Speaking of toilets, the low flow toilets we have nowadays just don’t work as well as the old style ones.
I understand that they use less water per flush, however, depending on what you are flushing, you can end up flushing or using a plunger two or three times to get the job done.
Just my observation, on the real world functioning of something which was done, with the best of intentions of saving water and helping the environment and all that.
No one in Congress appears to UNDERSTAND ~ maybe Michelle, but the others? NONE!!~
In light of the multiple flushes often required for a single “load” I’m guessing the net amount of water ‘saved’ is trivial.
In contrast, the amount of time squandered dealing with unnecessarily clogged toilets is absurd. There’s 115 million U.S. households. Assume there’s even ONE unnecessary clog a year in each household due to the low flush toilets law. Assume it takes 5 minutes to clear each clog on average. That’s roughly 10 million lost hours. Valuing time at $16 an hour—as is done for estimates of the cost of tax compliance (http://www.laffercenter.com/2011/04/the-economic-burden-caused-by-tax-code-complexity/)—that loss equals $160 million. Now multiply by the ACTUAL number of annual avoidable clogs per household. In my household, it’s at least once every other month, so the total time loss is probably $1 billion a year. What exactly do we gain for that wasted time?
“Speaking of toilets, the low flow toilets we have nowadays just don’t work as well as the old style ones.”
They also cause problems in city sewer lines.
Low-flow toilets cause a stink in SF
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2681222/posts
Low Flow Toilets Equals No-Flow Sewers In San Francisco
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2682312/posts