The city of San Francisco's push for low-flow toilets is saving water - at a smelly price.
Use of the low-flow toilets has cut city water consumption by 20 million gallons a year, Public Utilities Commission spokesman Tyrone Jue told the San Francisco Chronicle.
But the cost is both monetary and olfactory.
Because water flow isn't pushing the waste through the system fast enough, a stinky sludge is building up in the sewers, the Chronicle reports. It's blamed for a rotten-egg smell wafting through areas of the city, especially during summer, according to the report.
So the city is spending $14 million to buy a three-year supply of concentrated bleach to combat the sewer odor, disinfect treated water before it's pumped into San Francisco Bay and sanitize tap water.
The plan is drawing criticism from environmental advocates.
"Using sodium hypochlorite, commonly known as bleach, is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack an egg; it's the wrong tool, and it will cause irreversible collateral damage," San Francisco chemical engineer Adam Lowry and German chemist Michael Braungart wrote in a Chronicle op-ed.
Their solution to the stink: either dumping hydrogen peroxide into the sewers or "a pro-biotic solution, that is, enzymes or bacteria that would simply 'eat' the smell then degrade harmlessly."
The solution is simple, flush twice!
I flush twice every time i see a low flow toilet anyway, just for spite
That's mature and productive, Drocks.
Do you also break your own toys so that none of the other kids can play with them?
Using low flow toilets, I never had a problem. One flush, and that's it. However, I did wonder if the amount of water used was enough to get everything through the pipes alright. And this confirms it.
If you wanted to save water and the sewer systems, perhaps going to a composting system would be better. That would be difficult. You'd have to retrofit bathrooms. Building layouts might not be the best suited for it, especially those warehouse stores with no basements. (but hey, those have like 20 foot ceilings anyway.) It would require thinking, innovation, jobs for people building/modifying, and yes, someone would have to pay for it. Theoretically, you'd also need a service to take away all the solid waste
Composting with human waste is not necessarily sanitary; remember all those diseases that were transported by improper disposal of waste (particularly during wars)? Composting like this would likely lead to the increase in such diseases.
What do you expect from a city who polices toys in happy meals but hands out free needles to heroin addicts?
100% of San Francisco City and Coutny vehicles are powered by alternative fuels. 77% of waste is recycled or composted. Please, tell us what your city is doing for sustainability and ending oil wars that involve American soldiers.
In terms of realpolitik, handing out free needles really is the best thing to do – When handing out free needles costs less than not handing out free needles, then you have to hand out free needles
Wow, SF is using Propane instead of Gasoline (it's still a fossil fuel). And maybe running a few Electric Vehicles in the "feel-good" belief that the electricity really ISN'T coming from "dirty" Coal-Fired Power Plants such as those sued by the EPA for causing Smog in the Grand Canyon !!
JD, handing out free needles cuts down on the rates of blood borne diseases among addicts (including HIV). I'd love to hear your suggestion. And no, free needles does not cause addiction.
What kind of comment would one expect from a man who's obviously spent his life listening to the rantings of angry men on talk radio.
Apparently SF has also banned the comprehension of irony.
Would you rather your tax money go to pay for clean needles for people who will use anyway or for HIV treatment for the rest of their lives?
Better check their figures. 20,000,000 gallons/year can be used by a small factory. If that is all that SF is saving by using
low flow toilets, the effort is a failure anyway.
Since existing Federal Regs are for max 1.6 gal per flush, then Low-Flow toilets would have a hard time saving more than 1 gal per flush. That means the Low-Flow toilets are handling about 20M flushes per year (1.6M flushes per month or 55,000 flushes per day or 4500 flushes per hour for a 12-hr usage), which is actually reasonable for a moderate number of just 1000 toilets.
The addition of Potassium Permanganate to the effliuent stream will ensure that the sewage does not become anerobic during the low flow or static condition. It will also not produce any nast chlorine compounds or cause problems at the treatment plan.
Why not use dual flush toilets with two buttons. A small flush for number one and a larger flush for number two.
If it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down....twice
San Francisco:
If you are so concerned about the environment, why did you build a dam in Yosemite National Park in what was once one of the prettiest canyons in the Sierras? And you still use the dam. Remove the dam if you really care...hypocrites.
FIXED IN TWO WORDS: poop Weekly
The solution to this problem is costing SF $0.75 per gallon of water saved? Is municipal water really that expensive there? It seems like a cheaper and easier solution is to flush the offending sewers with water.
I don't give a d@mn about any of this cause I uses an outhouse.
flush the low flow twice. problem solved.
I have an idea – why don't we get rid of the low flow toilets!! More water will then flush through the system. We will actually still save water as we will not have to flush twice to get everything down!! And I don't even work for the government.
Is it even safe to drink or bathe in tap water disinfected with bleach? Wouldn't that burn the stomach lining and skin?
Just another reason to NOT got to California.