|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2009 14:00:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Nov 26, 2009 13:23:37 GMT
thanks for this, casimira! very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2009 9:33:18 GMT
At the office, we have been discussing one of the latest ecological recommendations for saving water -- peeing in the shower. Since a toilet flush uses 12 liters of water, but leaving pee in the bowl gets rather stinky, a family can save a lot of water if everybody pees in the shower.
Naturally, this suggestion has been met with mixed reactions.
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Jan 14, 2010 20:28:53 GMT
It's nice that you and your colleagues managed to discuss such private matters, K!
Most of the time, I find people think it's "suspicious" to speak about what happens in the bathroom.
I prefer to shower with my feet in a tub/bucket and use the water to flush the loo myself.
We used to actually do this in our previous dwelling. Here, it isn't convenient, but the shower is better so we don't use as much water.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jan 18, 2010 0:11:30 GMT
My main effort to conserve water is to turn off the tap whilst I am brushing my teeth. I never take baths and I try to remember not to spend too long under the shower's comfortingly hot water.
I have often considered that I should pee whilst showering but haven't done this because I am terrified I might end up with a bathroom that smells of urine.
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Jan 18, 2010 18:21:05 GMT
Sometimes, I take a glass of water by the bed and if I haven't finished it in the morning, I try and remember to pour the water into the kettle for my morning cuppa. Although I did this once at my mom's and she said I was mad and disgusting and she threw the water from the kettle into the sink and rinsed the kettle well.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2010 21:09:16 GMT
Those of us who live in countries with plenty of water are possibly being ridiculous with such conservation efforts, compared to the dry countries.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jan 18, 2010 23:21:45 GMT
I agree - it is ridiculous.
I laughed at Annie's mother's reaction.....and she was right Annie!
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Jan 20, 2010 17:55:09 GMT
Spindrift, if I had had any doubts about the quality of the water (and anyway if the water had been left by the bedside for more than 10 hours) I would have used the water for the plants. In fact I had barely touched the glass I poured in the kettle. And the kettle would have boiled any germs that could have grown. My parents come from a region that always has had to fight for water, with places benefitting from plenty and others a few miles away in another valley, totally devoid of it. So conserving water is almost in my genes.
|
|
|
Post by bazfaz on Jan 20, 2010 21:10:57 GMT
Certainly it is ridiculous in parts of the world that have lots of water to be made to behave as if we didn't. Where I used to live our village water came from a spring in the hill above us. What the village didn't use went down the hill and eventually simply vanished beforte it even reached the valley. We paid a fixed charge of 35 euros a year for the water. Then the new mayor discovered this was illegal. In order to instill the idea of conserving water nationally we had to be metered so we would know how profligate we were and pay for our sin. So the new regime was that a meter would be put in for every house, we would pay 55 euros a year for that; and then pay 83 centines a cubic metre for the water used.
What was the point of this? Any water "saved" would flow down the hill as it always had and just be absorbed. But in some Paris ministry they would shake their heads about us peasants who don't understand the principle they were enforcing.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jan 20, 2010 21:21:39 GMT
I conserve every drop I can, as the situation is pretty dire where I live. There is no municipal water piped in to this lot. I have a cistern under the porch which holds 12- to 14,000 liters and must buy the water to fill it. I keep buckets in the shower and have a basin in which I stand. All of that water is used for my plants, as is all the water from washing clothes and dishes. Believe me, when you have to hand-water everything from buckets, it tends to keep the size of the garden from being too ambitious. Luckily this house was built to catch rain run-off and channel it into the cistern. I buy my drinking water in 20 liter bottles. I don't let the water run while brushing my teeth or washing my hands, even, and turn it on & off during a shower. Having visitors from places with abundant water is excruciating for those of us who must conserve, as they don't understand about not flushing each time you pee, not showering unless you need to, etc. I cringe when I watch movies with a guy shaving, and he's merrily letting the water run. Re: peeing in the shower ~~ First of all, I thought everyone peed if they were showering & felt the urge to urinate. And if I had to wait to pee until it was time for a shower, I'd be having childish accidents. Was the suggestion that people stand or squat fully clothed in the shower stall, then rinse away the pee with a quick splash from the shower head?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 2:29:21 GMT
Those of us who live in countries with plenty of water are possibly being ridiculous with such conservation efforts, compared to the dry countries. I wish I could remember the numbers with regard to the amount of water that is gushing under the streets of NOLA from leaks and broken pipes consequent to Katrina and years of neglect. It is astounding,staggering. I always feel guilty when I hear about dry places. We do suffer from droughts,but, it is nothing compared to what I hear of as in such places like Syria and neighboring countries where bands of people are thronging to cities just for the water,just to survive!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 11:44:13 GMT
Recently there was an article about wasted municipal water in France and more specifically the water wasted because of leaks in all of the underground pipes. Paris is actually the best city in France, because it is the only city where all of the pipes are accessible through the huge sewer system. Leaks can be quickly found and fixed. I think the percentage of water arriving at destination in Paris was something like 94%, but in a lot of cities it was more like 60% because the pipes are old and buried and a lot of the water is just seeping into the ground.
It is pretty hard to imagine all of the excavating and repiping that would be required to reduce the leaks to an "acceptable" level in most cities of the world, but considering how many places have water problems, this is going to have to be done sooner or later.
One would hope that in a city like Port-au-Prince, they will take advantage of the current tragedy to do things right, but based on past experience, it is probably a hopeless wish.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 12:11:07 GMT
Yes, well one would have thought that about post Katrina New Orleans too,and it just isn't happening although ,the politicians would have us believe otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Jan 21, 2010 13:33:03 GMT
I think we must distinguish between "water" and "drinking water".
Drinking water is an extremely precious commodity.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Jan 21, 2010 13:45:23 GMT
There are many places where "water" is a precious commodity. Making it drinkable is a whole other problem.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2010 14:32:03 GMT
Not every city uses drinking water for situations that do not require it, but I don't know who was so incredibly clever to think of this 200 years ago in Paris.
Paris is one of the very few cities in the world equipped with a dual network system: the drinking water network is duplicated by a totally independent non-potable water network which possesses its own means of production, storage and distribution pipes. In this second network there circulates untreated water characterized by pressure lower than that observed in the drinking water network. The fact that the constraints governing non-potable water are less than for drinking water is reflected in lower margins in relation to comparative production and storage capacity. Non-potable water in Paris has existed for two centuries; it is very inexpensive and its use in large quantities forms part of the landscape to which Parisians are accustomed. 98% of non-potable water consumption are restricted to the uses of water linked to urban concentration for the comfort or safety of town dwellers: hydrants, fountains, street cleaning, watering of public gardens, flushing of the sewers etc. Therefore, the main consumer being the city of Paris, the operation of the non-potable water network differs in many ways from that applied to the drinking water network. The economic context, the technical implications and the ecological repercussions of the use of non-potable water provide an alternative solution to the exclusive use of drinking water which seems to be efficient and attractive. This exceptional situation does not only offer advantages especially when one analyses the consequences for the network of waste water or the cost of maintaining a dual pipe network.
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Jan 21, 2010 18:24:05 GMT
Totally agreed, bjd! As usual I was thinking more about the western world.
oh! that's great, K! One more reason to love Paris even more!
Unfortunately I cannot see any big city order huge re-works of their water system in this day and age. Or most daring/expensive/forward-thinking projects for that matter.
|
|