5 ms·

[Indian here, who has some experience using these toilets.] I am not surprised by this, and could have seen it coming a mile away. This is primarily a user exp

[Indian here, who has some experience using these toilets.] I am not surprised by this, and could have seen it coming a mile away. This is primarily a user experience problem. Warning: graphic discussions of poop-related engineering problems ahead. "With little access to running water, government latrines typically consist of a large, concrete septic tank with a ceramic squat-toilet on top, enclosed by a cement or brick cubicle with a narrow door." This is essentially the same as the vault toilets that you find at campsites in the US. I have used them when in a village, and the smell inside is horrible. It's worse in India than US campsites, because the toilets are squatting ones, and your nose is closer to the septic tank. There are a ton of flies buzzing around all the time. Also, the warm weather makes the stuff in the septic tank decompose faster. Compared to this, I would prefer "going" in the open field any day, which is exactly what the woman they quoted says. Some solutions to this are: 1) Get more ventilation in the toilets. Possibly a solar-powered exhaust fan. This will reduce the smell. 2) Have some sort of smell-blocking chemical barrier between the septic tank and the toilet hole, like they have in airline toilets. This will reduce the smell even further. 3) As they mentioned, most toilets don't have running water. Most people bring a little bucket of water with them to wash up after the act. Have some sort of spraying system that you can load that water into, and wash up. Or try your best to get running water or a rainwater catchment tank providing water to such a system. If I had any leverage at all with the officials building these, I would strongly recommend the solutions above. Just building a toilet is not a panacea, you also have to make them so that people strongly prefer them to existing practices.

ChrisNorstrom 12y ago
Come to think of it, is a "feces graveyard" a much better solution? As long as they bury feces it a foot or so underground it shouldn't be a problem and sounds a lot more hygienic than the smelly septic tank holes. As long as they mark where feces are buried they can avoid digging them up and let them naturally compost.
- parennoob 12y ago
  Possibly, something like an elevated platform above a large area might be a better solution for smaller villages. For larger villages, I think you might get into cost-benefit tradeoffs, because the pit might need to be large, and some sort of mechanical system to turn the earth might be required to encourage composting.
bane 12y ago
Thank you for writing this, it really helped me understand better the actual realities of the situation and relate to it. American here, when I was a kid I did quite a bit of camping, maybe 4 or 5 nights a month. I remember quite a few campsites had helpfully provided various kinds of septic-tank or deep pit latrines. most or the time I'd end up finding a decent spot out in the woods to do my business as it really was a more pleasant place. So yeah, given a choice of a hot, smelly, dirty box or a quiet place behind a tree, I'd pick the tree almost every time. It seems to me then that the problem is that nobody is consulting the villagers as to what would be a preferable environment to do their business. What would they like better? How does that conform to sanitary requirements? Is there some intersection of requirements and desires that might make everybody happy?
- parennoob 12y ago
  > So yeah, given a choice of a hot, smelly, dirty box or a quiet place behind a tree, I'd pick the tree almost every time. Amen. That's this "story" in a nutshell. > ....Is there some intersection of requirements and desires that might make everybody happy? These are excellent questions, but I think no one is asking them. Agencies like UNICEF are busy funding ridiculous and patronizing campaigns like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_peUxE_BKcU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_peUxE_BKcU). As a result, the Government is running hell for leather trying to get some toilets built, and "educating" people to use them, instead of asking "What problems do you have?". Hopefully, some of the solutions I suggested, or alternatives, might strike some of the planning officials. Otherwise this is going to be a largely symbolic and useless gesture.
rdtsc 12y ago
Some East European villages also have outhouses and don't have this problem. They don't have porcelain toilets, just a wooden floor with a hole in it. Interestingly the structures are usually not concrete, or stone, often just a _deep_ enough hole in the ground (my uncle dug down to 12 feet or so), wooden walls and some slanted roof. They have good ventilation, made from wood, with large opening on the top under the roof. Some people are cheap enough to use crumpled up newspapers instead of toilet paper but still beats using ones' hand. And there is usually a small water container and soap nearby to wash hands. Also they are not build next to the house, but usually as far away as possible (far end of the garden or yard, yes going in the winter or rain sucks). Maybe deeper holes won't work in India because of the soil and rain and it is a quite a bit more humid and hotter there. But looking at that structure the have in the article, I can see how someone would just not want to go there when it is 100 degrees outside and high humidity.
- parennoob 12y ago
  Cool, really good to hear from another perspective that is different from "I have a flush toilet in my bathroom, and every other toilet is else is exactly like it" :) Yep, toilets like this in every house would probably work too. If the Government paid for them, or gave financial assistance and strongly encouraged households to build them. These probably would not work for a common toilet (which is the model discussed in the article), unless you had a really deep hole. Also, the soil problems you mentioned come into play, because the monsoons bring down a huge amount of water. (That's the reason those things are usually built out of concrete.) I think the warm weather still might be factor, whereas it is probably not in Eastern Europe, where it is colder, and consequently slower decomposition and fewer flies. It's a fairly hard design and engineering problem to solve if you look at these constraints. Unfortunately, these often take a back seat to rhetoric and quasi-shaming news headlines like this one. UNICEF (a UN agency) also does this, apparently without trying to understand these constraints, and throws money into ridiculous "education" campaigns to shame people into pooping in a smelly, constricted area with a ton of flies. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/20/world/asia/unicef-latest-anti-public-defecation-campaign-in-india/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/20/world/asia/unicef-latest-anti-...) As a result, the Government has tried to tackle it head-on without proper planning and design, and will end up constructing thousands of these toilets which no one will use.
prapam 12y ago
Wouldn't a Pit be a better solution? I live in tier 2 city. The drainage line reached our section few years. Hence everyone builds a pit. No smell or flies. We have it for nearly 25yrs. I am not sure how the decomposition works there are houses older then us without any issues. This is south india btw.
- kamaal 12y ago
  I agree pit is a better option. We have a pit too. My home is at a lane dead end on an inclined road. And that turned out to be the only option we had. The plus is having a home in such a place ensures you always get water, even if half the lane up the road doesn't get it.
  - prapam 12y ago
    Without running water pit would have issues as well. I live inside the city hence water is not much of a problem. It used to 24x7 but now few hours a day. Most of the houses have overhead tanks. But if you go few kms outside the city then you have water every other day or 2.

ChrisNorstrom 12y ago

Come to think of it, is a "feces graveyard" a much better solution? As long as they bury feces it a foot or so underground it shouldn't be a problem and sounds a lot more hygienic than the smelly septic tank holes. As long as they mark where feces are buried they can avoid digging them up and let them naturally compost.

parennoob 12y ago
Possibly, something like an elevated platform above a large area might be a better solution for smaller villages. For larger villages, I think you might get into cost-benefit tradeoffs, because the pit might need to be large, and some sort of mechanical system to turn the earth might be required to encourage composting.

bane 12y ago

Thank you for writing this, it really helped me understand better the actual realities of the situation and relate to it. American here, when I was a kid I did quite a bit of camping, maybe 4 or 5 nights a month. I remember quite a few campsites had helpfully provided various kinds of septic-tank or deep pit latrines. most or the time I'd end up finding a decent spot out in the woods to do my business as it really was a more pleasant place. So yeah, given a choice of a hot, smelly, dirty box or a quiet place behind a tree, I'd pick the tree almost every time. It seems to me then that the problem is that nobody is consulting the villagers as to what would be a preferable environment to do their business. What would they like better? How does that conform to sanitary requirements? Is there some intersection of requirements and desires that might make everybody happy?

parennoob 12y ago
> So yeah, given a choice of a hot, smelly, dirty box or a quiet place behind a tree, I'd pick the tree almost every time. Amen. That's this "story" in a nutshell. > ....Is there some intersection of requirements and desires that might make everybody happy? These are excellent questions, but I think no one is asking them. Agencies like UNICEF are busy funding ridiculous and patronizing campaigns like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_peUxE_BKcU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_peUxE_BKcU). As a result, the Government is running hell for leather trying to get some toilets built, and "educating" people to use them, instead of asking "What problems do you have?". Hopefully, some of the solutions I suggested, or alternatives, might strike some of the planning officials. Otherwise this is going to be a largely symbolic and useless gesture.

rdtsc 12y ago

Some East European villages also have outhouses and don't have this problem. They don't have porcelain toilets, just a wooden floor with a hole in it. Interestingly the structures are usually not concrete, or stone, often just a _deep_ enough hole in the ground (my uncle dug down to 12 feet or so), wooden walls and some slanted roof. They have good ventilation, made from wood, with large opening on the top under the roof. Some people are cheap enough to use crumpled up newspapers instead of toilet paper but still beats using ones' hand. And there is usually a small water container and soap nearby to wash hands. Also they are not build next to the house, but usually as far away as possible (far end of the garden or yard, yes going in the winter or rain sucks). Maybe deeper holes won't work in India because of the soil and rain and it is a quite a bit more humid and hotter there. But looking at that structure the have in the article, I can see how someone would just not want to go there when it is 100 degrees outside and high humidity.

parennoob 12y ago
Cool, really good to hear from another perspective that is different from "I have a flush toilet in my bathroom, and every other toilet is else is exactly like it" :) Yep, toilets like this in every house would probably work too. If the Government paid for them, or gave financial assistance and strongly encouraged households to build them. These probably would not work for a common toilet (which is the model discussed in the article), unless you had a really deep hole. Also, the soil problems you mentioned come into play, because the monsoons bring down a huge amount of water. (That's the reason those things are usually built out of concrete.) I think the warm weather still might be factor, whereas it is probably not in Eastern Europe, where it is colder, and consequently slower decomposition and fewer flies. It's a fairly hard design and engineering problem to solve if you look at these constraints. Unfortunately, these often take a back seat to rhetoric and quasi-shaming news headlines like this one. UNICEF (a UN agency) also does this, apparently without trying to understand these constraints, and throws money into ridiculous "education" campaigns to shame people into pooping in a smelly, constricted area with a ton of flies. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/20/world/asia/unicef-latest-anti-public-defecation-campaign-in-india/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/20/world/asia/unicef-latest-anti-...) As a result, the Government has tried to tackle it head-on without proper planning and design, and will end up constructing thousands of these toilets which no one will use.

prapam 12y ago

Wouldn't a Pit be a better solution? I live in tier 2 city. The drainage line reached our section few years. Hence everyone builds a pit. No smell or flies. We have it for nearly 25yrs. I am not sure how the decomposition works there are houses older then us without any issues. This is south india btw.

kamaal 12y ago
I agree pit is a better option. We have a pit too. My home is at a lane dead end on an inclined road. And that turned out to be the only option we had. The plus is having a home in such a place ensures you always get water, even if half the lane up the road doesn't get it.
- prapam 12y ago
  Without running water pit would have issues as well. I live inside the city hence water is not much of a problem. It used to 24x7 but now few hours a day. Most of the houses have overhead tanks. But if you go few kms outside the city then you have water every other day or 2.