Low Flow Toilets And Stinky San Francisco

[Dave]

As with many of the measures that are designed to help the envioronment, with the good comes some bad. As it turns out, with the lower amount of water running through the sewer system in San Fran, its harder for the waste to move to its desired destination. This in turn is causing the waste to clog the system which in turn causes odor. While its a small problem now, it could become a big problem for the city in the near future as it very well could effect tourist dollars coming into the city. If I knew a city I was going to was literally going to smell like poop, I'd might opt for another, prettier smelling destination. Some people will go regardless but at some point its going to be a problem.

 

 

 

San Francisco's big push for low-flow toilets has turned into a multimillion-dollar plumbing stink.

Skimping on toilet water has resulted in more sludge backing up inside the sewer pipes, said Tyrone Jue, spokesman for the city Public Utilities Commission. That has created a rotten-egg stench near AT&T Park and elsewhere, especially during the dry summer months.

The city has already spent $100 million over the past five years to upgrade its sewer system and sewage plants, in part to combat the odor problem.

Now officials are stocking up on a $14 million, three-year supply of highly concentrated sodium hypochlorite - better known as bleach - to act as an odor eater and to disinfect the city's treated water before it's dumped into the bay. It will also be used to sanitize drinking water.

That translates into 8.5 million pounds of bleach either being poured down city drains or into the drinking water supply every year.

Not everybody thinks it's a good idea.

A Don't Bleach Our Bay alert has just gone out from eco-blogger Adam Lowry who argues the city would be much better off using a disinfectant like hydrogen peroxide - or better yet, a solution that would naturally break down the bacteria.

As for whether the supposedly environmentally friendly, low-flow toilets are worth the trouble? Well, according to Jue, they have helped trim San Francisco's annual water consumption by about 20 million gallons.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/27/BAVP1HU...

[Sweater Cows!]

If its not one thing its another. such is life.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I have had issues with low flow toilets already myself. You can call me full of S%$%^%$T if you like. But I have to flush more than once for the pipes to stay open just in my own home. Multiply that by millions of flaming liberals and you get the idea.

I am sure that if you ask the head of the Sierra Club ( He feels bleach should be banned). He would even honestly tell you the bleach option is far worse for the environment than the extra outflow of 20 million in water.

 

[Dave]

Yeah, it seems that while a single flush uses less water, many people have to flush more then once to get everything down which in the end makes you wonder how much water is actually being saved.

For a little amusement, go read the reader comments attached to the story... some pretty funny ones

[Lisa O'Brien]

They need to get the pressure assisted toilet - first time I came across one of them it about scared me to death.

[Sweater Cows!]

Those are good. my dad has one and my kid won't use that bathroom in his house because it scares her.

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Kind of like the CFL bulbs. Save electricity yes!! AT the cost of millions of pounds of discarded mercury. So which is worse? It depends on what company your a lobbyist for, doesn't it?

[Sweater Cows!]

CFL's SUCK!!! #1 because of the mercury, #2 if you have an older electrical system or crummy lamps they burn out in about 3 months.

[XLFD]

As Aquaman always says, "The more brothy the Fecal Soup, the better."

Now I understand what he means.