To Flush Or Not To Flush 746
gooman writes "Tired of arguing the same old issues like Linux vs Windows? Choose up sides in the fight over flushing vs non-flushing urinals. The L.A. Times reports on efforts to place the waterless urinal into the Uniform Plumbing Code. To quote: '...the ordinary-looking urinal is at the center of a national debate that has plumbers and water conservationists taking aim at one another.' Amazingly simple, the no-flush urinal uses gravity to force urine through a filter containing a floating layer of oily liquid which then acts as a sealant to prevent sewer odors from escaping. Each no-flush urinal is claimed to save over 24,000 gallons of water a year, but the opposition is concerned about the spread of disease. Although not mentioned in the article this technology is in use around the world. Does anyone have these fixtures installed at their place of employment? Are there any real drawbacks? Is this really a worthwhile debate or just an excuse for toilet humor?"
Re:I prefer flush (Score:3, Informative)
Technology? I think not! (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Isn't urine sterile? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pee in the Sink (Score:5, Informative)
But it makes a really great breeding ground for bacteria (which can colonize it from the air, or the remnants of some guy's puke in the urinal, etc.).
-Jenn
If It's Yellow (Score:4, Informative)
Yes but that's not the problem (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is urine tends to have a composition that fosters the growth of bacteria as they somehow manage to get into it. In fact this is one reason urine smells, typically urine is quite odorless when leaving the body. The 'stale urine' ammonia smell you remember from bathrooms is a biproduct of the decomposition of urea by bacteria.
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:4, Informative)
Incorrect. The situation is already changing. And it is going to get worse soon.
Redwood City, CA, -- smack in the middle of one of the most affluent areas in the nation -- currently has what amounts to a ban on all new construction because there's simply no more fresh water. They have already exceeded their allotment from available supplies. Los Angeles has been living on borrowed time for decades, damming up every fresh water supply in sight and draining it dry. Tulare Lake, once measuring roughly 30 by 60 miles across, is now essentially gone. It took government intervention to keep them from completely draining Mono Lake, but they're still slurping a monsterous percentage of the Colorado River. Other scattered communities throughout the continental US are noticing the rivers and lakes are drying up, and underground fresh water aquifers are also becoming harder to find and maintain.
There is a problem. And as long as the population increases, it's only going to get worse. As I see it, there are only two real long-term solutions:
I don't really give a sh*t if you have a six-figure income and can afford a $500/month water bill; the surrounding community that supports you can't sustain it. So mandatory conservation for everyone. That means 1.8 gallon or less toilets, low-flow shower heads, front-loading clothes washers, underground or drip irrigation for gardens. If you're really snazzy, you'll recapture your waste water and re-use it for the garden or the toilets -- or re-purify it yourself and take pressure off the municipal supply.
We have a nationwide power grid. Why not a nationwide water grid? Some areas of the country get flooded every year, while others suffer drought. With a national network of large pipes, we can ship water from areas that have too much to areas that don't have enough -- use the flood waters from the Midwest and East to relieve water shortages in the West, and vice-versa when the need arises.
Of course, I'm just an insane computer programmer, so what do I know?
By the way, if you want to talk about the (lack of) need for water conservation and be taken seriously, then viewing this [imdb.com] is a mandatory prerequisite.
Schwab
Low flow toilets caused enough problems. (Score:3, Informative)
In residential areas there are not as many problems with clogged sewer lines. Laundry machines, showers, dishwashers - these all add lots of water to the sanitary sewer system and keep the percentage of solids low.
Commercial districts, OTOH, are having increasingly large problems with plugged sewer lines. Low-flow toilets are pushing (or failing to push as the case may be) sanitary lines over the edge. The point is being reached where there just isn't enough water introduced into the lines to move the, um, solids.
The only solution is either decreasing the solids percentage in the system by increasing water use, or increasing the pitch at which sanitary lines are laid. You can only increase the pitch so much, though, before you run out of drop and need to install lift stations (bringing their own set of environmental costs.)
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:5, Informative)
Because it seems like if it doesn't (a) get somebody re-elected and/or (b) make somebody a profit, it usually won't get done.
During WWII, Winston Churchill put it best. To paraphrase: The Americans, when all other options have been exhausted, will do the right thing.
Re:uh, low flush toilets are often REQUIRED... (Score:4, Informative)
I am not a nephrologist (Score:2, Informative)
actually, the real reason that urine sterile is because, under normal circumstances, the kidneys are filtering a sterile fluid (blood).
there are five normally sterile fluids in the body: blood, urine, cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid (on the outside of the lungs) and peritoneal fluid (on the outside of your intestines). your mouth and gut are full of bacteria which makes fluid that comes out of them (spit, sputum, mucous, feces) contaminated.
<speculation> i would think that urine is an extremely poor vector for disease transmission. for one thing, it's pH is low enough that it is an unfavorable environment for bacterial or viral growth. it's relatively acellular and is loaded with osmotically active molecules (urea). certian viruses and bacteria could i suppose slip through the glomeruli or more likely catch a ride on the end of the urethra as the pee squirts by, but i doubt that it could concentrate into a fluid with a clinically significant viral load.</speculation>
the idea of urine accumulating on porcelain posing a disease risk doesn't ring true to me. are the plumbers going to lose money on this by having fewer moving parts to maintain?
Re:We have them at University of North Texas (Score:1, Informative)
I do find it interesting, however, that the waterless urinals are only used in the 1st floor men's room. The men's rooms on the 2nd and 3rd floors use reqular flush-type urinals. Is it that those waterless urinals were just a 'demo' project of the company that made them (getting free adverts from the plaques mounted above EACH one of the three -- at nearly eye level... you can't miss reading them while you are taking a leak), or is there just some reason they can only be used at ground level?
Ecological Sanitation - way of the future (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Gravity doesn't stop odors (Score:5, Informative)
Well then, it's not all that similar then, because the one described in the summary has a "floating layer of oily liquid". It sounds like the US Navy ships' urinals that you're describing let the urine sit there in contact with the open air for indefinite period of time, whereas in these toilets, the oily liquid serves as a barrier between the urine and the air. Presumably this prevents certain volatile (meaning prone to evaporation, as opposed to unpredictable) chemicals from evaporating and smelling up the place.
The point being, although they may be similar, it seems like the oily liquid is a key difference.
Re:magnitude? (Score:2, Informative)
we have those (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:2, Informative)
HINT: Redwoods need alot of water.......guess what they have alot of in REDWOOD city?
Re:I have one! (Score:2, Informative)
Desert Golf or not? (Score:2, Informative)
Good or Bad? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:0, Informative)
You've been on Slashdot too long. I know plenty of Californians who don't think the world revolves around them. Great way to start a post. If I had a mod point, I'd give the GP just what he deserves, despite the fact that I agree with dealing with the problem locally, where possible.
As for California not being humanly habitable, that's yet another distortion of reality. That's a bad habit for such a "reasonable" guy. I can't and won't defend the abomination that L.A. has become, but it would have been able to sustain some habitation, just not droves of people from out of state who decided to move there. I won't complain too much though. Future generations will have to deal with much more overpopulation hell than I'll ever see. Is your metropolitan area not dependant on water and food beyond the immediately outlying area? Good for you. Time to get high and mighty I suppose.
Enough MOD instructions, OK? When you have points, spend them however you think is best. That's how it works.
If your toilet ever overflows (was Re:Get your $#! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:3, Informative)
No you won't. At least not if you live in a place where you really need to
Now you might say that the law needs to be changed, and I would agree. But the water laws are very complex, and under near-constant litigation and negotiation both intra- and inter-state. Changing anything at all about them tends to be a non-trivial political process, to put it mildly.
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:3, Informative)
The symptoms you described, especially the blowback of several gallons of waste water, cannot be caused by a defective low-flow toilet. Your building's plumbing had a serious problem, which needed to be diagnosed and fixed.
Re:this has nothing to do with whats better (Score:3, Informative)
A contractor will look at it and go " what the heeelll is that I can install ya ten american standards that I gots sitt'n in back it will save you $$$$$$$$$$$$"
That's one advantage of a no flush urinal. Since it doesn't require a water hookup, there's no excuse for the installation NOT being cheaper than for water flush versions. One less hole in the tile, less pipes to connect, and no joints under pressure that have to be solid.
Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I am not a doctor (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:3, Informative)
Except for one thing: Redwood City, CA [google.com] isn't in the middle of the desert, it's in the middle of the BAY AREA, and has a natural body of water within walking distance.
I wouldn't want to drink that water for all the tea in China, though. Water might be available, in most places in the US (which I think the grandparent poster was saying), but it certainly isn't all potable.
waterless urinals smell (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Low Flush *wastes* water, Oil based don't work (Score:3, Informative)
At home I always sit down to pee because I'd rather take an extra few seconds to sit than spend my time wiping up the urine spray all over the place.
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:3, Informative)
California should do more to dig itself out of its own mess, but that doesn't mean that waterless urinals won't help - and that's the point of the discussion, is it not?
Re:Get your $#!^ together (Score:3, Informative)