"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, Martin Pentreath wrote:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/envir...lush-toil.html

Bizarre. The headline is

"Dual-flush toilets are disastrous - official"

But the article itself actually says nothing about dual-flush toilets.
It also contains a lot of anecdote and nothing whatsoever about
"official" opinion. This about as low as technical journalism gets. It's
depressing that John-Paul Flintoff can earn a crust churning out this
garbage.

Moving on to the actual substance of the article, the idea that you need
to lay a piece of paper across the back of the loo to detect a leak of
3000 litres a day is laughable. Even if the water was invisibly flowing
over the porcelain, the disturbance to the water surface would be
obvious to anyone who took the trouble to look.

I think that internal overflows are actually an excellent idea. Anyone
who ignores a leak in the toilet pan itself would be ten times more
likely (in my totally unofficial opinion) to ignore a leak from an
external overflow pipe.

--
Mike Barnes

If the "Warning Pipe" is somewhere visible then I cant see how anyone (or
their friends) could ignore it. The trouble with the internal overflow is
that it isn't very apparent - you could easily think the bowl is just wet
from a previous flush. (Also many women (I believe) back up to the WC and
don't really normally take a look.