SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Alighieri who wrote (383308)5/8/2008 3:02:27 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) of 1571459
 
I don't doubt you own them.

Look, your anecdotal results don't interest me and in fact, it just isn't a subject I wish to discuss.

It is clear that the "benefit" from low-flush toilets has been elusive at best and counterproductive at worst. The reality is that while the water per flush was cut in half, in many, many instances the toilets require multiple flushes. There is a study on the subject that breaks it down between flushes containing solids and those containing only liquids, and the savings works out to about 5 gal/day per household -- an insignificant amount.

While it is true that today's low-flush toilets perform better than those from the 10 years following the inception of the law, those who are stuck with those toilets are continuing to use more water and many will do so for 50 years.

It is legislation gone awry for no significant benefit.

Now if you want to discuss this grody subject in any further detail, you're going to have to find someone else to talk about it. It is patently obvious that the public did NOT receive benefit from having this nonsense thrust upon them. The cost of toilets has risen 10x since 1994 as a result of this ignorant assed legislation that solved a problem that didn't even exist.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext