A large number of diseases are caused by contamination of drinking water
with microbes, typhoid is just one. This is why all public reticulated
water needs both correct treatment and constant testing to make sure the
treatment is working regardless of its origin. How do you suppose the
people down river from me survive? Re-cycled sewerage is no different from
river or lake water except in the kind of treatment. Apparently Singapore
uses re-cycled sewerage and the quality is said to be better than from other
sources. There are two reasons this is not (yet) common: cost is one, many
users having your reaction is the other.
You hit it on the head with your treatment statement.
What I am mainly skeptical of is not the science of
the matter, but the human factor. Not willing to
risk my life on it.
Just an interesting aside, I watched a documentary on
Netflix/Roku about the history of beer. Seems that was the
way Europe coped with Toilet Water before if discovered as
to why regular water killed everyone. So much so that
settlers in Jamestown refused to drink the pristine
water they had available and waited for beer to come
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
the basic problem is that we've gotten into the
habit of mixing human waste with potable water to
begin with. this compounds many other problems and
they tag along with the whole process. clean up
the basic misconception and you get many benefits
in result. not having to build nuclear
desalinization plants would be one of them (who
needs more chances at Fukushima? are you seriously
considering more nuclear plants in California?
are you really that idiotic? yes, i am seriously
calling you an idiot if you are building more
nuclear plants in that area).
much of the use of water is simply to flush waste
when you consider how much energy it takes to pump
and clean the water again after it is used as a waste
transport system then perhaps you'll understand the
sheer stupidity of this whole system.
most human waste is valueable and can be composted
safely without having to use all that water.
the waste which is not safely compostable (hormone
treatments, some drugs, chemotherapeutics and nuclear
medicine) should be treated differently, but those
people who know they are doing such things could be
set up with their medical providers to have a clean
disposal path for their waste (so that it does not
become a hazard to others).
in a world of limited resources there is no excuse
for not recycling of most materials. for areas with
limited water they certainly should not be wasting
water by using it as a waste transport mechanism.
you do not need or want more nuclear plants. there
are viable methods that can be used right now without
nuclear energy. please don't support methods which
potentially can kill/pollute everyone downwind or
Do you know the death count on all of nuclear energy?
Can you compare it to dead coal miners or other
non-nuclear forms of energy? How about black lung?
If would help to make a good comparison. Every form of
energy has its risks. Nuclear has been pretty safe so
By the way, the new designs for nuclear plants
are so safe that deliberate attempts to melt them
down (under safe controlled conditions) have failed.
With these, there will be no more Fukushimas.
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
I heard it on the radio (news announcement) and have read
it other places too.
Tried to find some reference with google, but was swamped
with all the Fuki stuff. It was a test on "small modular
reactor (SMR)" they were talking about.
My memory of the details was they took an SMR and put it
inside a big reactor dome and deliberately tried to get
it to meltdown.
This is the closest I found:
As an engineer, I much like the new small designs. I have
always thought huge single designs were awkward. The SMR's are
designed to shut themselves down automatically. This is the
way it should have been done all along.
With lots of these all over, we could finally start cracking
hydrogen from water for our cars and homes. Fresh water from
the sea too.
Sorry I could not find a direct reference to the tests
I heard/read about. Trust me, I did hear/see them.
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 9:43:34 AM UTC-8, Todd wrote:
Thanks,man. I looked up the references and absorbed as much as my tiny gardener's mind could handle.
One thing always pushed my "what if" button. What happens when a SMR reactor, designed to shut down automatically, fails? Is there backup? What kind.
The design for reactor buried underground sounded interesting, in terms of sparing nearby people & buildings. But could a failure trigger catastrophic earthquakes (I live in So. Calif, so earthquakes are always on our minds.)
Appreciate the research!
The "idea" is that everything is self contained. But, test, test,
test. Ah the life of an engineer! This is some fascinating
Underground: interesting. Maybe a second containment shell too,
just in case.
Don't worry about the earthquakes. With the thermonuclear bombs
that the dept of energy has been setting off underground in
southern Nevada haven't triggered anything yet, it is not
going to happen. Far more energy involved that a reactor
with fuel rods that are not rich enough to explode.
Talking about '"what if" button', the fact that nuclear reactors
are "dangerous" may actually be a blessing in disguise. Keeps
us on our toes. All forms of energy are dangerous. How
many lives do we lose in refinery fires/explosions, etc.?
Maybe not scary enough to keep us on our toes? Maybe not
enough attention paid to it?
the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped
It's true some water is used to flush but you still need to have a sewerage
system in cities. If using dual flush toilets and only hitting the button
when required the use on toilet flushing is not that high. There are only
small savings there. Domestically, washing and showering use much more.
Gardens, golf courses, pools, fountains, hosing the driveway etc use
Composting toilets are fashionable round here. They smell in normal
operation and are a bitch to clean out, someone has to go in and dig them
out. You can't pay someone enough to do it. They are suitable for deserts
not cities. In high humidty areas they stay too wet. But you still need to
have water reticulation and sewerage networks. Flushing with grey water is
Yes if the whole family is healthy compost it otherwise cart your shit to a
waste centre if any one of you are taking pills. Or have a honey pot
collection. Can you imagine this system in a big city. In the 19th century
before the sewer was built London was called "the great wen" Get serious.
Most of the water in the sewer is not from flushing.
Bird you haven't thought this out.
to me this is poor design (especially in an arid
climate). if most of the water being used is for
washing then a graywater system which keeps the
water on site is much better for recharging the
groundwater and of benefit to the plants and animals.
polluting it with waste and then having to pump
it some place else, then to be cleaned up again
is really a huge waste of energy and resources.
yes, it is the primary sytem in use now in many
places but that doesn't mean it is the best way
of doing things.
if you can smell it, then it isn't operating
normally, do you smell nasty fumes coming out of
your compost piles?
to me this is not a good design at all if you
have a system that involves paying someone else
to clean up after yourself then you're quite a
ways from simplicity.
that a poorly designed or misunderstood system
doesn't work well isn't a mystery to me. but of
course, if the people using it don't maintain it
properly or understand it then it's not going to
be the greatest. however, if you're raised to
take care of things and understand what you're
doing it's not going to be a problem.
change can be hard, but this isn't beyond most
people once they understand the reasons for doing
it and the methods involved.
you don't have to pay someone to do it. do you
have to pay someone to carry a bucket of compost
materials out to the compost pile?
false. people compost in cities.
improper design. improper use. improper
maintenance. people compost in wet or humid
no, people only need water, food, air and
shelter. there is no need for piping gray
water off site. it is lazyness and habit and
a temporary illusion of richness (mostly due
to fossil fuel use).
only if you have the expensive system already
paid for and installed, but then that doesn't
deal with expenses of keeping it running or
the energy involved.
if in the future energy gets more expensive
and fresh water more scarce, you'll see a lot
more changes and rethinking of how we do waste
once you switch to an in place composting system
with any grey water being handled on site processes
then there's no need to pay anyone for waste
processing any more than you pay someone to put
things on the compost heap or scrub out a bucket.
compost it on site and use it on site, no need to
ship it anywhere.
i am, any reasonably normal person can understand
composting and accomplish it.
that is then, this is now, do we understand things
better today or not?
it doesn't have to be, once it's contaminated
by poop that means the entire volume must be
cleaned up again. if you only had to move poop
and pee around that would be how much less per
person of material to deal with cleaning up,
processing or disposing of?
dehydrate it and reclaim that water, and then
you're down by another factor or two of reduction.
isn't that a much more efficient use of energy
and materials to deal only with the problem
instead of multiplying it?
funny assumption, you've not seen my reading
list for the past dozen years.
a very simple system of handling waste from
people is quite possible that doesn't involve
having to move or dig out huge tanks. if you
are used to composting processes then it fits
in very well. that it will work even when the
power goes out, that it means valuable materials
don't leave the gardens, saves water, energy,
etc. that's all a bonus as far as i'm concerned.
take a look at _the humanure handbook_ it's in
third edition and online for free.
the trouble is not composting it's getting
people to accept that it can be done at all
as they are raised to flush and forget. raise
them with a different way and they'll be fine
and much better off in the long run.
I admire your idealism to a degree. The problem is that you are so absorbed
with it you give no time to the practicalities of whether your proposal can
be done in various places or circumstances and what the cost may be. You
complain that nobody is listening but make no effort to address the big
issues with implementing your plan, until you can show that it can work and
maintain public health and that the benefits outweigh the costs of a large
scale implementation you are just pissing on the lemon tree.
the costs will vary by location.
if you have your own land and easy access to
fairly dried shredded materials then the continuing
cost is nearly zero. the start up costs are some
buckets, a redesigned toilet so the buckets can
fit under and a change in habits.
if you live in the city, that is different
but it isn't impossible. change the toilets
to be composting buckets, have the person
move the bucket when needed to a collection
point, pay someone to take those buckets to
a composting site and rinse them out, return
them with the next round of picking up the
next lot. about the same start up costs
(buckets and different designed toilet) other
than needing materials (shredded paper, sawdust,
leaves, bark, etc. still all work).
what costs are avoided by using a composting
system? i thought i was pretty clear. pumping
water costs, cleaning up polluted water costs,
pipes and pumps maintenance costs, billing and
collecting bill costs.
funny, i don't recall complaining in that post,
i went back and re-read it, nope, still don't see
complaints of being ignored in there.
when the power goes out and stays out for
a few weeks in a large city then what? you
think those toilets are going to be clean
and maintaining public health? put a cover
on a bucket of sawdust and human waste and
leave it for a few weeks and it's not going to
smell the greatest when opened but it won't
kill anyone either.
at least under a simple system of composting
the human waste is still able to be dealt with.
with a large and complex system, once the power
goes out, then people are up shit's creek when
the water stops flowing.
the problem isn't that it is impossible to
change, it's just that we have a large embedded
system with all the inertia and costs and people
are trained to use that and accept it. when it
stops working, causes other problems (poor
water quality), or becomes too expensive i think
it a good idea to think about alternatives.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.