European Tribune

"I don't swim in your toilet, so don't pee in my..."

by GreyHawk
Sun Feb 17th, 2008 at 11:11:15 AM EST

On January 12, 2008, I posted a piece titled Smarter Parts: Improving Efficient Energy Use and Demand? that touched upon an experimental program sponsored out of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The essence of the program was to create a home energy system that could respond to changing prices and peak demand loads by dialing back energy consumption. The system would be accessible via the internet so homeowners could make changes in absentia. An update to the story included another article indicating that in 2009, California regulators may have direct access to homeowner thermostats via radio-controlled devices in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages -- a plan cooked up by the California Energy Commission (CEC).

I opened a discussion thread for the piece in a few places, including several Delphi forums. In one thread,1 some energy and water efficiency ideas came up. One in particular spawned the short poll that you're about to see. Please read on, and take the poll; results will be published at the end of next week and included in another piece that I will cross-post in all areas where this appears.


There are many areas for improvement with regard to how we go about our daily lives in terms of energy utilization and resource management. While simply providing for smarter planning and incorporating energy smart options on new buildings is one avenue, there are other types of concerns that we can and should face in order to reduce our overall ecological footprint. One area is the use (and re-use) of water -- a resource critical to all life, and one that is fast becoming scarce.2

In order to properly address any issue regarding scarce resources, we need to understand that there are usually several options available that can (and perhaps should) be used together to create an optimal approach. Here's a brief ad-hoc list of what types of considerations can be taken into account:

  1. How efficiently is the resource used?

  2. Can changes in the way the resource is used yield more efficient and effective results, conserving the rate of expenditure?

  3. Are alternate methods cost-effective, and how is cost-effective being calculated -- in an immediate, near-term or long-term capacity?

  4. What are the options for recycling the resource, and the relevant immediate / short term / long term implications of recycling?

  5. Is it possible to include cost-effective, efficient recycling methods in any new construction or re-construction that uses the resource?

  6. To what extent should recycling and efficiency be mandated, by whom, and how?

Water is a resource that is used in all aspects of life; it's not solely relegated to human life, where it spans virtually all aspects from basic hydration to cleaning and manufacturing. It is also a critical resource to the environment. Without water, the entirety of existence of life on this planet would cease.

Given that, and noting the growing scarcity of fresh water, the idea of separating out grey water and black water3 in all new home construction alone could be a tremendous asset. It would reduce overall consumption and the rate of consumption, particularly if other systems (not within the scope of this piece) are incorporated to help improve our efficient use and application of it.

This, then, would make sense. Separate the grey water from the black water and re-use the grey water.  Of course, things aren't always that simple. Contaminants tend to get into the system one way or another, and accidents can't be avoided. According to the Foundation for Water Research,

______

Although toilet wastes are excluded from greywater, greywater still contains human faecal indicator bacteria in concentrations high enough to indicate a health risk from the potential presence of pathogenic micro organisms. Overseas authorities have confirmed this conclusion.

For safe re-use, either of the following must occur:

  • greywater must be treated to remove or destroy these micro organisms

  • human contact with greywater must be prevented.

Treatment of greywater to make it safe for human contact is expensive to achieve on an individual household basis. It is also difficult to ensure that treatment systems are maintained. Surveys in the USA, Australia and Brisbane have found that 60% to 80% of "onsite domestic wastewater treatment plants" are not maintained adequately. These treatment plants consistently do not produce an acceptable quality effluent.

______

Bugger. Nothing is ever simple.

There are several methods and approaches available4 with regard to dealing with contaminants in grey water, however; those are also not in the scope of this piece.

This piece is a lot more limited in scope.

Some of the factors that affect our habits for good or ill include our capacity for mature, responsible actions. People can be quite goofy at times (e.g., the Darwin Awards), and in many cases we are our own worst enemy.5 What I'm speaking of, and which I'd posted in response to the suggestion that future building projects include separate black and grey water systems, is this:

___

"...one item from my college years keeps coming to mind: what about all those mental midgets (or perhaps "socially challenged boors") who think it's funny to pee in the sink if someone is in the lavatory, or who pee in the shower when they are in it taking a shower?

I'm not sure how many women do the latter, and I'm sure very few women do the former, but I know of many guys -- particularly after a few beers -- who get goofy and think it's funny as hell to pee in the sink, and a few who readily admit to peeing in the shower.

Personally, I think both practices are disgusting and immature, lacking a sense of sanitary sensibility and major lack of maturity -- but that doesn't mean that a significant portion of people don't engage in the practice.

So, that would mean that some water systems which one would ~think~ should be or could be attached to grey water systems would have to be attached to black water systems, or that the base filtration and recycling of the grey water systems would have to include a method/manner of neutralizing urine.

"
___

The purposeful introduction of human waste into systems explicitly intended for grey water would put an additional burden of cost into the construction of such systems in order to ensure that a base level of clean water was achieved -- again, pushing us further up against the definition of "cost-effective" and efficient implementation of such systems. There are undoubtedly other system where human waste can be accidentally introduced -- bowel movements by children in a bath or shower, for example -- and the introduction of other human body fluids or tissues resulting from injury, menstrual activity, birth ("Honey, I think my water broke...!"), etc.

Such systems are in process already, and have a potential that can be immediately realized -- take, for example, the DEKA water purification system5 produced by Dean Kamen of Segway fame:

_____

Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway scooter, and many other interesting things, introduced last Thursday a portable water purifier that he hopes will save millions of people around the world from shortages of fresh water. It is a 100 pound device which requires little maintenance and uses no chemicals or filters. It uses a specialized distillation and condensation process and produces 10 gallons of clean water an hour on 500 watts of electricity. The idea is that it goes hand in hand with a generator he's also developed, which uses a Stirling engine to produce electricity.

_____


Water purification AND a companion energy generator. Neat-O.

But again I digress: the whole process, no matter how well thought-out, can always be derailed by the actions of any unthinking individuals or even completely by accident.

We've gone for many years using the seas as our toilet and primary waste receptacle. The effects have not been pretty, and only now -- only NOW -- are we finally beginning to hear enough people point out the obvious disasters that are resulting from our arrogant immaturity. Problems like the Pacific Gyre (a.k.a. The Garbage Patch) and ocean dead zones6 are a direct result of human stupidity (read: indifference) on a global scale. If, individually and within our communities, our cities and towns, our states, our counties and our nations, our actions and indifference can have such a massive impact on our environment and conversely rebound back upon us by creating a more challenging environment in which to attempt to survive, shouldn't we make it a priority to address the basic function of personal responsibility and accountability?7

To that end, I believe it behooves us to all incorporate a degree of greater awareness regarding the little things that can, taken collectively over time and in larger groups, add up and together constitute a significant improvement. "For want of a nail, the war was lost" etc.

So, I offer folks this poll and ask that they take it in all seriousness -- it's just a relatively silly example, but I think the results could be interesting. Please only vote once, and refrain from voting on more than one of the sites where this is cross-posted.  Thank you.

###

_____________

Footnotes
_
_____________

  1. Forward-thinking energy-minded new construction: via this post in DelphiForums by SpringPam, which reads
    in Texas...

    I have never understood why the new subdivisions do not have homes with solar photovoltaic - to run the damned central airconditioning if nothing else - (when it is sunny is when you need the cooling power)

    or separate grey/black water systems. It is very affordable to put in at the time of developing the subdivision. Using grey water for irrigation of lawns and green areas would reduce radiant heat reflection from clear cutting brush or forests to build the boxes in the first place. Green plants also take out CO2 and create O2. It also uses less electricity and chemicals to treat water for non-drinking purposes.

    It's just logical.

    Two good points -- why not include a default solar photovoltaic array for new construction, and why not standardize a built-in water recycling and re-use methodology. The latter option raised a rather sticky question...
  2. More information about the growing scarcity of water resources can be found here:
    • Water Wars: Climate change may spark conflict
      [British Defense Minister] John Reid warns climate change may spark conflict between nations - and says British armed forces must be ready to tackle the violence
      Tuesday, 28 February 2006

    • Armed forces are put on standby to tackle threat of wars over water By Ben Russell, and Nigel Morris
      Tuesday, 28 February 2006
      Across the world, they are coming: the water wars. From Israel to India, from Turkey to Botswana, arguments are going on over disputed water supplies that may soon burst into open conflict.

      Yesterday, Britain's Defence Secretary, John Reid, pointed to the factor hastening the violent collision between a rising world population and a shrinking world water resource: global warming.

      In a grim first intervention in the climate-change debate, the Defence Secretary issued a bleak forecast that violence and political conflict would become more likely in the next 20 to 30 years as climate change turned land into desert, melted ice fields and poisoned water supplies...


    • The danger of water wars by Fred Pearce, NewStatesman Online, Published 28 November 2007
      Water consumption has tripled in the past 30 years and there's a growing danger that disputes over the most necessary of resources could erupt into violence

      Water is rapidly becoming one of the defining crises of the 21st century. Climate change is making its availability increasingly uncertain. And we are using ever more of the stuff.

      In the past three decades the human population has doubled but human use of water has tripled - largely because, tonne-for-tonne, modern `high-yielding' crop varieties often need more water than the old crops...


    There's a lot of information out there. The above is but a small sample. Feel free to add more links in the Comments section.
  3. From Foundation for Water Research website, the definition of domestic wastewater can be segregated into two types of flows:
    • Blackwater - comprising water closet, bidet and bidette waste and having gross faecal contamination

    • Greywater (also referred to as sullage) - comprising all remaining household wastewater; for example, bath, laundry.
  4. From the Center for the Study of the Built Environment (CSBE),
    There are four reasons why graywater may need to be treated:
    •  To remove substances which may be harmful to plants;
    • To remove substances which may be harmful to health;
    • To remove substances which may be harmful to the wider environment;
    • To remove substances which may clog the graywater system.
    On-site treatment is an option that is not beyond our capacity to achieve; several sites exist that discuss grey water and delve into various systems available, and some companies sell prepackaged solutions.
  5. Perhaps one of the most famous sayings to have ever entered popular culture came from cartoonist Walt Kelly's character Pogo:
    _____

    "We has met the enemy, and he is us."

    _____


    Indeed, it is ever more appropriate that this now-immortal saying first appeared in poster-form on Earth Day in 1971. For history buffs, from the Wiki link,
    The quote, a rephrasing of a message sent in 1813 from U.S. Navy Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry to Army General William Henry Harrison after The Battle of Lake Erie stating "We have met the enemy, and they are ours," first appeared in a lengthier form in A Word To The Fore, the foreword of the book The Pogo Papers. Since the strips reprinted in Papers included the first appearances of Mole and Simple J. Malarkey, beginning Kelly's attacks on McCarthyism, Kelly used the foreword to defend his actions:

    _____

    "Specializations and markings of individuals everywhere abound in such profusion that major idiosyncrasies can be properly ascribed to the mass. Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle.

    "There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.

    "Forward!"

    ______


    For an interesting reflection on the term, check this out, too.
  6. More on the DEKA Water Purification System:
    Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and the Safe Water Network today announced a program to develop small-scale, community-based solutions to bring safe water to neglected populations. The 12-month program will target several developing geographies, potentially including Bangladesh, China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America, where distributed water purification technology solutions are expected to improve community access to clean drinking water.

    Deloitte Global CEO William G. Parrett, along with Kurt Soderlund, chief operating officer of the Safe Water Network, announced the Deloitte member firm commitment to the clean water initiative and outlined the objectives of the program for the next 12 months. These include:

    • Empowering local communities to improve their living conditions through the deployment of distributed water purification technology.

    • Demonstrating alternative models to deploy water purification solutions, including micro-enterprise programs that establish local water entrepreneurs and social investment programs such as supplying water purification to local health clinics.
    • Developing plans that support broad scale deployment of solutions to materially improve the health and living conditions for the millions afflicted by water-borne illnesses.

    [...snip...]

    Nearly 1.1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water and 90 percent of deaths from water-related diseases in the developing world today occur in children less than five years. "In different ways, at different ages, access to adequate water and sanitation services influences everybody's health, education, life expectancy, well-being and social development," notes Mr. Parrett. "Water is fundamental to human life, community development, and Filling water bottles, Honduras field trial of the DEKA water purification technologylong-term sustainability."

    The Safe Water Network's initial priority is to demonstrate the applicability of an innovative Vapor Compression Distillation (VCD) water purification solution being developed by DEKA Research & Development, Safe Water Network board member Dean Kamen's firm. The technology is being optimized for developing world settings to ensure ease-of-use, low maintenance, versatility, portability and affordability. It is also capable of addressing virtually all contaminants. With output of approximately 350 gallons of pure water daily, each unit provides a community-scale solution that meets the potable water needs of approximately 100 people.

    Full article is available at the link above. Another interesting article, this time from WPI Transformations by Eileen McCluskey:
    Access, or lack thereof, to good, clean water is reaching global crisis proportions. Each month, 200,000 people in developing nations die from water-borne diseases, many of which are preventable. Through their different approaches, George Oliver '82 and Dean Kamen '73 share the same sense of urgency to solve this worldwide problem.

    They come to the issue from different backgrounds, yet Dean Kamen and George Oliver are working toward the same goal. Kamen, founder of DEKA Research and Development Corporation, takes the one-on-one approach. His solution to the water scarcity problem comes in the form of a 225-pound purification system, which, through innovations closely guarded by DEKA, can be operated and maintained by anyone. Though it is still under wraps as DEKA finalizes its entry to market, this black box takes vapor compression distillation technology, like that developed for submarines, to a small scale with greatly improved efficiency over traditional distillation.

    "This technology can enable financial and social change in the developing world," says Kamen, who holds an impressive track record for inventing products that take off--some literally.


    The key part for me? Technology for clean water that can be "operated and maintained by anyone" -- the way it should be.
  7. Hat-tip to Meteor Blades. Regarding ocean oxygen depletion, see this Wikipedia page on hypoxia for more information. Other sources of information here and here.

  8. OK, stop laughing...I know that in the environment that spawned the massively disastrous George W. Bush Administration and create a legacy of insane waste, out-of-sight corruption and complete abdication of accountability and ethics that the imploding Republican party fostered, any discussion of "personal responsibility" is at best hilarious, but still..."is we learning" anything? We still have to think of the children...oh, and Poland. We mustn't forget Poland...
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Poll
The Pee Poll
. I am male, and I pee in the shower. 26%
. I am female, and I pee in the shower. 10%
. I'm incontinent. I pee everywhere, all the time. 10%
. Why do you have such a large footnote section? 52%

Votes: 19
Results | Other Polls
Display:
Non-waste items only, please.

:)

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
   Downey wings, but wroth they beat
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Sun Feb 17th, 2008 at 11:17:12 AM EST
Mmmm... In fact urine is just one, among quite a lot of bacterials problems going down the shower (if any), or the sink!
Not to speak of the chemicals used to leave your sink in a "brand new" state, nor the numerous other "things" that go down there, specially when "ill-equipped" of a grinder !

"Goose neck" chemistry is still in diapers !

Those "luxuriant" way of living don't happen in parts of the world were water is already scarce - there is a culture of water-use - (whether hygienic or not)!
Rain water, washing the pavements and the roads, allows for benzenes and other tar related molecules to be  washed with old and sick dog dung while french regulation takes pain in separating the toilet drain from the others...

Having "autonomous" systems for water as sewers goes back to the collectivity vs communities diary :-)

The few times I have made the water "visible", either as a transparent tank with markings or with a button to press when a given quantity has been used, to replenish a tank, water consumption and use has been reduced (slightly, but it's always a beginning).

The illimited access to "I don't care where it comes from" water, coupled with a few bills in cubic meters and the weird idea of a "house" (cheap, so far from city center services), doesn't usually help !

Anyhow, most modern regulations goes in the direction of preserving grey waters... Still, it is a cost that many don't want to go through, stating of an "urgency" of having social housing!

Many "answers" of various scales exist, though they are still seen as "experimental" (because of fundings)!
And, sad to say, we might need some severe droughts to get to the point...

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun Feb 17th, 2008 at 12:32:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
more "modern" societies overlook -- like the other chemicals that go down the sink -- which will play a definite role in anything applied toward water re-use and recycling.

Over all, I believe that learning to look at, develop and fund whole systems instead of discrete items may help illustrate how things tie together in ways that planners and the public don't often remember when designing their "designer" homes or communities.

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
   Downey wings, but wroth they beat
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Sun Feb 17th, 2008 at 12:46:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You are right, but we do it here (France, Germany, Netherlands)!
There are no urban design contests that goes without it (with a finished works to 20 years and 50 years plan)!

Er... Don't get at me on homes and communities <LOL>

"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman

by margouillat (hemidactylus(dot)frenatus(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) on Sun Feb 17th, 2008 at 01:01:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some areas of the US still have a degree of wisdom, but I wish we'd not gone so hog-wild into stripping off so damn much of the wisdom our forefathers brought...

Unfortunately, we now have developed a culture that distinctly lacks a lot intelligence simply due to the development of a "land of abundance" mentality coupled with rampant consumerism.

:/

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
   Downey wings, but wroth they beat
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Sun Feb 17th, 2008 at 01:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
GreyHawk, I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be, at least for developed countries.

There's nothing special to waste water. Compared to sea water, it's actually pretty clean and easy to process.

Either you use a standard system - sedimentation pool + biological process - or a more compact biological treatment assisted by ultrafiltration or even on-line filtration and ultra-filtration directly on raw water. From there on, you need sterilization - UV / ozone / chlorine - followed by reverse osmosis and re-mineralization. Dense urban centers would work nearly in closed loop. Suburbs less so because of lawn watering and such but then, they can (and do) use recycled waters for that.

If RO sounds futuristic to you, you should consider the SEDIF Méry water plant in the Paris region, which is getting very close to that. They use nano-filtration rather than RO so they don't have to remineralize. They treat water from the Oise river, which ain't that much better than treated sewage water. They process 140,000 m3/day with nano-filtration, enough for 450,000 inhabitants (about 300 l/day/person).

Singapore is also starting to do full RO from sewage for their fresh water supply. Google for NEWater.

RO or nano-filtration works and, as I said, sewage water is pretty nice for that process. The energy (and difficulty) for RO comes from two items:

  • The dynamic pressure drop across the permeation membrane, in other words the amount of energy to push the water through. It's really a matter of membrane quality and it goes down every generation.

  • The biggest part by far comes from the osmotic gradient which is about proportional to mineralization. Raw water carries generally less than 1 kg/m3 (1 g/l) dissolved minerals compared to 35 kg/m3 for seawater. Actually, with a lead-free distribution network  and full recycle, you can go as low as 0.150 kg/m3 and what comes in comes around so it's less energy to spend for a recycle through RO.

Sea water RO takes about 2.5 kWh/m3 on large scale systems. With waste water, I'd guess it would be less than 1 kWh/m3. Which is a lot more efficient than the DEKA system which sounds pretty horrible. 500W for 10 gal/h, that's 13 kWh/m3. Bleeh!

Anyway, 100% treating all waste waters at is the way to go. Trying to separate at the source in a diffuse setting like residential sewers is just too dangerous because of the sink pissers on one hand and more seriously because of the risk of involuntary discharges, which are unavoidable in a developed context. There always will be someone somewhere throwing away some weird shit in the sink without even knowing : insecticide, medications, cleaning products, etc.

The real difficulty would come from old cities like Paris with unitary sewer systems that also collect rain water. Just separating the waste waters and the rain in the collection network is already a big deal. No need to go redo the plumbing in every house on the top of that.

But overall, water shortage for human consumption is a non-issue in developed countries. There are just governments unwilling to invest and tax accordingly to maintain and improve the common infrastructure.

Actually, the diary makes me a bit angry. Invading people's life with pointless "resource conservation" of inexistent shortages when there are efficient technological solutions is counter-productive. It's just a way of maintaining the citizenry in a constant sentiment of crisis and helplessness, the left-wing version of the right-wing's Shock Doctrine, well documented by Noami Klein.

It also detracts from real issues. Agricultural irrigation, even in developed country, is a real issue.

--

In less developed countries, well, it's a different story. They need functional governments to start with, something we used to have but less and less so.


Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 01:04:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Agricultural irrigation, even in developed country, is a real issue.

Indeed.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 03:17:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Francois,

For starters, that's a great and informative comment that really helps the content overall. Thank you.

I'll take things one at a time, hoping that I don't miss anything.

I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be, at least for developed countries.

In some developed countries, overflow from excessive rain or floods can present a great biological hazard. By having new construction and new renovations include a degree of internal, on-site water treatment -- whether technological in nature or more natural -- then some of these issues can be slightly mitigated simply by not adding to the already existing problem.

Either you use a standard system - sedimentation pool + biological process - or a more compact biological treatment assisted by ultrafiltration or even on-line filtration and ultra-filtration directly on raw water. From there on, you need sterilization - UV / ozone / chlorine - followed by reverse osmosis and re-mineralization. Dense urban centers would work nearly in closed loop. Suburbs less so because of lawn watering and such but then, they can (and do) use recycled waters for that.

I believe I've seen degrees of all this beginning to be implemented in various stages.

I think that any system which can used a biological (and more natural, vs. chemically-based) system would ultimately be healthier all around, but it may not be entirely practical on some of the scale and in some of the heavily developed areas.

If RO sounds futuristic to you, you should consider the SEDIF Méry water plant in the Paris region, which is getting very close to that. They use nano-filtration rather than RO so they don't have to remineralize. They treat water from the Oise river, which ain't that much better than treated sewage water. They process 140,000 m3/day with nano-filtration, enough for 450,000 inhabitants (about 300 l/day/person).

RO doesn't sound too futuristic -- I'm a technophile, believe it or not. :)

However, the description of the SEDIF Méry water plant method is very interesting; I'm going to have to go do some additional research. Thanks!

RO or nano-filtration works and, as I said, sewage water is pretty nice for that process. The energy (and difficulty) for RO comes from two items:

    * The dynamic pressure drop across the permeation membrane, in other words the amount of energy to push the water through. It's really a matter of membrane quality and it goes down every generation.

    * The biggest part by far comes from the osmotic gradient which is about proportional to mineralization. Raw water carries generally less than 1 kg/m3 (1 g/l) dissolved minerals compared to 35 kg/m3 for seawater. Actually, with a lead-free distribution network  and full recycle, you can go as low as 0.150 kg/m3 and what comes in comes around so it's less energy to spend for a recycle through RO.

Sea water RO takes about 2.5 kWh/m3 on large scale systems. With waste water, I'd guess it would be less than 1 kWh/m3.

You are a bastion of good and useful info.

I think there may be reasons for using one system over another, but as technological understand gets better and (hopefully) moves hand-in-hand along with the understanding of how natural systems work, I'd like to think that there will be less "hard technology" in play that doesn't integrate and utilize natural systems models and more "systems tech" that can produce a more natural (and hopefully cheaper) result.

Some of the above paragraph may seem cryptic or delusional (or, perhaps both), but I have another piece I'm working on that will tie in regarding soil use and fertilization -- hopefully, that piece will help illustrate part of the overall understanding of my cryptic comment.

Which is a lot more efficient than the DEKA system which sounds pretty horrible. 500W for 10 gal/h, that's 13 kWh/m3. Bleeh!

Heh -- yeah, though the DEKA system may be a good niche fit for emergencies. For example, when NOLA flooded, if a few DEKA systems with alt. energy sources were available and distributable, then water could be processed on-site and dehydration (as well as other possible medical issues) may have been alleviated. Such systems may not be good for long-term or widespread use, but I can see them being quite useful in disasters.

I'm sure there are much better alternatives for long-term/widespread usage, particularly in developing nations where technology isn't always a good or preferable solution.

Anyway, 100% treating all waste waters at is the way to go. Trying to separate at the source in a diffuse setting like residential sewers is just too dangerous because of the sink pissers on one hand and more seriously because of the risk of involuntary discharges, which are unavoidable in a developed context. There always will be someone somewhere throwing away some weird shit in the sink without even knowing : insecticide, medications, cleaning products, etc.

True -- there are those who are "pissers" in more than the biological sense who challenge systems of thought, intelligence, maturity and sanity.

Involuntary discharges and other possible problems, esp. as our "developed" nations create and utilize more and more toxic materials in everyday life, are a constant problem.

That's part of the underlying justification in my mind for some definite localized treatment prior to dumping into a common-use pipeline or sewer system. Even if simple sensors could be developed that actively re-route hazardous water from greywater systems and allow local systems to recycle greywater for re-use while partitioning and redirecting the hazardous and the blackwater, that could significantly help reduce overall public processing requirements and assist with waste mangement.

In theory, at least.

The real difficulty would come from old cities like Paris with unitary sewer systems that also collect rain water. Just separating the waste waters and the rain in the collection network is already a big deal. No need to go redo the plumbing in every house on the top of that.

Retro-fitting carte blanch may not be much of an option, but prepping and planning for future construction or incorporating what can be done into any significant or sizable rebuilding effort -- including energy efficiency as well as water -- can, IMO, make a significant step forward to reducing waste and pollution.

But overall, water shortage for human consumption is a non-issue in developed countries. There are just governments unwilling to invest and tax accordingly to maintain and improve the common infrastructure.  

I don't think that makes it a non-issue -- it just makes it more difficult to address.

Actually, the diary makes me a bit angry.

Well, dammit -- that wasn't my aim. Sorry. :/

Invading people's life with pointless "resource conservation" of inexistent shortages when there are efficient technological solutions is counter-productive.

I don't believe it's pointless (obviously), but I can see (from scanning ahead) that you've got other issues of higher importance in mind.

I do believe that this relates, albeit indirectly in some ways. There are water shortages being reported in several areas, and so this isn't exactly detached from reality.

Also, having efficient solutions doesn't mean much if they aren't implemented or if they are only haphazardly supported.

If a cohesive, uniform approach and attitude could be developed and implemented with regard to waste mangement overall, and water usage in particular, I think we'd be taking a very important step toward dveloping the capacty to deal with other problems facing all societies -- developed or not.

It's just a way of maintaining the citizenry in a constant sentiment of crisis and helplessness, the left-wing version of the right-wing's Shock Doctrine, well documented by Noami Klein.

Eh -- I disagree. I'm not flapping my wings and yapping that the sky is falling; I purposely linked in pieces to illustrate that there are reasons for concern.

I always prefer to address potential problems with solutions while the problems are still small, rather than have to wait for possibly inadequate emergency procedures to be required.

It also detracts from real issues. Agricultural irrigation, even in developed country, is a real issue.

I agree wholeheartedly -- it becomes even more of an issue when looking at agriculture for potential secondary uses like biofuels.

In less developed countries, well, it's a different story. They need functional governments to start with, something we used to have but less and less so.

Heh. Too true...

How dysfunctional do our governments need to get before we either fix them or become a whole other classification of nation -- "developmentally dysfunctional" or something like that?

...or are we there already...?

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
   Downey wings, but wroth they beat
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 11:20:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that any system which can used a biological (and more natural, vs. chemically-based) system would ultimately be healthier all around,

I don't understand the justification for that assumption. Hemlock and deadly nightshade are 'all-natural' and completely organic. That doesn't mean they're good for you.

Solutions should be evaluated on their merits, not on whether they are 'chemical' or 'biological.'

That's part of the underlying justification in my mind for some definite localized treatment prior to dumping into a common-use pipeline or sewer system. Even if simple sensors could be developed that actively re-route hazardous water from greywater systems and allow local systems to recycle greywater for re-use while partitioning and redirecting the hazardous and the blackwater, that could significantly help reduce overall public processing requirements and assist with waste mangement.

I would guess that that would depend on how much black- and greywater differs between households. I could see the case for pre-treating the water locally if some households (or industries) are vastly more prone to adding really nasty pollutants. But I think that the idea that the different kinds of waste water a household or factory produces can be separated is a pipe dream, largely because you can't user-proof such a system. And trust me, you will need to user-proof a waste water treatment system.

How dysfunctional do our governments need to get before we either fix them or become a whole other classification of nation -- "developmentally dysfunctional" or something like that?

...or are we there already...?

I always liked neo-barbarian. And yes we are.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 03:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I read the biological/chemical in this context as a wish for a more robust, localised system.

And I guess the logical reaction to neo-barbarism is starting to build self-suffient houses. Maybe out in the countryside with access to good farming land. And some neighbours, so a self-suffient village might be the way to go. Course you might need protection down the road so a self-suffient castle perhaps?

Luckily the dark ages were not that dark after all. Bet there were even days when the sun shone. Good for the solar-cells.

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 03:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The hemlock comment was intended as snark. That aside, self-sufficient houses? For six-point-five bn people? Plus the loose change? You're dreaming. Almost nobody was self sufficient back in the bad old days when there were just around half a bn people on the planet. Try to sustain the current population without industrial agriculture, and you'll get devastating results for the environment.

Now, semi-self-contained cities which import food and export fertiliser, that I can believe. But that will require a lot of steel and concrete and highly centralised waste processing.

And no, the proper reaction to neo-barbarism is to fight back!

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 04:02:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That aside, self-sufficient houses? For six-point-five bn people? Plus the loose change? You're dreaming.

Well, the last time was not pretty either. Livi-Baccis Concise History of World Population gives a population of non-USSR Europe in 200 AD as 44 millions, and in 400 AD as 22 millions. In between is the collapse of the Roman empire and its centralised structure with cities and far-flung trade. It would of course be proportionally worse this time around as we start with a larger population and more dependence on products from far away lands.

My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek (and from thoughts provoked by that neo-barbarian thing (another thought was Conan with an iPod but lets not explore that one)). However if the neo-barbarism continues neo-feudalism might follow at its heels. The evolution towards feudalism started within the Roman empire as central authority failed, and more local systems took control. Estates developed into castles and the cities became half-abandoned cess-pools. And half the population or so died.

One thought I have been pondering from time to time is where do you give up on the old system, cut your losses and start building a new? I see that conflict reflected in this thread as well as in other places.

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 04:37:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
However if the neo-barbarism continues neo-feudalism might follow at its heels.

I think you have that backwards: Neo-feudalism is already with us - and it's the feudal lords who are pushing for neo-barbarism.

One thought I have been pondering from time to time is where do you give up on the old system, cut your losses and start building a new?

When the bother and cost of fixing the old system is perceived as being greater than the bother and cost of abandoning the old and starting over? When you are sufficiently certain that the old system isn't strong enough to swallow up your new system?

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 04:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
>> I don't understand the justification for that assumption. Hemlock and deadly nightshade are 'all-natural' and completely organic. That doesn't mean they're good for you. <<

And too much water can kill you, and too much oxygen in your system can drive you crazy. However, my statement was written with the intent of a system being more robust and less wasteful -- one where the use of more toxins to clean the water wouldn't be necessary, and hopefully one where the outside ingredients needed to sustain the ability of the system to process water would be minimal.

>> Solutions should be evaluated on their merits, not on whether they are 'chemical' or 'biological.' <<

Yes, that's true -- and ultimately, all biological processes are chemical to a degree. That's kinda picking the nit, however, since I was speaking in generalities.

>> I would guess that that would depend on how much black- and greywater differs between households. I could see the case for pre-treating the water locally if some households (or industries) are vastly more prone to adding really nasty pollutants. <<

Very true -- there can be some elements that may be addressed cost-effectively, but there would likely still be a need to install some sort of sensors that could shunt off greywater that is (intentionally or otherwise) rendered toxic/unsuitable from the normal greywater cycle; that would enable a system to have a degree of failsafe involved that wouldn't be perfect, but it would help.

>> But I think that the idea that the different kinds of waste water a household or factory produces can be separated is a pipe dream, largely because you can't user-proof such a system. And trust me, you will need to user-proof a waste water treatment system. <<

Can't argue with that -- just like computers or clock radios or even bicycles and roller-skates, it's hard to user-proof (and even more difficult to stupid-proof) everything.

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
   Downey wings, but wroth they beat
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 05:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
An interesting essay. I have always felt that rainwater collection constitued the only reasonable "grey water". All waste water from households must be contaminated in some way. I have thought maybe some of it should be retained for irrigation purposes.

If you must water your lawn, use household grey water, that'll teach you not to use biodegraeable detergents. Of course that leads to the fuzzy area of irrigating vegetables, but I take a view that promoting algae decontamination in holding vessels might help there, but let's be honest most people would prefer rainwater for that.

My biggest issue is not with domestic use, but with agriculutural and industrial wate, particularly in arid areas. Turning Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Phoenix into towns of New England type lawns is just about as dumb as it gets.

As for the abstraction for soft fruits and golf courses in southern spain, that is just about the dumbest short-sighted thing going and no amount of domestic frugality is gonna make up for that. Penny wise pound foolish is no use.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Feb 17th, 2008 at 12:29:36 PM EST
I'm glad you found it interesting.

I agree -- the "penny wise, pound foolish" approach tends to highlight a tendency toward self-delusion that occurs with many "modern" civilizations as part of the cultural and intellectual maturing process.

That's been something fairly constantly on my mind since I wrote up Civilization's African Toll: From The Cradle of Civilization to a Grave of Indifference. It illustrated the disconnect between "modern civilization" and the "noble savage" concept, and within that illustrated the relative lack of wisdom and immaturity of the former as it pertained to the latter.

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
   Downey wings, but wroth they beat
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Sun Feb 17th, 2008 at 12:53:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The whole framing seems needlessly biophobic to me, and also begs the larger question of why we're using water to dilute and transport human wastes to centralised (and often highly chemical, toxic) processing plants.  Composting works perfectly well to reduce humanure to topsoil, and urine can be used as fertiliser as-is.  The mycelium and other soil organisms will take care of it, so long as they are not overwhelmed with excessive concentrations.

There are choices other than "dump it all in the sea" or "sterilise it with high tech gadgets"... also, iirc the coastal dead zones are largely a product of agricultural runoff, i.e. runoff of artificial fertilisers (and hog manure and other goodies) from factory farming.

Personally I'm a lot more worried about the contamination of ground water and coastal water by all the darned pharmaceuticals in advanced-nations people's pee, than about the urine itself.  It's sterile on exit and not terribly harmful, but some of the drug compounds in it seem to be quite dangerous to marine and river species.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 02:13:11 AM EST
Composting works perfectly well to reduce humanure to topsoil,

That sounds like a really great way to spread nasty things like cholera. Human wastes cannot simply be composted and used as fertiliser the way you'd use animal manure. You'd need to kill it first.

As for why the central processing plant, I strongly suspect that it would be more energy-effective to use water, pumps and gravity to transport the waste to a separation plant that would sterilise it, separate the nutrients and the water, process the nutrients and then send them to where they are needed, than sending the whole deal directly. There's lots of water in human manure, so transporting it - say - five km to a separation plant, removing the water and then putting it on a train to wherever it's needed might easily be more effective than shipping it directly.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 06:50:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The heat from composting is supposed to kill vibrio cholerae but I agree it leaves a lot to good luck on something that must not be trifled with. But hey, it's all natural and sustainable and all that so it must be good :)

The funny thing that De seems to ignore is that the centralised and supposedly "highly chemical, toxic" processing plants actually use physical and biological treatments rather than chemistry. The "sludge" which is circulated in sewage treatment plants and looks really dirty is composed of bugs that digest the wastes. Good stuff. And further down the process, the collected sludge in modern plants is in turn sent to biodigesters to produce methane to power the plant.

Very little chemicals are used, above all for a simple matter of cost over the volume of treated water. Typically, the only chemical used in any large volume is chlorine to sterilize the biologically treated water before release.

The other benefit of centralised processing is that it's possible to make a lot of analysis to verify the quality of the process and actually know what the heck you're doing. That's something you cannot do realistically with "home brewed" waste treatment.

---

For those who read French, the SEDIF and SIAAP websites have pretty good informations about water treatments for drinking water and sewage. Entry-level stuff but not dumbed down to the point of being useless.

http://w2.siaap.fr/pro/03/pro_2_3.php
http://www.sedif.com/production_eau/index.html


Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 03:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're back!

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 03:25:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Mmm, no, not really.

The time zone difference is too much of a pain to be active over here. It just happens the first slow day at work in, pfff, 8 or 9 months.


Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 05:07:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Human wastes cannot simply be composted and used as fertiliser the way you'd use animal manure.

well, that would be quite a surprise to the small but growing number of people who are successfully doing exactly that, using mycofiltration, vermicomposting, and/or thermophilic processes.  none of which, alas for venture capitalists, requires purchasing advanced technogadgets from the inventor of the Segway :-)

a good introductory text is The Humanure Handbook;  for mycofiltration specifically, Stamets is probably the current "authority of choice".

I wouldn't dismiss chlorine contamination as a minor problem;  it's a broad spectrum killer of microbes, and microbes are the base of the food chain...  this obsession with "killing" bugs -- rather than farming them -- seems to me profoundly suicidal.  but then "biocidal" and "suicidal" can hardly be differentiated, so long as we ourselves are complex biotic organisations.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 09:29:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am sceptical. I remember reading somewhere that one of the great advances in health in pre-industrial Europe coincided with stopping the practise of using human middens as fertiliser.

It's possible that people who know what they're doing can manage a small-scale experiment. That doesn't mean that it's possible to implement it on an industrial scale or across society. Remember that (a) nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the general public and (b) most things are not freely scalable.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 02:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've read stuff on public health history, and haven't come across that kind of reference except concerning the tapeworm cycle involving humans and pigs. In any case one  shouldn't confuse middens or latrines ("night soil") with proper composting. In the first case it's waste that has remained piled in a hole in the ground for a short time in anaerobic conditions before being dug out by the night soil collectors and carted out to be spread directly on the land, in the second the waste is mixed with soil or a source of carbon like sawdust or straw in aerobic conditions that facilitate the activity of nitrobacteria.  The resulting biodegraded manure (like any compost) enriches the soil, improving structure, water retention, fertility.

Pathogens are killed by >45° temperatures reached during the process or do not survive over the time needed to finish the compost (plus a curing period for humanure to be certain of pathogen destruction). However, high temperatures are much more reliably produced in large volumes of compost, which would be an argument in favour of centralising.

I haven't personally practised humanure composting, but I don't think there is any significant health risk involved. The compost can be used for other gardening or horticultural purposes than food production, anyway.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 04:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In principle it could probably work. But I don't think you can idiot-proof it, and with public health, well, idiots are at least as good carriers of disease as anyone else.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 04:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are choices other than "dump it all in the sea" or "sterilise it with high tech gadgets"... also, iirc the coastal dead zones are largely a product of agricultural runoff, i.e. runoff of artificial fertilisers (and hog manure and other goodies) from factory farming.

In practice, no, there are no other choice. Dump or treat. Treating works well and is reliable. The real scandal is that "dumping" is still considered an acceptable option.

Otherwise, you pretty much answered it yourself:

The mycelium and other soil organisms will take care of it, so long as they are not overwhelmed with excessive concentrations.

The only alternative is to spread things out a lot, meaning you have to extend human footprint even more at the expense of wilderness and there are really a lot of us around.


Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 05:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The only alternative is to spread things out a lot, meaning you have to extend human footprint even more at the expense of wilderness and there are really a lot of us around

well yes, that's a bit of a problem.  but if we pursue many/most of the avenues suggested by "green city" design, that involve depaving and green-roofing, buildings which incorporate greenhouses and microfarms, etc., then there is a lot more need for living soil inside cities.  right now we go out of our way to destroy the soil and its organisms -- the most efficient waste processing systems on earth -- throughout the footprint of urban areas.  if instead we went out of our way to preserve living, breathing soil throughout urban areas, there would be a lot more waste processing capacity on the building, block, and n'hood level.  and a lot more food security.  and a lot more oxygen...  and less of the localised hot-spot disruption of weather patterns over cities... and less damaging runoff of rainwater from overpaved areas... and so on.


The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 01:05:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
De,

The "intensive vs extensive" split doesn't just cover land use.

My issue with models like the "green city" is that it supposes a level of knowledge and engagement within the population towards the model which is far beyond what you get in real societies. None of the systems are high-risk but there are a lot of them and it requires everybody to understand how the city works so they can maintain it and respect its constraints.

I agree that, if everybody is on board, it works and it's probably gives a fairly pleasant quality of life to everybody. Except that in real societies, you never get more than 20% of the citizenry truly involved in public life and maintaining in the common, if that. May be it will get higher with rising standards of eduction but than you must remember that our dear country of residency is still dealing with things like creationism...

My view of human nature is not as benign as yours and I hold no hope of a positive buy-in of the near totality of the population in a model but at best an informed yet passive agreement(+) from the majority and active participation of an engaged minority.

So I take a different approach, broadly speaking an "intensive" approach which concentrates difficult tasks in easily managed, regular structures which require locally a high concentration of knowledge and engagement but only on a small subsection of the population and carry significant impact on malfunction but which are easy to maintain as they performed a very delimited function in a very controlled setting. It applies as well to power plants and to administrative functions. Essentially, the technocratic social-democracy that, for all its faults, worked pretty well in Europe after WWII.

(+ : Here, "informed" is essential. Otherwise, those systems devolve ultimately in aristocracies, which always fail. Long discussion... )


Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.

by Francois in Paris on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 02:33:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
in the sense that you are all discussing practical - and existing - solutions, plus essential caveats. To a major extent I see the disagreements as being based on individual situations.

There are solutions that apply best to existing urban contexts, to new urban development, to suburban systems, or to rural areas. And there are subdivisions of those, so that, for instance, the Kamen product is surely better suited to a remote and primitive environment than an RO unit.

My only disagreement is with the comment that "... you never get more than 20% of the citizenry truly involved in public life and maintaining in the common, if that." I guess that the reference is to people in the U.S., and it just is not true. For one counter-example, recycling is favored by a majority of U.S. citizens. Out here in the Pacific NW, it is practiced by a majority.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 01:23:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, if soil recycling and food production became that relocalised, they wouldn't be quite so much abstract "public life" and only locally a commons...

I mean, we could say that the automobile would never catch on because people are so uncooperative and they would never all agree to obey little coloured lights and stay on the right side of yellow lines, and they certainly wouldn't bother to maintain their cars...  but since they perceive a tangible benefit from the system (wrongheaded as it may be in the long term) by and large people do play by the rules (the rules are biased against peds and bikes, profoundly unfair, but such as they are there is quite a remarkable compliance).

I don't think quite such a high degree of pessimism about human cooperativeness is in order.

For example in Sweden the Biolet Waterless Toilet is quite popular -- in some cases entire villages are abandoning the (imho silly) habit of crapping in their potable water supply and instead using composting loos.  So far, no outbreak of cholera in Scandinavia despite 30 years of sales of Biolet toilets, and no notable failure of users to maintain and operate the units properly.  OK, so citizens in the Scandinavian countries are more socially-conscious than Americans who have been deliberately trained to be selfish and feckless for the last couple of generations;  but they are not superhuman.  If people can learn to recycle glass and paper, they can learn to work a composting loo.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 at 03:33:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The whole framing seems needlessly biophobic to me

It's not -- it's meant and presented as a serious discussion with as much good side-info as possible, hopefully not to the extent that it overwhelms.  But I did throw in the "Pee Poll" to both illustrate a concept and to add a touch of bathroom humor.

There are choices other than "dump it all in the sea" or "sterilise it with high tech gadgets"...

I know -- and several are, IMO, preferable, particularly where they can result in the reduction or elimination of more chemical usage.

>> also, iirc the coastal dead zones are largely a product of agricultural runoff, i.e. runoff of artificial fertilisers (and hog manure and other goodies) from factory farming. <<

I know -- and, believe it or not, this does all (eventually) tie in together.

All those runoffs are things which should also, wherever possible, be treated and detoxified.

Personally I'm a lot more worried about the contamination of ground water and coastal water by all the darned pharmaceuticals in advanced-nations people's pee, than about the urine itself.  It's sterile on exit and not terribly harmful, but some of the drug compounds in it seem to be quite dangerous to marine and river species.

The compounds are also quite dangerous to non-aquatic species, because they make their way up the food chain.

That's why treatment -- and at least an attempt to alert people to the silliness (and sometimes outright stupidity) of their actions -- is also important.

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
   Downey wings, but wroth they beat
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 11:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is just a detail and does not touch the essence of this discussion, but the urine is almost completely sterile. If detectable quantities of bacteria are found in it, it is usually because of an urinary tract infection or something similar. So pissing in the shower might be socially "disgusting" but it is not a health risk.
by Deni on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 12:53:29 PM EST
Sterility isn't generally the problem,  more estrogen from the pill and estrogen analogues from plastic water bottles.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.
by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Feb 18th, 2008 at 12:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is just a detail and does not touch the essence of this discussion,

Actually, it does touch the essence, and I thank you for that.

but the urine is almost completely sterile. If detectable quantities of bacteria are found in it, it is usually because of an urinary tract infection or something similar. So pissing in the shower might be socially "disgusting" but it is not a health risk.

True enough, but recycling the water takes on some added importance if, as you may recall from above, there can be a significant amount of ~other~ runoff within the urine.

Essentially, however, I wasn't all that concerned about peeing in the shower -- it was more of a device to illustrate just one method of (albeit minor) skunking up of separation issues around greywater and blackwater, keeping it from being a simple process due to the potential for cross-contamination (or, as Francois points out above, involuntary discharge or simply dumping chemicals where they shouldn't go).

It also was a potential for using toilet humor to get a wry grin out of a few folks and hopefully keep the piece from being too "heavy."

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
   Downey wings, but wroth they beat
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Tue Feb 19th, 2008 at 11:34:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]