35 ms·

> They had the sense to build the city not in a desert The hubris of the people who built up the southwest United States in particular astounds me.

Turing_Machine 11y ago
It's especially bothersome when their choices make it impossible for the rest of us to (e.g.) buy a toilet that actually flushes.
- kw71 11y ago
  I have a pretty new loo that uses 1.0 gallons per use. I haven't had any problems that I've heard about, thankfully, even on the "worst days." I think that some of them are designed better than others. As an experiment I dumped a half gallon of water into it and it flushed. Of course the bowl didn't fill up after but this makes me think that my loo would work with one of those reduced water flush mechanisms for when the waste is liquid. I've seen some retrofit kits but they won't fit my loo.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  Toto.
  - mturmon 11y ago
    Check. $200 for a low-flush unit and problem solved.
    - Turing_Machine 11y ago
      Except that you're now out of pocket an extra hundred bucks, even though you live in an area that has no water shortage, nor has any prospect of ever having a water shortage.
      - Avshalom 11y ago
        Well that's the fault of what ever cheap-ass contractor/landlord built/provisioned the place and was probably put in place well before California had a drought possibly even before people decided Phoenix was fit for human habitation.
        Turing_Machine 11y ago
        I don't see what you're getting at. You're arguing that a contractor who put in a toilet (cheap or expensive... doesn't matter) 50 years ago is somehow at fault when it needs to be replaced with an unnecessarily expensive new toilet that meets California requirements? I've heard there's an active trade in bootleg Canadian toilets in the Pacific Northwest.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        50 years? You'd have to have perfect water for a toilet to last 50 years of residential use. 15-20 in my area and they will be calcified without water treatment. A Toto Drake isn't that much more than even a cheap builder-grade unit. I've been through a number of different ones and I am a stingy tightwad; and I'd still buy a Toto. There are cheaper ones that will flush the same amount of debris, but Totos wash the bowl better; and I appreciate that as someone who doesn't like to spend a lot of time scrubbing ahem "debris". I think their flush is quieter too, but I haven't measured it.
        Turing_Machine 11y ago
        My last house was built in 1949, and the original toilet was working perfectly. The water quality there was far from good. Calcium deposits are what toilet bowl cleaners are for. According to my local Home Depot, a utility-grade toilet is $79, and the cheapest Toto Drake is $189. That's more than twice as much. If you estimate that there's roughly one toilet per person in the United States, an extra hundred bucks per person comes out to 30 billion dollars wasted for each replacement cycle (except in the very limited areas, like California, where these things actually make sense).
- Avshalom 11y ago
  To echo my sibling poster that's just bad design there. My old work place had 1.25 gpf toilets and those thing could flush a giraffe (niagra conservation flaperless, i've extolled their virtues before). Also as having grown up in the sticks in Alaska, with an electric well and significant power outs, let me just say: walking half a mile to break open some ice, draw 3.5 gallons of water and walking back is some bullshit. I love me some low flow toilets.

Turing_Machine 11y ago

It's especially bothersome when their choices make it impossible for the rest of us to (e.g.) buy a toilet that actually flushes.

kw71 11y ago
I have a pretty new loo that uses 1.0 gallons per use. I haven't had any problems that I've heard about, thankfully, even on the "worst days." I think that some of them are designed better than others. As an experiment I dumped a half gallon of water into it and it flushed. Of course the bowl didn't fill up after but this makes me think that my loo would work with one of those reduced water flush mechanisms for when the waste is liquid. I've seen some retrofit kits but they won't fit my loo.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
Toto.
- mturmon 11y ago
  Check. $200 for a low-flush unit and problem solved.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    Except that you're now out of pocket an extra hundred bucks, even though you live in an area that has no water shortage, nor has any prospect of ever having a water shortage.
    - Avshalom 11y ago
      Well that's the fault of what ever cheap-ass contractor/landlord built/provisioned the place and was probably put in place well before California had a drought possibly even before people decided Phoenix was fit for human habitation.
      - Turing_Machine 11y ago
        I don't see what you're getting at. You're arguing that a contractor who put in a toilet (cheap or expensive... doesn't matter) 50 years ago is somehow at fault when it needs to be replaced with an unnecessarily expensive new toilet that meets California requirements? I've heard there's an active trade in bootleg Canadian toilets in the Pacific Northwest.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        50 years? You'd have to have perfect water for a toilet to last 50 years of residential use. 15-20 in my area and they will be calcified without water treatment. A Toto Drake isn't that much more than even a cheap builder-grade unit. I've been through a number of different ones and I am a stingy tightwad; and I'd still buy a Toto. There are cheaper ones that will flush the same amount of debris, but Totos wash the bowl better; and I appreciate that as someone who doesn't like to spend a lot of time scrubbing ahem "debris". I think their flush is quieter too, but I haven't measured it.
        Turing_Machine 11y ago
        My last house was built in 1949, and the original toilet was working perfectly. The water quality there was far from good. Calcium deposits are what toilet bowl cleaners are for. According to my local Home Depot, a utility-grade toilet is $79, and the cheapest Toto Drake is $189. That's more than twice as much. If you estimate that there's roughly one toilet per person in the United States, an extra hundred bucks per person comes out to 30 billion dollars wasted for each replacement cycle (except in the very limited areas, like California, where these things actually make sense).
Avshalom 11y ago
To echo my sibling poster that's just bad design there. My old work place had 1.25 gpf toilets and those thing could flush a giraffe (niagra conservation flaperless, i've extolled their virtues before). Also as having grown up in the sticks in Alaska, with an electric well and significant power outs, let me just say: walking half a mile to break open some ice, draw 3.5 gallons of water and walking back is some bullshit. I love me some low flow toilets.