Story of How the State Ruined the Toilet

[kerrywins]

My order at my favorite Chinese takeout was taking too long. I stopped into the men's room. There I witnessed a common scene: the modern toilet disaster. An otherwise clean business had a restroom calamity on its hands, one so grim that I hesitate to describe it.

The conjectural history is not difficult to reconstruct. The toilet apparently had trouble flushing. There was a plunger by the toilet, of course, as we see everywhere today. The toilet was plunged to get rid of the obstruction, while the obstruction itself spilled all over the floor and stuck to the plunger too.

The customer probably left the ghastly scene in a rush. Management knew nothing. But now customers were coming and going into this bathroom, surely losing all inspiration to eat or order food.

It would be easy to blame the restaurant owners. What is with these people and why can't they at least have a clean restroom? But reacting this way would be unjust. The hidden hand behind this unsanitary calamity is the US government. The true origin of the mess was not in the hour before I arrived but back in 1994, when Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

This act, passed during an environmentalist hysteria, mandated that all toilets sold in the United States use no more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush. This was a devastating setback in the progress of civilization. The conventional toilet in the US ranges from 3.5 gallons to 5 gallons. The new law was enforced with fines and imprisonment.

For years, there was a vibrant black market for Canadian toilet tanks and a profitable smuggling operation in effect. This seems either to have subsided or to have gone so far underground that it doesn't make the news.

So let us remember way back when:

- Toilets did not need plungers next to them, and thank goodness. Used plungers are nasty, disease carrying, and filthy. It doesn't matter how cute the manufacturer tries to make them or in how many colors you can buy them. In the old days, you would never have one exposed for guests. It was kept out in the garage for the rare occasion when someone threw a ham or something stranger down the toilet.

- Toilet paper was super thick and getting thicker. None of this one-ply nonsense.

- You never had any doubt about the capacity of the toilet to flush completely, with only one pull of the handle. The toilet stayed clean thanks to five gallons of rushing water pouring through it after each flush.

[sui generis]

1. Two of the bathrooms in my house have old toilets

They flush fabulously. The other bathrooms have modern appliances and nearly always require double flushing for anything but pee, and then only if you've had light beer.

I like the dual flush "green" toilets - you can do a light flush or a heavy flush and each one only takes one flush, unless you've passed a ham or something stranger.

[pansypoo53219]

14. no shit.(lol)

i live in a 1926 house with old deco toilets. one has a slight crack, but CLINGING TO THEM. insides upgraded, but we have another unused one in the basement just in case. tho it has been dry for years.

[phantom power]

2. My own pre-1994 experience is...

that toilets used more water and still got plugged up, and public bathrooms have always been rather disgusting, unless they are cleaned frequently.

[Warpy]

3. This is a sore subject out here in the desert

where the ultra low flow toilet rules. Things might be considerably improved if we went back to the old Crapper model with the tank mounted high upon the wall with that satisfying chain to pull when we were done. They're harder to work on when the flap valve goes, but they do manage to flush with more force and less water.

My own solution is to keep a gallon bucket next to the plunger. The gallon of water sent down as a chaser will often clear any obstruction. The plunger only gets used maybe twice a year.

Still, the savings in water are massive and that's vitally important out here in the desert. I might prefer the old loo in commercial establishments where toilet disasters are, well, disasters. However, the homeowner can probably do as well with the low flow toilet and a bucket.

Oh, and forget that ultra soft multi ply toilet paper unless you want to go Mexican and put it into the trash can instead of down the hopper.

[MindPilot]

8. So what's the difference between a bucket and a second flush?

If the object is to save water...? :D

The other consideration is in an older home the drain pipes are cast iron or ceramic and the insides get rough; you need a little higher volume of water to keep them purged. Newer homes have plastic pipes so stuff doesn't stick.

[Warpy]

20. About a gallon and a half.

[MindPilot]

22. Gotcha! n/t

[Buzz Clik]

4. Beg to disagree...

My current house was built in 1964, and when we bought it, three of the toilets were the originals with about 3 gallons per flush. They are inefficient and only infrequently can dispose of solid materials (including toilet paper) on the first flush.

We replaced one of them this past summer with a low-volume pressurized toilet that uses less than 1.5 gallons per flush (many upscale hotels use the same design). This toilet would undoubtedly inject the cat into the sewer system if the poor beast fell in and flushed simultaneously. It's powerful and has never failed in its duty.

The key is not volume, it's design.

[sharp_stick]

7. Exactly

we replaced a really shitty (heh heh... I made a funny) toilet (about 20 years old) in our house with a new pressure assist toilet and I could probably flush a pillow with that thing.

They're getting cheaper too, I hope for the demise of the original low flows soon, I think we'll replace the other toilet in the house next time I get some extra cash.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Some of the old 60s toilets were ridiculous.

Ours have the water coming into the basin from the side. The water goes round and round very slowly with hardly any downward momentum. Clogging is their specialty. They are also low profile with squat tanks; the guts are a Rube Goldberg monstrosity, and replacement parts are unavailable. I hate those toilets.

[madokie]

9. That plus pressurized

I want to think that you can buy the pressure tank and retro fit them to the older, like we have, toilets. I'll have to do a search as i'd like to cut down on the amount of water we use. Hell we've been cutting down on everything else might as well do water too.

[MindPilot]

16. I don't think you can do that.

Because much of the flush efficacy (ohhh I like that term - "flush efficacy") is a result of how the water is directed and flows inside the bowl.

[madokie]

21. Yup you are right

I look and couldn't find anything.

[louis-t]

12. "inject the cat"

Haaa!!

[MindPilot]

5. Paging Mr Bundy. Mr Al Bundy, your Ferguson is ready.

I really don't like the automatic flush toilet in most public places; they frequently need the manual override for a second flush.

The device that really bugs me is the faucet where you push the button and you get a timed amount of water. The first press is not enough to do the job; after the second one I'm walking away and the thing is still running.

I really don't get flow restrictors either. It doesn't matter if it take 10 seconds or a minute to fill the coffee pot; it's the same amount of water! Maybe in the shower it makes sense; but still if there is a low volume of water, I'm gonna be in there longer.

edited to add: In my own house both bathrooms have water-saving toilets. One is a progressive flush--up to a point it flushes as long as you hold the handle down. The other is a high-power turbo-flush thing on which you don't want to remain seated while it flushes. Also started composting so I don't have to use the disposal so much, but I still have to keep the pile moist so I don't know if I'm saving that much water, but the worms are happy!

[louis-t]

6. You are most certainly wrong about toilets NEVER needing

plungers before 1994. Toilets have always needed plunging when someone uses them improperly. I have heard that the first crop of low flows had problems. I never witnessed any. I never saw one toilet that need 4 or 5 flushes, as was parodied regularly on tv. The only thing I notice is that the toilets need cleaning more often. It is certainly more sanitary to CLEAN YOUR TOILET A LITTLE MORE OFTEN. I don't understand the resistance to saving water. Can you imagine the amount that has been saved in the last 15 years? So, you are blaming the careless, improper use of a toilet by some low class slob on the government?

[On the Road]

10. Man Has Always Needed the Plunger

"Remnants disturb me. I prefer a fresh bowl."

[MindPilot]

17. LOL! The Biscuit takes a moment.

[damntexdem]

13. The law may not be flush with success, but toilets have always required plungers.

And there are successful designs that flush with sufficient power but less water.

[kenfrequed]

15. Disagreed.

Toilet that is two ply tends to be two very thin layers.

Oddly enough the plunger has existed for many, many decades. I know I have used one many times before 1994 and many times since on toilets built before 1994.


Other than that this post stinks. It smells a lot like typical 'anti big government' and 'anti EPA' propaganda.

I am of the honest opinion that we ought to be using 'grey water' for all waste disposal of this nature and wasting as little fresh water as possible.

[hunter]

18. I've never had problems with low flow toilets.

I think in the early days some contractors may have used some rather hastily designed and wretchedly CHEAP toilets, but even these low flow toilets were never so horrible as some of the "designer" toilets of the 'sixties and 'seventies that promised not to overflow but didn't flush either.

Some of the contractors and landlords I used to work for were money grubbing rat fuckers who were all too happy to blame any plumbing problems on government regulations when in fact they were causing the problems doing crappy work using crappy materials.

[Extend a Hand]

19. my new toto 1.28 gallon toilets flush great!

way better than the cheapo 3.5 gallon toilets the builder supplied in my last 1993 house.
It is my understanding that the initial switch over to 1.6 gallon toilets didn't go smoothly but the issues have been long since fixed and there are many .9/1.6 dual flush and 1.28 gallon toilets that work great. terry love has a great plumbing site for those looking at upgrading to new high efficiency toilets.

[NNadir]

23. If your low flow toilet isn't working properly, I will tell you how to fix it. As for paper...

I am far more concerned about the disappearing boreal forest - yes even toilet paper comes from somewhere - than about assholes.

If your low flow toilet isn't working, I suggest that you loosen and remove the two bolts at the base of the toilet, shut off the water supply and disconnect it. You may now lift the toilet. You will note that there is a wax ring that seals the waste line and the base of the toilet.

There is an excellent chance that some fat ass on the toilet has caused this ring to become uneven and to obstruct the outflow. The ring, which usually has a plastic collar can be removed. If you think you may die from this, by all means wear gloves. A replacement wax ring may be obtained from some ridiculously large home improvement store - or should you still have one - a local hardware store.

Reverse the steps and voila, there is a 99+% chance your toilet will work, until some fat ass destroys the ring again.

Now let's return to the toilet paper. Almost all of it in North America, and in fact, much of the world, comes from clear cutting the boreal forests of Canada. Just as the source of electricity is not really the wall socket, the source of toilet paper is not actually the shelves of megastores or even neighborhood grocers'.

One may argue, and have a point, that it's a pretty critical item, but believe it or not, for hundreds of thousands of years, humanity existed without it. One should however minimize its use.

Before toilet paper was widely accepted and available, God created the bidet. One can still see some in Europe. This device does use water, but it is probably more sustainable than removing all of Canada's forests and replacing them with, well, stumps.

This topic may seem aesthetically unpleasant, but it is, in fact, a critical human issue, about which I've thought quite a bit.

I wrote about some related topics on another website, which, as luck would have it, is run by people who think electricity comes out of a wall socket:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/16/20259/510">Life Cycle Analysis of Using Urban Wastewater on Spanish Agricultural Fields.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/22/18510/1895">Constructed Wetlands in Norway: Greenhouse Gas Implications.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/9/22291/9097">Another Happy Story About Agricultural Resource Depletion: Phosphate, Nauru, and Your Toilet.

I could, frankly, talk shit all night if I wanted to, but I don't want to.

All of our anti-nukes here, by the way, drive cars powered by their poop. Well actually, they would do so, but are waiting until the superduper poop driven car is available in show rooms.

In order to make sure they have lots of fuel for their poop cars, they plan to over eat and become fat asses of the type who destroy toilet bowl wax rings.

[Ready4Change]

25. In a way, I agree.

I don't think the problem is the modern toilet. I think the problem is modern people.

The plugged up toilets I see aren't plugged by the waste of a single person and a few squares of double ply. They are plugged up by a little waste and a basketball sized lump of double ply and/or paper towels meant for drying hands. I've dealt with bathroom toilets that NEVER clog for me. ANd yet, with predictable regularity, get clogged by what literally seems like a complete roll of TP. I don't know what causes that sort of conspicuous use of TP, but I see it all the time.

Honestly people, if you can't clean up with a few sheets (which ANY toilet will handle with aplomb), maybe it's time to talk to either an MD or a shrink. 'Cause the problem isn't the toilet. It's YOU.

Now, on bidet vs paper, I'm not sure which is better. Wonder what the water footprint is with each process. Also wonder if, in water poor areas like the South West, if there might be reasons to use paper instead, regardless?

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. You can check toilet performance test results online

Just google toilet performance tests. You will find multiple reportts detailing that some toilets can't flush for crap. While others meet or exceed low flow requirements but are excellent performers.

In a 2003 Canadian report the TOTO Drake EL was rated for 900gm while some 20 models of various manufacturers could not clear 250gm.
www.cwwa.ca/pdf_files/freepub_6Ltoiletreport04.pdf

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. Thanks to Jeffery Tucker, editor of the libertarian mises.org wesbite, for this piece

Always better to acknowledge ones source, I feel: http://mises.org/daily/3997

Was there really a need to post an anti-government screed here?

[joshcryer]

29. You could tell it was a copy-paste job.

[Javaman]

27. wow, just wow.

We have two low flow toilets, both work excellent.

However, we did experience a flood, why?

Because the sewer line going to the street was clogged with roots.

We fixed the line. No more problems.

With commercial toilets, it's much the same, but in a different manner.

People use those toilets with complete disregard and you would be surprised at the things they try to flush down them. As a result the main sewer line gets clogged.

It has very little to do with the toilet and toilet paper.

Any plumber worth his or her salt will tell you that.

Stop being a hank hill and get over yourself.

[LaydeeBug]

28. "Environmental hysteria"? You might be an asshole...

I mean... maybe. Since we are in an arctic freeze most likely caused by the warming of the earth's core, I find the term "environmental hysteria" to be both false and offensive.

[joshcryer]

30. Commerical toilets don't use a tank (well, not in the bathroom). They use pressure.

I don't use the restroom in places where they have a tank filled toilet, because I don't know how it will behave.

The one I have here, however, is just fine. One flush does the job (and it is low flow).

[depakid]

31. Funny- Australian loo's work great on a fraction of the water

Dual low flush botton- 6 litre / 3 litre choice.

(brown / yellow for the uninitiated).

Guess Americans are falling behind on innovation....

[Jennicut]

32. The problem is some people treat the toilet like my 4 and 5 year olds do.

They think the need half a roll of toilet paper to clean themselves and don't flush some of it down during the middle of whatever they are doing.
First of all, use flushable wipes instead of TP if you don't feel clean enough. One wipe is better then tons of TP per my daughters. And flush in between a long toilet sit. Our toilet has to be from the 70's and it literally takes forever to flush. The turbo ones my parents have seem much better.

[Odin2005]

33. EPIC FAIL!!!