Big new technological advancements ?

[baja_yu]

I'm curious about that. I think I agree with you. I can see some real negatives, but I'm wondering what your thinking is on this. The reservoir water is an emergency drinking water source due to it being currently sanitary (unless you add some kind of nastiness to it). That doesn't matter to lots of places, but it was something to consider when I lived in the Florida Keys. Now, out in Idaho, we have virtually free gray water for irrigation (untreated river water). If that was used for toilet water, it would....do absolutely nothing to my water bill because I use less than the minimum amount of water so I pay a flat rate, but other than that it would be theoretically beneficial. The only issue is that the irrigation water is 'chunky style'. There is algae bits in it, which would mean that I could get plants, fungus, moose, and things, living in my reservoir unless I was flushing often.

When you look at the big picture, the numbers aren't that small. I've found somewhere that an average person flushes between 5 and 6 times per day. So if you take rough numbers, for a population of 300 million to flush 5 times consuming 1.6 gallons, it comes to 2.4 billion gallons of water per day, just for flushing the toilet.

One alternative, which isn't applicable to all locations, for example 80% of households in Hong Kong use seawater for flushing.

[thebuffalo]

One alternative, which isn't applicable to all locations, for example 80% of households in Hong Kong use seawater for flushing.

They should do that in Florida, that way my water bill won't be expensive, because how are they going to charge me for seawater?!?! It's all over the place!

[baja_yu]

They should do that in Florida, that way my water bill won't be expensive, because how are they going to charge me for seawater?!?! It's all over the place!

Right. I think that supply in Hong Kong is free.

And here's an interesting factoid from the EPA: "Americans use more water each day by flushing the toilet than they do by showering or any other activity."

[thebuffalo]

That's because not all Americans shower everyday, I would know since the guy I work next to doesn't smell too pleasant.

[Shaggy Hiker]

They should do that in Florida, that way my water bill won't be expensive, because how are they going to charge me for seawater?!?! It's all over the place!

You will need to pump the saltwater. You will also deal with a certain amount of treatment, or you will end up with barnacles in your toilet. All of this can be done using electricity...and your electricity is not very cheap.

[thebuffalo]

Barnacles? Who cares about barnacles, they're everywhere here.

[baja_yu]

Barnacles? So not only would you get free water but a free meal as well

[EntityX]

You have to consider the cost of putting in another set of pipes to bring in the sea water. I would think sea water would rust the pipes more quickly than fresh water. The idea would be more practical for states that border the ocean. To bring in sea water to the states that are in the center of the US would take a lot of pipes.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The problem with barnacles is that you quickly lose the area of your pipes. Things clog coming in, but even worse, they clog going out, too. It wouldn't be long before that situation became intolerable.

[Icyculyr]

That's not usually an issue. Perhaps you need to take a little force off those projectiles?

Sometimes if the projectile hits a certain weight, there is no stopping it.

Perhaps just put a little bunch of toilet paper down first? That's what I do.

I've been splash free for several years now.

[SJWhiteley]

I'm curious about that. I think I agree with you. I can see some real negatives, but I'm wondering what your thinking is on this. The reservoir water is an emergency drinking water source due to it being currently sanitary (unless you add some kind of nastiness to it). That doesn't matter to lots of places, but it was something to consider when I lived in the Florida Keys. Now, out in Idaho, we have virtually free gray water for irrigation (untreated river water). If that was used for toilet water, it would....do absolutely nothing to my water bill because I use less than the minimum amount of water so I pay a flat rate, but other than that it would be theoretically beneficial. The only issue is that the irrigation water is 'chunky style'. There is algae bits in it, which would mean that I could get plants, fungus, moose, and things, living in my reservoir unless I was flushing often.

This is why such 'good ideas that should be implemented by government' are a bad idea. We all live in different places. Living in a hurricane region, the ability to have access to fresh water for everything is important (I've seen the results of not having fresh water and am sure glad we don't have that tragedy, here - on the whole).

While there is bacteria, algae, and so on in things like river water, depending on location, one may or may not be able to use it. likewise with reservoirs and other devices (rain capture devices - a breeding ground for mosquitoes). Some don't live within 20 miles of anything natural, let alone a (semi-)natural source of water.

Using rain capture devices or rivers/streams for irrigation is, of course, common - or rather, not unusual: it is a lot of work, after all. But then you do have to consider scalability - this is the biggest problem. While it's entirely possible to use captured or redirected water on a small scale, when you have a 200 acre farm that has similar water needs things become a bit different.

Indeed, I felt it necessary to make a point, on the whole, that reducing access to fresh, clean, sanitary water is a step back from first worth to third world living. I've experienced dehydration due to lack of access to drinking water, seen the effects of severe dehydration (both within 10 miles of civilization - water, water, everywhere but not a drop to drink); in addition to witnessing the difficulties faced by those without private access to water and is rationed from a stand pipe (apart from the lack of water, the biggest challenge was education on microbes and water-borne diseases; it's extremely difficult to educate someone with extremely bizarre - in a westerners opinion - voodoo beliefs that there are small creatures in water that will kill them).

So: don't mess with my water.

[SJWhiteley]

And here's an interesting factoid from the EPA: "Americans use more water each day by flushing the toilet than they do by showering or any other activity."

Disclaimer: few Americans die every day because they can flush with that water.

[SJWhiteley]

Steering the topic away from water, how about free flowing ketchup?

http://www.prochan.com/view?p=b04_1337839308

[baja_yu]

Indeed, I felt it necessary to make a point, on the whole, that reducing access to fresh, clean, sanitary water is a step back from first worth to third world living. I've experienced dehydration due to lack of access to drinking water, seen the effects of severe dehydration (both within 10 miles of civilization - water, water, everywhere but not a drop to drink); in addition to witnessing the difficulties faced by those without private access to water and is rationed from a stand pipe (apart from the lack of water, the biggest challenge was education on microbes and water-borne diseases; it's extremely difficult to educate someone with extremely bizarre - in a westerners opinion - voodoo beliefs that there are small creatures in water that will kill them).

So: don't mess with my water.

Reducing access to fresh, clean water... Who's making that point?! Who are you arguing with?!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Reducing access to fresh, clean water... Who's making that point?! Who are you arguing with?!

Think of the dogs, man, think of the dogs!

Actually, I do agree with SJW on this. I support lower flows, but I feel that gray water systems have too many issues in the US. The water would still need a certain amount of treatment to be used if it was going to be standing for any length of time, and the necessary treatment isn't all that much less than what flush water gets now, so I don't see any savings of any sort being likely.

[thebuffalo]

Perhaps just put a little bunch of toilet paper down first? That's what I do.

I've been splash free for several years now.

My god, this is a technological breakthrough. You should be given 1,000 virgins and unlimited wealth.

Steering the topic away from water, how about free flowing ketchup?

http://www.prochan.com/view?p=b04_1337839308

These students at MIT should be graduated immediately! These are the advancements I want, I'm tired of hitting the number on my Heinz bottle just to get a little bit of ketchup. This is productive college learning used at its finest!

[baja_yu]

These students at MIT should be graduated immediately! These are the advancements I want, I'm tired of hitting the number on my Heinz bottle just to get a little bit of ketchup. This is productive college learning used at its finest!

That's actually a pretty interesting idea. Now lets wait and see how the big companies burry their invention. Because, why wouldn't they pay extra for the coating which would let their consumers get more out of a bottle hence buying less.

[baja_yu]

Actually, I do agree with SJW on this. I support lower flows, but I feel that gray water systems have too many issues in the US. The water would still need a certain amount of treatment to be used if it was going to be standing for any length of time, and the necessary treatment isn't all that much less than what flush water gets now, so I don't see any savings of any sort being likely.

I'm not proposing any specific solution. Like I said, I'm not a scientist. But I'm not sure if some light mechanical filtering it might need is close the the full treatment it takes to make it drinkable.

[thebuffalo]

That's actually a pretty interesting idea. Now lets wait and see how the big companies burry their invention. Because, why wouldn't they pay extra for the coating which would let their consumers get more out of a bottle hence buying less.

Well actually, since it is SO hard to get that ketchup out, people might over use the ketchup and therefore use it faster, hence buying more ketchup. It all depends on how easy it slides out, if it pours out fast, they could have some serious profit gains. If I was the MIT students I would patent that immediately.

[FunkyDexter]

At the risk of turning this thread into a single topic discussion (which I don't want to do because I really like the idea of free flowing ketchup!) I just want to clarify and get clarification on a couple of points about the grey water thing.

Grey water, as I understand it, isn't untreated river water, it's the run off from reasonably clean domestic processes like laundry, bathing etc. It gets re-used on site for processes that don't require it to come into human contact, like flushing the toilet or watering the garden. As such it's no more susceptible to issues like algae growth than the fresh water currently being piped into your house is and it requires no treating at all. That said, you might want to think twice about re-using the bath water if you have a small child... that could move it into the realms of black water rather ther than grey.

Shaggy, when you've talked about the reservoir being an emergency source of fresh water are you talking about what us brits would call the cistern? If so I can kinda see your point but I can't help feeling there's got to be a better solution to that problem. After all, most of us still have much larger tanks in our lofts (although they are going out of fashion). Abandoning domestic water re-use in the name of such an edge case seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I do think water re-use has some considerable gains to offer us. Apart from the energy savings we've got major issues with our water transportation infrastructure in the UK (mainly due to years of under-investment in a privatised market) and get hit by hose pipe bans as soon as the sun pokes it's face out from behind out perpetually rainladen clouds. A grey water system would mean I could have a green rather than a brown lawn and you really shouldn't underestimate how important a factor that is in the psychological wellness of an Englishman.

The technological advance I'd like to see would be a disabaled parking space which checks whether those parking in it qualify to do so... and if they don't it should make them qualify.

[namrekka]

Reading this thread I got the idea that "The big new technological advancements" is flushing a toilet.

Just waiting then for a itoilet.

[Icyculyr]

My god, this is a technological breakthrough. You should be given 1,000 virgins and unlimited wealth.

We are in agreement

[Shaggy Hiker]

I was just reading about a coating that can be applied to smartphones that keep them working even if you leave them under a running faucet for a couple minutes. That's pretty awesome. I'm going to coat myself in that stuff so that I can take a shower without getting wet...in fact, I think some politicians have applied that to their hair.

[dilettante]

I was just reading about a coating that can be applied to smartphones that keep them working even if you leave them under a running faucet for a couple minutes. That's pretty awesome. I'm going to coat myself in that stuff so that I can take a shower without getting wet...in fact, I think some politicians have applied that to their hair.

Still doesn't explain why most of them can't seen to hear though.

[SJWhiteley]

Reducing access to fresh, clean water... Who's making that point?! Who are you arguing with?!

You did: while you make a passive argument that using all this water is a 'waste', the inference is that 'waste is bad', subsequently 'a technological solution to make the bad go away' to 'something should be done'.

In other words, it is inferred from your comment that wide scale use of government force will save us xx millions of gallons of water - which is a good thing. Such a widespread implementation does reduce my access to clean water to do with what I want.

Now, if you didn't want that inference, what would be the point of starting that it's wasteful, and that there are alternatives?

I basically argued that the 'waste' is not a waste that needs a global solution. If any of the 'solutions' posted are applied to the vast majority of the civilized population then we will have more disease (and, from a sterile perspective, increased costs) and illnesses than what we have today.

To reiterate the point, consider what is in the 'waste water' that we wash with, shower with, bathe with, launder with. We are washing off more than just simple dirt.

Just because there are individual solutions, doesn't mean there is a solution to a larger scale problem. (another example of this is diesel cars running off waste cooking oil).

[SJWhiteley]

Reading this thread I got the idea that "The big new technological advancements" is flushing a toilet.

I have a lot of experience with toilets around the world.

I can tell you that a western toilet system would be a literally a life changing technological advancement.

[baja_yu]

You did: while you make a passive argument that using all this water is a 'waste', the inference is that 'waste is bad', subsequently 'a technological solution to make the bad go away' to 'something should be done'.

All I'm saying is that I'm not an expert and that I feel that thing could be done to conserve resource, but you on the other hand seem certain that this is the best it can get and doing anything more will be to our own detriment.

In other words, it is inferred from your comment that wide scale use of government force will save us xx millions of gallons of water - which is a good thing. Such a widespread implementation does reduce my access to clean water to do with what I want.

Widespread government force? Sounds like you're imagining a soldier with an automatic rifle next to everyones toilet making sure we use it properly.

I already emphasized three times that I'm not advocating for any particular solution. And I said one that would make sense an be viable, similar the example of low flow toilet which reduce the amount of water.

And even if a separate system for toilets were to be the solution (I'm not saying that should be done), you would still get the unlimited clean water everywhere else in your house. So, yes, if you drink the water from your toilet now, that solution would be reducing your access to clean water.

I mentioned this before but you never replied, how do you feel about the low flow toilet mandate, limiting the amount of water per flush? Do you flush twice every time to spite the government?

I basically argued that the 'waste' is not a waste that needs a global solution. If any of the 'solutions' posted are applied to the vast majority of the civilized population then we will have more disease (and, from a sterile perspective, increased costs) and illnesses than what we have today.

I'm not a doctor, but I wouldn't consider my toilet sterile in any sense of the word.

[SJWhiteley]

I mentioned this before but you never replied, how do you feel about the low flow toilet mandate, limiting the amount of water per flush? Do you flush twice every time to spite the government?

I flush as much as is necessary, and will ignore any government rule, regulation or authority.

But like I said - the mandate is on manufacturers, not end users. Not that I agree with such mandates (as you may have noticed).

[dilettante]

Heh-heh, heh-heh, he said "man dates."

[Shaggy Hiker]

Shaggy, when you've talked about the reservoir being an emergency source of fresh water are you talking about what us brits would call the cistern? If so I can kinda see your point but I can't help feeling there's got to be a better solution to that problem.

Of course there are better ways. It's called planning ahead, but we appear to be allergic to that solution, so we had best hang onto our tank/cistern water. After all, how else do you account for people buying every last battery, generator, roll of duct tape, and pretty nearly everything else, out of all the stores in Florida the day before a hurricane is due to hit?

[Nightwalker83]

I have a lot of experience with toilets around the world.

What are you... a plumber?

[SJWhiteley]

What are you... a plumber?

Are you fishing for a story? You want to lift the lid and look in the murky deep? It'll drive you round the bend, I'm sure.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Fishing for a story about a brown trout? If it'll drive him around the bend, you may not be a plumber, but that would at least make you a plumber's helper.

[FunkyDexter]

Heh-heh, heh-heh, he said "man dates."

You Child

It's called planning ahead, but we appear to be allergic to that solution,

Yeah, aint that the truth.

The "clean water in times of emergency" argument is the only one I've seen put forward so far in this thread that comes close to being a valid reason for not re-using grey water but I do still think it's too much of an edge case to form the basis of general policy.

Most of the sentiment I'm seeing put forward so far seems to boil down to "It's my right to waste clean water if I want to as long as I'm paying for it". That's not a good enough argument for me because it's probably not the person doing the wasting that's paying the real cost. The cost is primarily enviromental and that'll be felt world wide rather than by the individual. At that point I think we've all got a moral obligation to do what we can and governments do then have a role to play in encouraging (and, in extreme cases, forcing) us to fulfil that moral obligation.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Actually, I think that there are places where this really matters, and places where it really doesn't. In a place like the Florida Keys, where there is no fresh water (there actually is a bit in some areas, but most people don't know that), so ALL non-salt water is piped in, then gray water makes lots of sense. However, it may not make any sense where I am currently located, despite the fact that I live in a total desert (and a dessert, most of the time, to be honest). As a result of rather remarkable planning, we have a reservoir system that is so effective that I can literally run a river in my yard every year for about $70, which is utterly absurd. Drinking water is also cheaper...than....well....water. We aren't even close to a shortage, nor are we doing any real harm by using what we have. That's not true for big parts of this very state, though. The houses that draw their water from the Snake Plain Aquifer are on a collision course with some serious lawsuits, as the water is running out for them. We may run out of room to grow before we tap out our renewable water, whereas 100 miles to the East, they have long since exceeded the renewable water supply, and are drawing down the principle. For them, gray water makes sense, whereas for us, it may never in our lifetimes.

[Lord Orwell]

What does that have to do with technological advancements? Apple computers haven't come out with any new technology since the 80s. They've only been playing catch up...except in price, they have always been leaders in that area.

i won't bother to point out that among other advancements, pci and firewire originated in macs. I will instead point out the newest one:thunderbolt.

And five minutes of battery life.

You don't buy either of those laptops if you want battery life. You get a netbook.

Will a 20 year lightbulb suffice http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17788178

visit revision3/tekzilla. Last week's episode was all about the winner of the design contest for the next gen lightbulb.

No you don't. You want a light bulb that lasts as long as you need it. Two very different things.

If you really wanted something that lasts a long time, do you still have your very first cell phone? I'm sure you upgraded 'because you can' rather than because it broke [sic]. (of course, a lot of modern devices are designed to last as long as the thought of your average consumer).

If you want a cell phone that lasts, don't get a samsung. I had to RMA one, had a power socket break in a 2nd, the back plate quit staying on on a 3rd, a 4th actually fell in half at the hinge, a 5th overheated when the bluetooth was turned on. The only samsung i've ever owned that didn't break is my Moment, and the software upgrade broke the gps.

Sometimes if the projectile hits a certain weight, there is no stopping it.

German toilets have solved this. You don't excrete #2 directly into water. There's a ledge that gets washed clean with the flush.

[baja_yu]

German toilets have solved this. You don't excrete #2 directly into water. There's a ledge that gets washed clean with the flush.

You mean these: http://blog.young-germany.de/2010/02...erman-toilets/ ? I absolutely hate those.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's pretty funny. However, as a person with a diet that is pretty dramatically broad, I don't really want to have another look at it. Frankly, even if I do recognize what I see there, the broccoli, corn, tapeworms, car keys, belt sanders, and the like, what am I going to do about it? Should I send out an interoffice memo:

Announcement: If anybody is missing a blue slipper....I know where you can find it.

My diet isn't actually quite as diverse as that, but it gets the point across. I never know quite what is going to come out, I just hope it isn't still moving.

[Icyculyr]

You don't buy either of those laptops if you want battery life. You get a netbook.

Not if you want performance along with it, netbooks are weak and to be honest don't have that great battery life either. You can buy ultra portables (or some type) though which have decent performance and a lot of battery life.

[baja_yu]

Not if you want performance along with it, netbooks are weak and to be honest don't have that great battery life either. You can buy ultra portables (or some type) though which have decent performance and a lot of battery life.

What does that have to do with toilets or bowel movements? Quit going off topic and ruining a perfectly good poop thread.