Big new technological advancements ?

[baja_yu]

Hasn't #1 happened already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity..._United_States But I guess as long as we keep seeing beautiful and thin people on TV it's OK.

[baja_yu]

Oh, and here's something serious I'd like to see as soon as possible. A toilet or plumbing system that wont use drinking water to flush our ****. I don't think anything even comes close in being such a horrible and sad waste (no pun intended).

[thebuffalo]

Well, that statistic goes by a false consideration of "obese". For example, I am 5'9" and 190lbs, I am not fat, but considered "overweight". Overweight should be considered by your body fat percentage along with your height and weight, not just height and weight. Also, I know plenty of people my same height, but have 20-30 lbs on me, and still are not fat but they are "overweight".

As for the toilet water.. I do not drink tap water because there is chemicals in it that I do not approve of, chlorine being one of them. If they lowered the standards I would be even more displeased because I would be showering in poop water. If they came up with a split plumbing system that divided my drinking water from my poop and shower water, I would be fine.

[FunkyDexter]

those electric chairs you have in the US for the near-terminally fat

wait, is obesity attracting the death penalty in the US now? Not before time, I say. I've heard that the obesity problem in the States is the reason magentic north and geographic north don't line up.

If they came up with a split plumbing system that divided my drinking water from my poop and shower water, I would be fine

That's the idea and these systems already exist (it's not exactly complicated to do). The problem is there's no real motivation for builders to include them in new builds and retro-fitting them is very expensive (you have to replace the whole plumbing system) so existing home owners are unlikely to adopt them. If we want to see large scale uptake of them (and I think it would be a good thing) then government is going to need to incentivise them.

[baja_yu]

That's the idea and these systems already exist (it's not exactly complicated to do). The problem is there's no real motivation for builders to include them in new builds and retro-fitting them is very expensive (you have to replace the whole plumbing system) so existing home owners are unlikely to adopt them. If we want to see large scale uptake of them (and I think it would be a good thing) then government is going to need to incentivise them.

Unfortunately people wont do it unless they see a direct financial benefit from it. And since water is cheap, I think my water bill is about 10% of what I pay for electricity, it might not happen soon. After a few Google searches I came upon this: http://www.innerlineplumbing.com/products/sloan-aqus/ not a bad idea. I'm not sure what the cost would be of such a system.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Just remember: The water in the tank is potable, but the water in the bowl is not.

It's a good thing to remember if you live in an area prone to being cut off from all services due to a hurricane. I remember that advice from my years in the Florida Keys.

[dilettante]

Oh, and here's something serious I'd like to see as soon as possible. A toilet or plumbing system that wont use drinking water to flush our ****. I don't think anything even comes close in being such a horrible and sad waste (no pun intended).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs

[dilettante]

Libertarian extremists live pretty dog-eat-dog and often turn into fascists. In the end they're generally taken care of one way or another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD75cLjvRwA

[baja_yu]

Well, flushing poo with one kind of water or another doesn't really make a difference to you, so you can't compare it with having apples in a happy meal. You wont see any difference one way or the other. So I don't know why you would oppose such government imposition. Do you really need studies to tell you that flushing feces with drinkable water is a waste? A billion people in the world don't have clean drinking water and we're bathing our excrements in it.

[SJWhiteley]

Well, flushing poo with one kind of water or another doesn't really make a difference to you, so you can't compare it with having apples in a happy meal. You wont see any difference one way or the other. So I don't know why you would oppose such government imposition. Do you really need studies to tell you that flushing feces with drinkable water is a waste? A billion people in the world don't have clean drinking water and we're bathing our excrements in it.

Making (forcing) us to flush with gray water doesn't bring those without clean drinking water any closer to that reality.

In addition, is flushing with clean, sanitary, water a problem? Is it a health risk? If it doesn't make one difference or another, why do it? Is there truly 'no burden' in actually converting to a dual water system? If so, why are we not doing it now? (I'm certain if we followed this argument it would eventually end in the Godwin-like Big Oil barrier).

[Niya]

Oh boy what a derail....A thread about possible shiny new tech just went down the toilet lol

[thebuffalo]

Oh boy what a derail....A thread about possible shiny new tech just went down the toilet lol

Literally.

[Niya]

lol literally

[baja_yu]

Oh boy what a derail....A thread about possible shiny new tech just went down the toilet lol

Well, that depends on the spectator. To some, a way to conserve clean drinking water is a big technological advancement, and to others it's the next iPhone.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well, flushing poo with one kind of water or another doesn't really make a difference to you, so you can't compare it with having apples in a happy meal. You wont see any difference one way or the other. So I don't know why you would oppose such government imposition. Do you really need studies to tell you that flushing feces with drinkable water is a waste? A billion people in the world don't have clean drinking water and we're bathing our excrements in it.

My excrement is too righteous for simple drinking water. Before I flush, I sneak into a church to kipe enough holy water for the job at hand. I then return home, fill the reservoir with the holy water, push the lever, and exclaim......well, you know the rest.

[baja_yu]

Making (forcing) us to flush with gray water doesn't bring those without clean drinking water any closer to that reality.

In addition, is flushing with clean, sanitary, water a problem? Is it a health risk? If it doesn't make one difference or another, why do it? Is there truly 'no burden' in actually converting to a dual water system? If so, why are we not doing it now? (I'm certain if we followed this argument it would eventually end in the Godwin-like Big Oil barrier).

Where did I say this should be done because flushing with clean water is unsanitary or a health risk? You're arguing with statements that I've never made.
I'm simply saying is that it's a waste of a pretty valuable resource, and that steps should be made to conserve it. I'm not advocating for a dual water system, that might in fact be the most expensive solution especially if you were to retrofit it to existing buildings.

EDIT: And you already have laws limiting the amount of water per flush to 1.6 gallons, so how would a similar (and reasonable) mandate be different? But I guess you flush twice just to spite the government.

[baja_yu]

My excrement is too righteous for simple drinking water. Before I flush, I sneak into a church to kipe enough holy water for the job at hand. I then return home, fill the reservoir with the holy water, push the lever, and exclaim......well, you know the rest.

Confining your excrement to the toilet bowl and pipes is unethical. You should be advocating for more free range excrement that would be free to roam around lush grassy fields and enjoy company of other excrement thus having a rich and fulfilled life.

[FunkyDexter]

Making (forcing) us to flush with gray water doesn't bring those without clean drinking water any closer to that reality.

In addition, is flushing with clean, sanitary, water a problem? Is it a health risk? If it doesn't make one difference or another, why do it? Is there truly 'no burden' in actually converting to a dual water system? If so, why are we not doing it now? (I'm certain if we followed this argument it would eventually end in the Godwin-like Big Oil barrier).

I never mentioned forcing, I said incentivising. That said it would, of course, be your tax dollars paying for the incentives.

Yes there is a burden in converting to a dual water system: The one time cost to set it up. The benefit will be a hugely decreased cost to deliver your water on an ongoing basis. Sanitising water has a high energy cost, both in financial and enviromental terms. I'm willing to bet you don't care about the latter but hopefully the former might get your attention. Further, we're reaching the point where sanitising water isn't producing enough volume and we're start to de-salinate sea water instead. That has a HUGE cost.

Ultimately, whether it's worth doing or not depends obn whether the benefit outweighs the cost. I'm willing to bet that the need to de-salinate will be the tipping point on that equation.

Just to clear up another miss-understanding. America adopting grey water won't directly help any children in Africa get clean drinking water. The benefit is in reduced costs and lessened enviromental impact. It could probably be argued the lessened enviromantal impact would indirectly help deliver clean water to Africa but it's almost impossible to prove.

[SJWhiteley]

Where did I say this should be done because flushing with clean water is unsanitary or a health risk? You're arguing with statements that I've never made.
I'm simply saying is that it's a waste of a pretty valuable resource, and that steps should be made to conserve it. I'm not advocating for a dual water system, that might in fact be the most expensive solution especially if you were to retrofit it to existing buildings.

EDIT: And you already have laws limiting the amount of water per flush to 1.6 gallons, so how would a similar (and reasonable) mandate be different? But I guess you flush twice just to spite the government.

No, you offered no argument at all: I was trying to determine what your argument was for government intervention beyond 'it's the right thing to do, or, as you say 'it's a waste'. Therein lies the problem: you think it's a waste, i do not. Regulating waste where no harm is done (of course that is a point for debate - which funkydexter, quite rightfully brought up; that advances the discussion) is not for one person - or a majority - to make a decision over another.

And to follow through with my comments, flushing with used water will create unsanitary conditions - that is why we flush with sanitary (or rather 'clean') water.

[SJWhiteley]

I never mentioned forcing, I said incentivising. That said it would, of course, be your tax dollars paying for the incentives.

...

The problem with government incentives is that they really don't have the effect one would think - i will concede that you didn't say 'forcing' that was my word, but it ultimately is the only effective 'incentive' the government has: you have to make something an offense. The reason it has to go this far is because the cost is extortionately high.

It's also why we see 'incentive by law' applied to manufacturers and service providers. Two examples: it is not illegal to use 100W light bulbs, but is illegal for retailers to sell them; it is not illegal to flush more than 1.6 gallons, but it is to sell such flushing systems. While some regulation is of a reasonable cost, the increasing regulation, even at such reasonable costs gradually burdens the consumer. Wile some would say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the actuality is that the poor, as a group, gets larger, without any of these riches going to the rich. Their riches are maintained because the added 'cost' burdens are not an equal percentage.

We are at a point where regulation is exercised for the sake of regulation - with the associated costs - with little to no gain. To come back on-point; you cannot regulate into place technological innovations.

[thebuffalo]

It all comes down to this; My toilet starts full of clean drinkable water, when I am done with the toilet, it is not clean, but possibly drinkable in some countries. So why not just have this not clean, still drinkable in some countries, water in the toilet to begin with? Because no one wants to poop in dirty water and have it splash up on their butt, that's why!

[baja_yu]

No, you offered no argument at all: I was trying to determine what your argument was for government intervention beyond 'it's the right thing to do, or, as you say 'it's a waste'. Therein lies the problem: you think it's a waste, i do not. Regulating waste where no harm is done (of course that is a point for debate - which funkydexter, quite rightfully brought up; that advances the discussion) is not for one person - or a majority - to make a decision over another.

Well me saying that I think it's a waste is an argument. So, you think that taking unclean water from the ground, or desalinating seawater, then processing it to make it clean and drinkable, pumping and delivering it to homes, then practically just dumping it into the sewer is no waste of various resources? In my opinion it's a waste comparable to putting a heater outside in the winter to make the city warmer.

And to follow through with my comments, flushing with used water will create unsanitary conditions - that is why we flush with sanitary (or rather 'clean') water.

Would you care to elaborate how reusing water from lets say your bathtub and using it for flushing will make the sh*t and piss unsanitary, or more unsanitary because it's not very sanitary in the first place.

[baja_yu]

It all comes down to this; My toilet starts full of clean drinkable water, when I am done with the toilet, it is not clean, but possibly drinkable in some countries. So why not just have this not clean, still drinkable in some countries, water in the toilet to begin with? Because no one wants to poop in dirty water and have it splash up on their butt, that's why!

Well, your first splash-back might be a bit cleaner, but watch out for the second one

Oh. And the water is drinkable prior to flushing. What remains in the toilet bowl after you flush and the "stuff" is gone, is nowhere near clean or safe to drink (not that anyone would do that), even though it might appear to be. So what splashes the next time isn't really doing your behind any favors and is not a replacement for actually washing your behind

[thebuffalo]

Well, your first splash-back might be a bit cleaner, but watch out for the second one

You sparked my idea for the next new technological advancement! It will be a splashless toilet, no water but a vacuum that will have motion detection to "suck up" falling objects and will have a catch/display can in case someone drops a phone, wedding ring, etc..

Oh. And the water is drinkable prior to flushing. What remains in the toilet bowl after you flush and the "stuff" is gone, is nowhere near clean or safe to drink (not that anyone would do that), even though it might appear to be. So what splashes the next time isn't really doing your behind any favors and is not a replacement for actually washing your behind

Well, if you have one of those french butt fountains, I think it is called a "bidet", you might possibly be okay.

[SJWhiteley]

Would you care to elaborate how reusing water from lets say your bathtub and using it for flushing will make the sh*t and piss unsanitary, or more unsanitary because it's not very sanitary in the first place.

It isn't the actual flushing, it's the non-clean water that you have to have sitting around somewhere for hours/days/weeks.

[baja_yu]

It isn't the actual flushing, it's the non-clean water that you have to have sitting around somewhere for hours/days/weeks.

Most of your fixtures use traps that use that same water, though in smaller quantities, to prevent sewer odors from coming back up. But the gray water can be, and is in the few systems I saw online, filtered to a degree. I'm not a hydro engineer nor a health or an environmental expert to know all the factors that would be involved, nor am I advocating any particular system. All I said in my first post on the subject that I wish someone would come up with a solution, implying it be financially viable, environmentally friendly and sanitary. But I stand by my argument that it's a waste of resources.

[Shaggy Hiker]

You should be advocating for more free range excrement that would be free to roam around lush grassy fields and enjoy company of other excrement thus having a rich and fulfilled life.

Oh I DO, man, I DO!!! I'm pretty darn sure what a bear does in the woods, and I've been there more than a few times myself.

[Shaggy Hiker]

And to follow through with my comments, flushing with used water will create unsanitary conditions - that is why we flush with sanitary (or rather 'clean') water.

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.

[thebuffalo]

I wonder what they do with all that poop that gets flushed, maybe we can use it as a natural energy source!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Because no one wants to poop in dirty water and have it splash up on their butt, that's why!

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

[thebuffalo]

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.

[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.