What a bullshit article. Every low-flow toilet I've ever used clogs far less than my mother's 1980s toilets (and flushes more quickly, no less). 120°F is the MINIMUM water boilers are allowed to be set to; typically they're at 130°F or 140°F (which I personally find scalding). In Brazil, you can't even flush toilet paper due to poor sewage systems.
I stopped reading there. This guy clearly has an agenda to push. Reminds me of a similar BS article a couple years ago bemoaning the lack of phosphates or something in soap, and calling out "government overreach" every other sentence.
If there is a scientific case to make for these supposed household woes (which I don't think there is), it can be made without appeal to a political ideal.
EDIT: Oh shit, I forced myself to keep reading and he got around to phosphates. It's probably the same guy.
Some people have to rationalize their stuck-in-the-1950's, environmentally-destructive, post-truth lifestyles with gusto somehow. How else to explain expanded fossil fuel consumption/exploitation, anthropogenic methane output (ie fossil fuel industry, flooded rice cultivation, animal agriculture/CAFOs), palm oil plantation rainforest burning, microplastic pollution/gyre garbage patches and other similar ecological-destructive behaviors? Oh but, let's bitch about not wasting as much water because a few cheap, low-flow toilets were purchased without evaluating better alternatives because it's all conservation's fault. (Sarcasm.) Yeah.
They push the standard Koch agenda- impugn government so that the rich can pay lower taxes, and so corporations don't have to spend money to protect the climate. So this article is standard fare for this type of organization.
As you say it's too bad the article overlooks how much better toilets are today. The article also misses how fuel efficiency regulations failed, and how a high gas tax in 1970 would have been a great way to reduce American petroleum dependence. That example of regulatory failure doesn't often get mentioned by Koch allied organizations, however, because they never want to say taxes are good -- the very wealthy really want to avoid paying tax.
> We haven’t talked about toilets but this much is true: they used to work well but the low-flow model is vastly inferior. Combined with low water pressure, toilets clog and break down, to the point that you always have to have a plunger nearby (this didn’t use to be the case). Folks, we know how to make toilets that work: they need lots of water. Your constant problems with flushing are not your fault!
My experience is exactly the opposite. After replacing an 80's era toilet with a modern one, it flushes much better (despite using a lot less water). Water pressure also doesn't effect toilet flushes (excluding commercial tankless toilets), it just effects how quickly the tank refills.
No, modern tanks are set often higher and the toilet has better flow.
What matters is how high the water falls and at what rate not the overall volume of the flush.
Modern toilets that flush about 7-9 liters for a number 2 flush are considerably better than the older ones that whilst flush almost double the volume do it over a longer period of time.
Toilet flush is basically a push if you do it with more force as in the water displacement in a given time frame is higher it would flush better than a higher overall displacement over a longer duration.
The other upside of modern toilets is that if they do clog they don't overfill.
That said over a lifetime of 30 years using only water saving toilets I never seen one clog in a residence I've seen a few public ones already clogged but who knows what they tried to flush there.
If you having so much problems I would take a look at your plumbing or diet you so won't need to use half a roll of TP to wipe your ass.
Yeah the 1.28 gallon flush Niagra Flapperless at my old warehouse could flush a god damned rhinoceros. In a year of ~75 workers sharing two toilets they never failed us.
> But P&G already stopped using phosphates in laundry detergent sold across the US in the early 1990s as part of a voluntary commitment from the American Cleaning Institute, an industry group of which the company is a member. It also removed phosphates from its detergents sold in the Europe several years ago.
And while Mr. Tucker offers good reasons to remove flow restrictors from showers - domestic water use is only 2% of the nation's total - he doesn't tell us why phosphates were removed from soap, just complains that his clothes are dirty (big ol' [citation needed] on that, by the way.)
Apparently phosphates damage the environment, leading to algal blooms and fish die-offs. But it's fine. I'll gladly read Mr. Tucker's article blaming the government for his inability to go fishing or swimming if phosphates are added back to laundry detergent.
He also blames "the government", a nebulous entity, but only seventeen states seem to have banned soap manufacturers from using phosphates in soap. An odd tack for someone who I would expect to be pro-states'-rights: http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132072122/it-s-not-your-fault-...
You won't get one because it's bullshit. My front loader using cold water with modern detergents gets my clothes clean just fine. Covered in mud from a trail run? Clean. Working at the dog shelter, dog poops his kennel, walks in it, jumps on me when I walk in? Dog shit on pants: gone. Blood on the sheets from that "tragic accident"? Lily white after one wash (I wish the same could be said for my soul).
Does it get clothes as clean as back in the "good old days" of phosphates, hot water, and top-loaders? Damned if I know, that was twenty years ago and my memory's not that good. And neither is the memory of the author when it comes to such subtle things as how clean your clothes were two decades ago.
>An odd tack for someone who I would expect to be pro-states'-rights
From the rest of your comment I'd guess you already know this, but organizations like these have no particular affinity for the rights of states.
Conservative-funded organizations are only pro-states'-rights when it advances their other agendas -- usually identity politics around race (where "states' rights" has been a dog whistle since Nixon and Reagan), and economically where states with different regulations can promote a race to the bottom that benefits corporations and the wealthy (Delaware's rules on corporations are a good example).
"Combined with low water pressure, toilets clog and break down"
There's all I need to know to stop reading: the author doesn't even know enough about how toilets work to write intelligently on the topic. (The point being that water pressure has nothing to do with anything but refilling the reservoir tank.)
Go buy phosphates at the hardware store to add to your washer? Now I'm picturing someone who took Ayn Rand just a little too seriously, stamping his foot like a toddler "don't you tell me what to do, no matter how much it shits all over everything for everyone else!" And then just makes shit up without critical thinking as long it supports the narrative. Because gummint. (BTW, I recall soap makers advertising their lack of phosphates before individual states started banning phosphates, probably because the overwhelming evidence said it was bad. So without wasting time on references to refute an article not worth refuting, I call bullshit on this one, too.)
I believe that on macOS/Safari, it will send you notifications even when you're not on the page (or even have Safari open?) IOW, you're trying to get your work done in your favorite IDE and "hey, come check out the latest clickbait on ClickyBaity.com!"
I'm just pulling that straight out of my ass, as my response when confronted with that dialog is a hardy "oh, HELL, no!", but I kinda remember that being said at WWDC or summat. There might be a global on macOS to have it never, ever ask me again on any site, but I've just been too lazy/forgetful to go find it. (EDIT: the instructions found at this site seem to be spot on: http://appsliced.co/ask/how-do-i-disable-website-notificatio...)
Yeah, I found where to disable it in Chrome. I held back for awhile, thinking, "what if there is a website that I would like to receive notifications from?"
I stopped reading there. This guy clearly has an agenda to push. Reminds me of a similar BS article a couple years ago bemoaning the lack of phosphates or something in soap, and calling out "government overreach" every other sentence.
If there is a scientific case to make for these supposed household woes (which I don't think there is), it can be made without appeal to a political ideal.
EDIT: Oh shit, I forced myself to keep reading and he got around to phosphates. It's probably the same guy.