Low-flow toilets have improved

To be frank, I’ve never thought much about toilets. In the past, whenever I’ve found myself in the market for a new john, the only thing that concerned me was its exterior design. I like things that are elegant and old (or, at least, that have that authentic antique look.)

Alexandra Marks

Alexandra writes about the 'green' and budget-friendly renovation of a 100-year-old farmhouse in south-central Connecticut.

Recent posts

• 02.16.10
  Bright Green fades to black
• 02.12.10
  The Medea Hypothesis: A response to the Gaia hypothesis
• 02.09.10
  Audi's 'Green Police' Super Bowl ad controversial
• 02.08.10
  What's really causing Himalayan glaciers to melt?
• 02.05.10
  Centralia, Pa.: How an underground coal fire erased a town

Related stories

• 
  Eco-renovation

  The delicate toilet question
• Do composting toilets work?
• The downside of low-flush toilets

But now in my effort to become a better human being, as well as renovate Sheep Dog Hollow in as green and economical manner as possible, I’ve become immersed the history and recent technological advances of the toilet. (For instance, did you know the derivation of the word? It’s from the word toile: “French for ‘cloth’ draped over a lady or gentleman's shoulders whilst their hair was being dressed, and then … by extension … the whole complex of operations of hairdressing and body care that centered at a dressing table.”

That helped me understand something that has puzzled me since childhood: the difference between eau de toilette and perfume. The latter is stronger than the former, when logic would suggest that the former, if it really was of the “toilette” should be the more fragrant of the two. But I digress…)

In a previous post, I wrote about how much water the average toilet consumes (up to 40 percent of the water used in a household), how water shortages are looming in the vast majority of states, and the fact that ultra low flow toilets are now the law of the land as a result of a well-intentioned act of Congress designed to conserve what fresh water we have.

The site “Toiletology” (no joke) does a fine job in summing up the toilets’ profligate past as well as its Congressionally mandated reforms:

“Before the 1950s, toilets typically used 7 gallons or more for each flush. By the end of the 1960s, toilets were designed to flush with only 5.5 gallons, and in the 1980s the new toilets being installed were using only 3.5 gallons. Today, a new toilet uses no more than 1.6 gallons of water in the U.S.”

Finally, I come to the point of this post – the problems with those low-flow toilets and how they’ve been resolved – making it possible for all, eventually, to flush with clean consciences.

For the most succinct summation of the problems, I must now turn to Miami Herald humor columnist Dave Barry, who gained national reputation, of sorts, for his crusade against the low-flow-ers. It is richly deserved with such observations as this 1998 gem:

They work fine for one type of bodily function, which, in the interest of decency, I will refer to here only by the euphemistic term ‘No. 1.’ But many of the new toilets do a very poor job of handling "acts of Congress," if you get my drift. They often must be flushed two or three times, and even more if it is an unusually large act of Congress, such as might be produced by a congressperson who recently attended a fund-raising dinner sponsored by the Consolidated Bulk Food Manufacturers.

1 | 2

Next