Low-flow toilets cause a stink in SF

Phillip Matier,Andrew Ross

Monday, February 28, 2011

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.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/28/BAVP1HUSUD.DTL

Heck you don't even need to know about that problem. Normal low flow toilets work so poorly you need to flush them 2-3 times to get them to ...errr flush what they are supposed to flush.

This is inefficient on its face. I now use 2X more water flushing than before. A better water saver is the low flow shower head and sink faucet

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

nothing like slinging a little. Like I said I never liked the low flows. they just don't work right

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

What's the beef Keith?
Are you concerned that the flow of republican policies is being reduced?

On the topic of low flow toilets I have one in my home, and yes, sometimes it doesn't get the job done.
You can't blame people for trying to conserve treated water.
(Well, the thoughtful and concerned ones are. Funny that the ones identifying themselves as conservatives do not)

I suppose a solution to the use of treated water for sewage disposal would be the use of untreated water. That would mean a seperate water system, running beside the existing mains, which would provide cheaper untreated water for use in toilets and for outside watering of lawns and washing of cars.

Nope. Don't see it happening.
Another solution would be to add untreated water to the flow of the sewer mainlines.
The systems are almost all gravity reliant so an untreated water flow coming from the top end would certainly help move materials down the pipes once it has entered the system.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.

You know I have a wonderful idea for a way to cut down on the effluvia that seems to piling up around the country, along with a lot of the hot air that goes with it. No need for low flo toilets.
celttooth

---

There is an easy solution to the stink problem San Francisco has. Dynamite the O'Shaughnessy Dam. The resulting decline in population in San Francisco from thirst should result in a much lower effluent level into the sewers and the stink should go away on its own. The delta smelt might have a chance too from increased fresh water coming into the delta. Another good side effect would be sending the residents back to where they originally came from. This might tip the red blue balance in some states. The downside is there would be a bathtub ring in the Hetch Hetchy valley for a couple hundred years.

---

red state? aside from Orange county that state is highly unlikely to tip red.

THough in any given state the margin for red/blue is more or less about 15% of the population. So the reality is there are a great deal of BLue folks living in red states and a great deal of red folks living in blue states. Even the great plains states that always vote republican have a fairly large liberal base.

not to hijack the thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer they had this governor and the one from Indiana talking about working with the public unions. This governor asked the unions to work with him through the hard times. They did. Montana now has a budget surplus.

The Indiana Governor came out and called the union labor the problem and vowed to bust them up.

THe Montana Governor replied that he knew of no Business that came out publicly and announced that their employees are lazy inefficient and should all be let go. you don't run a business by badmouthing the people that work for you and hope to make them more efficient.
/back on topic.

I recall a King of the Hill episode where Hank fought against the low flows for the very reason I've mentioned. They just don't work very well.

I assume if San Fran is having this problem then every other metro area is as well since all new toilets are low flow now.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

red state? aside from Orange county that state is highly unlikely to tip red.

Very interesting thinking goes on inside your head.

Everyone else will think that all those "blues" going back to those other red states might tip them blue.

---

red state? aside from Orange county that state is highly unlikely to tip red.

I don't think so. I found a web site that's your type of web site that will explain it here

---

red state? aside from Orange county that state is highly unlikely to tip red.

I don't think so. I found a web site that's your type of web site that will explain it here

How to like with graphics. Change that to show population and it might give some truth.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/20061030/where_we_live/

---

acreage vs population. If people were distributed evenly over that map you could say many states are red. The map clearly shows that almost all population centers are BLue. Rural are not. nothing more to see there. There was an "honest" population/distortion/ shades of red/blue map that show that the country is on average an interesting shade of purple. the population centers being distorted larger and much more blue than the under populated shrunken red areas

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope