brushing your teeth, of course, but nobody’s advocating those measures except perhaps in cases of extreme water shortage.
Pumping? Oh right, that’s what they do in elevation-challenged countries, right? You know what the main challenge is in the Oslo water supply network? Getting the water pressure down. It’s even been considered using turbines instead of pressure reduction valves to get some “free energy” out of the system.
Yes, there are energy costs to supplying clean drinking water even in Scandinavia, but compared to areas where water is pumped up from dwindling ground water resources the cost in most of the Scandinavian peninsula is minuscule, and the cost benefit analysis just doesn’t make not flushing urine a sensible measure to promote.
:dubious: :dubious: “Millions of gallons”? “A cup”? Asymmetric comparison much?
You’re trying to set the savings from, say, thousands of people going years without flushing urine against the savings from one person not brushing their teeth one time. That’s not a particularly convincing argument.
In any case, the point isn’t whether brushing teeth uses as much water or energy as not flushing urine (and I never claimed that it did, btw). The point is that not every environmental cost-savings measure is equally important in every locality.
As naita pointed out in the post just before yours (which you may have missed, as you don’t seem to have responded to it), there are places that happen to have neither any shortage of water nor any shortage of renewable energy for powering the water system. Consequently, in such places a practice of not flushing urine is not going to be as environmentally beneficial as it is elsewhere.
As for not flushing urine being “harmless”, sure it is, in the vast majority of cases. So is not showering more than once a week, in the vast majority of cases. But many people nonetheless find both those practices unpleasant, despite the fact that both of them save a lot of water.
Eco-friendly behavior generally involves making some trade-offs between personal/social convenience or preference and environmental benefit; people are more willing to sacrifice their own preferences when they perceive a more crucial need or more significant benefit. It doesn’t do the cause any good to try to scold people out of their comfort zones in cases where the resulting environmental benefits are relatively minor. Especially if the scolder still maintains some “comfort zones” of their own at the expense of eco-friendliness.
In other words, if you take a shower several times a week, I don’t think you’re in any position to lecture water-abundant Scandinavians about how irresponsible it is of them to flush urine.
Never heard a Spanish equivalent; in fact, I still find it downright disturbing and completely counter-purposes. Flushing urine is like rinsing the shower after you’re done: it avoids buildup and reduces the amount of cleaners and elbow grease needed to get rid of it.
I had a job where someone had apparently spent too much time abroad. At one point, the “please flush” sign was temporarily replaced by a ballpoint-written: “if you like aged pee, grow it in YOUR home” (A la que le gusta el pis viejo: críalo en TU casa)
Another issue is differences in toilet design. Based on the wikipedia article for low flush toilets, American toilets used to be horrible water guzzlers:
I only have my personal experience to cite for Norwegian toilets having been “low flush” by American standards at least as long as I’ve been alive, but browsing through the catalogue of one maker I find just a few plain models with a 6 liter flush and a majority with a dual 4/2.4 liter flush.
Not being anti-Norwegian on this, but Americans follow the ideal of the real cowboy Jack Palance,, who can win an argument by virtue of the fact that he takes bigger craps than his opponent.