Celebrity endorsement by Rosie O'Donell.
Posted on 07/30/2007 7:55:43 AM PDT by Millee
The Western World's dependence on flush toilets could be its environmental downfall.
Toilets that use less water, such as the "squat toilet" in which one squats over a hole in the ground, are prevalent in parts of Asia, Europe and Africa, but a new historical study suggests that after decades of flushing, it will take radical innovations for the mainstream West to adopt any new system.
"Most people can hardly imagine that other ways of handling human waste have ever existed," said study author Maj-Britt Quitzau, an environmental sociologist with the National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark. "But actually, systems did exist prior to the flushing toilet where human waste was collected within the cities and re-used in farming areas."
Since the 1900s, scientists have known that flushing away human waste comes with environmental consequences , such as using precious, potable water. Each year, a typical person will use almost 4,000 gallons of drinking water to flush away 75 pounds of feces and 130 gallons of urine, according to a 2001 study by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
Celebrity endorsement by Rosie O'Donell.
“Each year, a typical person will use almost 4,000 gallons of drinking water to flush...”
Of course there is no acknowledgement of the waste water treatment plants that treat and allow for re-use of the majority of the water we use. Envirotwits are nincompoops that need to be flushed! (Wow, imagine how many flushes that would take in our low flow toilets!)
Just cut the toilet in half for these half ass environmentalists
Conversely I shudder at the thought of the flushing water going to waste by drinking it...9>)
Our auto industry was pole-axed by just such mandates while emeging foriegn companies reaped the rewards.
We have government mandated low volumn toilets that don't work very well. If sewer costs were passed on by cost rather than politics, toilets would change to suit the consumer that could afford to pay for the improvement and the fisture would have been phased-in by a manner whereby it would work. Instead, it is just a government fix and now a government problem.
I propose a lot of desalination and new water sources. The resulting usage should calm the fears of AlGore as we can infringe on the sea level rise he is predicting.
How many Western men teach their sons to pee in the back yard?
Put a tank under your shower/tub to collect the water you use there, and pump that water into the toilet to flush. That is a sensible solution for those of us who choose not to squat, thank you. It really is stupid to flush with drinking water, though.
Yeah, frigin watermelons want us to go back to dieing from poor sanitation to save water. Idiots.
Bud: Excuse me, Dad, but a toilet is a toilet.
Al: (grimacing) Bud... the toilets today aren't worthy of the name! They come in designer colors... they're too low! When you flush them, they make this weak, almost apologetic sound. But not the Ferguson. It only comes in white. And when you flush it... BaaaWOOOSH! That's a man's flush, Bud. A Ferguson says, "I'm a toilet. Sit down and give me your best shot." Oh, if only a Ferguson could speak, the tales it would tell!
Not sure, but I looked it up in a dictionary and I found this picture:
When it comes to water conservation, there are two ways of looking at it. From the Enviros perspective where once everything has been used there is no getting it back which is wrong when it comes to water, or the perspective of those who treat the water that is put in the water lines for your use and who also treat the sewage the enters the waste water treatment plants. Once water is treated for drinking, it's stupid to waste it without a thought in your head. Everything costs money and if wasting the tax payers' money is one of your favorite pastimes, you are no conservative. Putting excess loads on waste water treatment plants is also very stupid if it can be prevented. Water conservation starts and stops in everyones bank accounts. Most people don't live in a rural township in the Northern Midwest where you pay $15 a month and can have all the clean ground water pumped to your house that you will ever need.
“Everything costs money and if wasting the tax payers’ money is one of your favorite pastimes, you are no conservative.”
Of course most large concentrations of our population, charge each household for their “use” of the water. Which is precisely why my grass is brown right now. I am a penny pinching miser, which makes me more of an environmentalist than most “environmentalists” that I personally know. Economics works just fine, so long as everyone has to fund their own way.....
Now, when we start to subsidize, well, then socialism takes over and destroys our environment, economy, land and general way of life!
One conservation idea may include not flushing during the night - just flush after going first thing in the morning (keep a room freshner going and the lid shut during the night)...
Once that happened all of the toilet inventors threw up their hands in disgust. I mean, really, what else is there?
If you really are a penny pinching miser, why are you here slamming technology that could actually save you money, or at least keep you from spending much much more?
Here’s how we can distract all these environazis: Tell them that they need to come up with a system that recycles greenhouse gas discharges from the moon.
Lunar Flash Mystery Solved: Moon Just Passing Gas
Yahoo (Space.com) ^ | Mon Jul 30, 6:15 AM ET | David Powell
Posted on 07/30/2007 7:48:55 AM PDT by The_Victor
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873635/posts
Dude, post #15 - I laughed so hard one of the neighbors in the apt next to me asked me if everything was OK.
I know all about that “squatting” technology used in other parts of the world and I have no desire to have that become an American way of life. I don’t consider it to be a move forward that would improve our quality of life. Instead, it is the typical move backward that “environmentalists” support.
Are you actually advocating squatting over a hole in the ground? Aim much?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.