9 ms·

Reminds me of a King of the Hill episode where Hank gets a lo-flow toilet to save water, only to find that it wasted water in practice as it required several fl

by Reedx 6y ago

Reminds me of a King of the Hill episode where Hank gets a lo-flow toilet to save water, only to find that it wasted water in practice as it required several flushes to get the job done. It's really a kind of recurring issue, where something is superficially "solved" (sounds good on the surface), but actually ends up making things worse in practice.

jrib 6y ago
I have the same gripe with auto-flush toilets. The ones where I work tend to be over-zealous meaning they flush to early and need to be flushed again when you are done.
- derekp7 6y ago
  I just end up hanging a few sheets of TP over the sensor before sitting down, then remove them when I'm done.
  - pvorb 6y ago
    So now you're wasting toilet paper instead of water, which might be better, but still is wasteful and wouldn't have been needed if the toilet were to be flushed manually.
rsync 6y ago
IMO, the best example of this is CF lightbulbs. How many people have have lived / are living with absolutely terrible light and usage ergonomics (and will do so for years more) because of that stillborn "technology" ? The kicker is that after 20 years of bad lighting environment, you have a local mercury disposal issue, regardless of how much mercury might have been saved in total emissions over the bulbs lifetime.
- cultus 6y ago
  Not to mention the CFLs never lasted anywhere near as long as advertised, which is annoying and exacerbates the mercury situation further. This is why the environmental impact of something should always be examined holistically instead of just zeroing in on one particular aspect.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  I don't know anyone still using CFLs (edit: meaning, still buying) them. We use LEDs now, which are better than either CFLs or incandescents. Anyone who says differently either uses weird light bulbs, which is a valid excuse, or has a closet full of hoarded tungsten bulbs they wish they could sell, which isn't.
  - samatman 6y ago
    This supports the point. Incandescents were banned, and CFLs were heavily promoted and subsidized to replace them. Meanwhile, along came a superior technology, ten times as energy efficient, longer lasting, and with a broader range of light which is at least as good. So all that heavy-handed regulation produced, was an era of inferior light, a mercury disposal problem, and the inability to acquire incandescents for applications such as heating, which they're excellent for. Sometimes a lot of heat and a bit of light is what you want, and most of those devices have an Edison socket. To head off one objection: any technically competent person could have taken a look at the trajectory of LED technology and said "hold on, CFLs suck, how about we just hang back and wait five to ten years?". LED bulbs were hardly a black swan.
    - CamperBob2 6y ago
      Actually, good-quality LED replacement bulbs were around for several years prior to the ban. They just cost an arm and a leg. The ban didn't force the technology to magically appear -- something that hardly ever happens due to legislation alone -- but it did drive competition and force an economy of scale that would otherwise have been much slower to develop.
      - samatman 6y ago
        So the subsidy backed the wrong horse, and the ban eliminated a useful technology, but it also accidentally supported buildout of LED bulbs, which we could have just accomplished by subsidizing LED tech and not banning incandescents? Yeah, that seems about par for the course for this kind of regulation. Sometimes a blind cat catches a dead mouse.
- romwell 6y ago
  Stillborn technology? How about "good enough" technology, and by "good enough", I mean something that's better than incandescent. Everyone has their metric, mine is how often I need to replace a bulb. I am a lazy person, I don't want to think about things if I can avoid it, see. In my experience, CFL bulbs were bright enough, and lasted much longer than incandescent ones. Plus, they are way less of a fire hazard, and I don't have to worry about scorching my hand on a desk lamp. Environmentally, they are a disaster though.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    CFL bulbs never lasted as long as halogen for me, and often less long than incandescents, particularly when recessed.
    - deelowe 6y ago
      CFLs have all of their components in the base. They try to use the screw portion of the bulb as a heatsink, but it doesn't really work. If the base can't get decent airflow, they burn out.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
    In my experience the CFLs weren't bright enough, at least not instantly, were more expensive and failed faster. Without exception none made it to 6 months of use. My incandescents lasted several years. Maybe it depends on the quality of the power company and/or the internal cabling? Regarding the environmental disaster, why would you think that, given that the same technology was in use in much larger volumes since the 70ies or even earlier in commercial settings, offices and even homes? Lacking only the compactness, requiring external "ballast" and starters. When I was young we had a large ring, maybe 40 to 50cm diameter under the ceiling in the kitchen, and I disliked it even then for looking "fugly" somehow. Oh, and the ring never lasted more than about half a year also :)
- dreamcompiler 6y ago
  Mine actually worked well enough. Or at least they would have if they hadn't had such shitty power supplies. Every one of mine that burned out died because of an overheating power supply rather than because the actual bulb burnt out. This is a problem with a lot of LED bulbs too. Great light source that lasts 30,000 hours; shitty power supply that lasts 800 hours.
- yongjik 6y ago
  I personally like CFL. They are more efficient, don't get as hot as incandescent bulbs, and unlike incandescent bulbs, you can actually get light that approaches white. Also they're much less bulky and easier to handle than traditional (lightsaber-shaped) fluorescent lamps. What's not to like? Also, each bulb contains only a few mg of mercury. Tuna has ~0.3 ppm of mercury, so if you eat two pounds of tuna then you'll ingest about 0.3 mg of mercury. I don't think you'll ingest more than 10% of mercury even if you break a CFL, so roughly speaking, "breaking a CFL" is the same order of magnitude as "two pounds of tuna" - doesn't sound that dangerous to me.
- Tagbert 6y ago
  CFL was a transitional tech. I’ve just about finished migrating our house to LEDs and they are worlds better than either CFL or Incandescent.
KineticLensman 6y ago
I have a lo-flow toilet that usually clears the bowl on a flush but doesn't always clean the sides of the pan if excreta misses the water. Often takes two or more flushes and some bleach to clean the sides as well.
Digory 6y ago
What's measured gets solved. They're measuring flush volume, when they care about water used over time.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  No dude, what’s bought is “solved.” Those toilets were for people who bought toilets.
  - thewebcount 6y ago
    But if I recall the episode correctly (and it's possible I don't since I probably saw it when it originally aired ~20 years ago), he was looking for a regular toilet and couldn't buy one because of local regulations.
zaphod12 6y ago
and the reduced water flow increases the likelihood of clogs in your sewer pipe - clogs which might be cleared with high pressure water jets (if normal snaking is not sufficient)! EVEN MORE WATER USAGE! (and also expense and frustration)
Gibbon1 6y ago
For decades in the US efficiency standards for fluorescent lamps required the use of high efficiency blue phosphors. Which results in terrible CRI especially under low light conditions. The result; use of fluorescent lighting in residential was delayed for decades. Don't get me started with 'high efficiency' dishwashers.
eplanit 6y ago
Sturgeon's Law becomes more true every day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
hnick 6y ago
Oh I already posted about this higher up. Struggling right now at home with it. Maybe someone will make a non-stick coating one day that'll help, but the water doesn't dislodge anything that hits the porcelain, and sometimes the paper just spins around without going down.
tyingq 6y ago
The King of the Hill user side story: https://youtu.be/tRhO9sDezVk https://youtu.be/tRhO9sDezVk (Ignore the politics at the end)
asdff 6y ago
Like removing ash trays in public. People didn't want to see ash trays full of cigarettes, now we have sidewalks full of cigarettes.

by Reedx 6y ago

jrib 6y ago

I have the same gripe with auto-flush toilets. The ones where I work tend to be over-zealous meaning they flush to early and need to be flushed again when you are done.

derekp7 6y ago
I just end up hanging a few sheets of TP over the sensor before sitting down, then remove them when I'm done.
- pvorb 6y ago
  So now you're wasting toilet paper instead of water, which might be better, but still is wasteful and wouldn't have been needed if the toilet were to be flushed manually.

rsync 6y ago

IMO, the best example of this is CF lightbulbs. How many people have have lived / are living with absolutely terrible light and usage ergonomics (and will do so for years more) because of that stillborn "technology" ? The kicker is that after 20 years of bad lighting environment, you have a local mercury disposal issue, regardless of how much mercury might have been saved in total emissions over the bulbs lifetime.

cultus 6y ago
Not to mention the CFLs never lasted anywhere near as long as advertised, which is annoying and exacerbates the mercury situation further. This is why the environmental impact of something should always be examined holistically instead of just zeroing in on one particular aspect.
CamperBob2 6y ago
I don't know anyone still using CFLs (edit: meaning, still buying) them. We use LEDs now, which are better than either CFLs or incandescents. Anyone who says differently either uses weird light bulbs, which is a valid excuse, or has a closet full of hoarded tungsten bulbs they wish they could sell, which isn't.
- samatman 6y ago
  This supports the point. Incandescents were banned, and CFLs were heavily promoted and subsidized to replace them. Meanwhile, along came a superior technology, ten times as energy efficient, longer lasting, and with a broader range of light which is at least as good. So all that heavy-handed regulation produced, was an era of inferior light, a mercury disposal problem, and the inability to acquire incandescents for applications such as heating, which they're excellent for. Sometimes a lot of heat and a bit of light is what you want, and most of those devices have an Edison socket. To head off one objection: any technically competent person could have taken a look at the trajectory of LED technology and said "hold on, CFLs suck, how about we just hang back and wait five to ten years?". LED bulbs were hardly a black swan.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    Actually, good-quality LED replacement bulbs were around for several years prior to the ban. They just cost an arm and a leg. The ban didn't force the technology to magically appear -- something that hardly ever happens due to legislation alone -- but it did drive competition and force an economy of scale that would otherwise have been much slower to develop.
    - samatman 6y ago
      So the subsidy backed the wrong horse, and the ban eliminated a useful technology, but it also accidentally supported buildout of LED bulbs, which we could have just accomplished by subsidizing LED tech and not banning incandescents? Yeah, that seems about par for the course for this kind of regulation. Sometimes a blind cat catches a dead mouse.
romwell 6y ago
Stillborn technology? How about "good enough" technology, and by "good enough", I mean something that's better than incandescent. Everyone has their metric, mine is how often I need to replace a bulb. I am a lazy person, I don't want to think about things if I can avoid it, see. In my experience, CFL bulbs were bright enough, and lasted much longer than incandescent ones. Plus, they are way less of a fire hazard, and I don't have to worry about scorching my hand on a desk lamp. Environmentally, they are a disaster though.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  CFL bulbs never lasted as long as halogen for me, and often less long than incandescents, particularly when recessed.
  - deelowe 6y ago
    CFLs have all of their components in the base. They try to use the screw portion of the bulb as a heatsink, but it doesn't really work. If the base can't get decent airflow, they burn out.
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
  In my experience the CFLs weren't bright enough, at least not instantly, were more expensive and failed faster. Without exception none made it to 6 months of use. My incandescents lasted several years. Maybe it depends on the quality of the power company and/or the internal cabling? Regarding the environmental disaster, why would you think that, given that the same technology was in use in much larger volumes since the 70ies or even earlier in commercial settings, offices and even homes? Lacking only the compactness, requiring external "ballast" and starters. When I was young we had a large ring, maybe 40 to 50cm diameter under the ceiling in the kitchen, and I disliked it even then for looking "fugly" somehow. Oh, and the ring never lasted more than about half a year also :)
dreamcompiler 6y ago
Mine actually worked well enough. Or at least they would have if they hadn't had such shitty power supplies. Every one of mine that burned out died because of an overheating power supply rather than because the actual bulb burnt out. This is a problem with a lot of LED bulbs too. Great light source that lasts 30,000 hours; shitty power supply that lasts 800 hours.
yongjik 6y ago
I personally like CFL. They are more efficient, don't get as hot as incandescent bulbs, and unlike incandescent bulbs, you can actually get light that approaches white. Also they're much less bulky and easier to handle than traditional (lightsaber-shaped) fluorescent lamps. What's not to like? Also, each bulb contains only a few mg of mercury. Tuna has ~0.3 ppm of mercury, so if you eat two pounds of tuna then you'll ingest about 0.3 mg of mercury. I don't think you'll ingest more than 10% of mercury even if you break a CFL, so roughly speaking, "breaking a CFL" is the same order of magnitude as "two pounds of tuna" - doesn't sound that dangerous to me.
Tagbert 6y ago
CFL was a transitional tech. I’ve just about finished migrating our house to LEDs and they are worlds better than either CFL or Incandescent.

KineticLensman 6y ago

I have a lo-flow toilet that usually clears the bowl on a flush but doesn't always clean the sides of the pan if excreta misses the water. Often takes two or more flushes and some bleach to clean the sides as well.

Digory 6y ago

What's measured gets solved. They're measuring flush volume, when they care about water used over time.

an_opabinia 6y ago
No dude, what’s bought is “solved.” Those toilets were for people who bought toilets.
- thewebcount 6y ago
  But if I recall the episode correctly (and it's possible I don't since I probably saw it when it originally aired ~20 years ago), he was looking for a regular toilet and couldn't buy one because of local regulations.

zaphod12 6y ago

and the reduced water flow increases the likelihood of clogs in your sewer pipe - clogs which might be cleared with high pressure water jets (if normal snaking is not sufficient)! EVEN MORE WATER USAGE! (and also expense and frustration)

Gibbon1 6y ago

For decades in the US efficiency standards for fluorescent lamps required the use of high efficiency blue phosphors. Which results in terrible CRI especially under low light conditions. The result; use of fluorescent lighting in residential was delayed for decades. Don't get me started with 'high efficiency' dishwashers.

eplanit 6y ago

Sturgeon's Law becomes more true every day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

hnick 6y ago

Oh I already posted about this higher up. Struggling right now at home with it. Maybe someone will make a non-stick coating one day that'll help, but the water doesn't dislodge anything that hits the porcelain, and sometimes the paper just spins around without going down.

tyingq 6y ago

The King of the Hill user side story: https://youtu.be/tRhO9sDezVk https://youtu.be/tRhO9sDezVk (Ignore the politics at the end)

asdff 6y ago

Like removing ash trays in public. People didn't want to see ash trays full of cigarettes, now we have sidewalks full of cigarettes.