A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other
day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that won't drain
properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke detectors,
maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no rationing
in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

On 7/12/2009 12:45 PM spake thus:

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Ask them (the agency doing the repairs) about dual-flush toilets. These
are low-water toilets that offer two flush volumes (basically a low
volume for #1 and a higher volume for #2). Gives you water savings
without the annoyances you've noted.

Here's an alternative: a dual-flush valve for existing toilets that
reduces water usage, for only $30:
http://www.greendaily.com/2009/02/10...-toilet-for-30


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Dan Musicant wrote:
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on
my low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the
other day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that
won't drain properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more
smoke detectors, maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old
one I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no
rationing in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm
hoping to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.


So, he was from the government and was there to help?

And the nature of his help was to replace something that's not broken, that
you don't need, and about whose proper function you have doubts?

Sounds about right.

On the other hand, he's getting paid somebody's tax money to undertake this
project.

Again, sounds about right.

Now if you feel a moral imperative to save even more water (and a moral
indifference to taxpayer money), or if your toilet breaks badly and HAS to
be replaced instead of repaired, I'd say do it. Otherwise, no.

On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:28:10 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

an Musicant wrote:
: A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on
: my low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the
: other day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that
: won't drain properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more
: smoke detectors, maybe some other stuff.
:
: He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old
: one I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
: because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
: think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
: completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
: That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
: (downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
: sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
: afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
: water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
: gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
: rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no
: rationing in effect.
:
: Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm
: hoping to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.
:
:
:So, he was from the government and was there to help?

Well, actually I think he is with a private company, probably a
non-profit that contracts with the city. Not a ton of difference.
:
:And the nature of his help was to replace something that's not broken, that
:you don't need, and about whose proper function you have doubts?
:
:Sounds about right.
:
:On the other hand, he's getting paid somebody's tax money to undertake this
roject.

True.
:
:Again, sounds about right.
:
:Now if you feel a moral imperative to save even more water (and a moral
:indifference to taxpayer money), or if your toilet breaks badly and HAS to
:be replaced instead of repaired, I'd say do it. Otherwise, no.

I can understand the logic.

Dan

"Dan Musicant" wrote in message

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

Some time ago the low flow were all junk and often needed multiple flushes.
Can't speak for all, but the Kohler and American Standard lines are very
good now. The ones we've been using for the past five years have been
perfect. They make them with higher seats today also, easier to get up and
down as you age.

On Jul 12, 2:45*pm, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other
day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that won't drain
properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke detectors,
maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no rationing
in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

If they are doing this for you without cost, it's almost a given that
they will be using inexpensive products from a big box store. And
from my experience, you will not be satisfied with the flushing action
of them. There are good LF toilets on the market that flush very well
but they are expensive.
KC

On 2009-07-12, Dan Musicant ) Dan wrote:

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm
hoping to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

There are plenty of good low flow toilets available. For objective
ratings that I trust, see: http://www.cuwcc.org/MaPTesting.aspx.

Cheers, Wayne

stick with your old water waster, much more reliable, after all its
worked fine for how many years

On Jul 12, 2:45*pm, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other
day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that won't drain
properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke detectors,
maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no rationing
in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

Years ago, maybe 6, they didnt do ****, pun intended, Consumer reports
rates them and tested them with similar ****. I used about 12 of HDs
cheapest 59 dollar Glacier bays in 07 and have had only one complaint
from a 6ft 7" mexican who says he likes beans, but I think its my old
pipes. You would want an extra large glazed trap, few had that years
ago. You dont have to spend huindreds to have a complete movement.
Look for reviews, they do save water and work on one flush, maybe a
cow needs two.

He's from the government, and he's here to help. As a tax
payer, let me assure you that nothing the government does is
free. It just means that myself and others like me are
paying to fix up your house.

Based on your low income. How about you get some education,
and get back into the job market? How about myself and the
other voters vote out our elected reps who give away our tax
dollars instead of doing what the Constitution permits and
nothing else?

Politely decline, and send the guy packing. The low flows
don't have enough galons per flush to send the waste down
the line. You risk having your sewer line clogged with
residual solids. And, then, some government idiot will use
more of my tax money, unconstitutionally, to clear your crap
out of your drain.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Dan Musicant" wrote in message
...
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free
based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old
house the other
day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that
won't drain
properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke
detectors,
maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of
the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I
wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow
toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't
flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several
times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of
the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it
doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it
flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters
worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than
the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when
water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently
no rationing
in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others?
I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

Ask the agency where in the Constitution it gives them the
authority to spend my taxes on fixing other peoples houses.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

Ask them (the agency doing the repairs) about dual-flush
toilets. These

"Dan Musicant" wrote in message
...
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other
day. snip? Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others?
I'm hoping snip
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

My water waster was in my master half bath. It had a run that was pretty
tortuous and required use of a plumbers friend on a bi-weekly basis. When
it was time to trade-out the Harvest Gold two years ago I did a search for a
low flow toilet and the vid clip of flushing 26 golf balls sent me packing
for an American Standard, Champion. It makes about half again as much noise
as the one it replaced but, I haven't used the 'helper' in two years.
Since then, though, Kohler has produced one that is quieter. Of course,
I can't vouche for the reliability of theirs. Best of luck! Chuck

"ransley" wrote in message
...
On Jul 12, 2:45 pm, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other
day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that won't drain
properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke detectors,
maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no rationing
in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

My house was built in the early 1800s. When we remodeled the half bath two
years ago we put in a Toto Ultimate one piece low flow toilet, and we love
it. It has NEVER, not even once, required a double flush or backed up or
displayed any of the nonsense we experienced with the old water waster. It
was about $550 delivered. It was shipped overnight, for free, from some
place in NJ (IIRC). There was one semi-local store which sold the same
thing, but it was more money and we would have had to drive 75 miles round
trip to get it. When we built our new addition we'll be using Toto.

"h" wrote in message
...

"ransley" wrote in message
...
On Jul 12, 2:45 pm, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other
day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that won't drain
properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke detectors,
maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no rationing
in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

My house was built in the early 1800s. When we remodeled the half bath two
years ago we put in a Toto Ultimate one piece low flow toilet, and we love
it. It has NEVER, not even once, required a double flush or backed up or
displayed any of the nonsense we experienced with the old water waster. It
was about $550 delivered. It was shipped overnight, for free, from some
place in NJ (IIRC). There was one semi-local store which sold the same
thing, but it was more money and we would have had to drive 75 miles round
trip to get it. When we built our new addition we'll be using Toto.

Oh, and it's much quieter than the water waster and the tank doesn't take 5
minutes to fill!

On Jul 12, 3:45*pm, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other
day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that won't drain
properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke detectors,
maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no rationing
in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

i got two different brands of different ages (came with the house).
neither very expensive. one works perfectly. the other clogs once in a
while, but given a couple of minutes to "soften" will empty itself.
but.... because it's only 1.6 quarts or whatever, it won't overflow;
even when it's completely clogged, the entire flushfull won't quite
reach the rim.

for my money, if the old one worked, i'd leave it, of course.

On Jul 12, 9:59*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
He's from the government, and he's *here to help. As a tax
payer, let me assure you that nothing the government does is
free. It just means that myself and others like me are
paying to fix up your house.


the govt is just trying to keep the volume of sewage low for a while
to avoid having to upgrade the treatment plant for a while, which
would cost more than buying folks new toilets.

On Jul 12, 2:45*pm, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other
day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that won't drain
properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke detectors,
maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no rationing
in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

To cut back on water usage, I put bricks in the bowls of two toilets
made in the 1950's and 1980's and have not seen any decrease in
performance.

Andy

On Jul 12, 3:45*pm, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other
day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that won't drain
properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke detectors,
maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no rationing
in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

When my toilets showed their age, I started replacing with low flow
toilets with no problems.
i like them because I have a septic system and less water to drain
field is better. Also with a well, water cost is no concern but may
save you money on a municipal system.

I would avoid the dual flush systems as they may be fussier and more
complex to maintain.

WhiteTea77581 wrote:
On Jul 12, 2:45 pm, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
A city affiliated agency is doing some work for me for free based on my
low income. The guy came over and toured my 100 year old house the other
day. He's going to try to fix an upstairs bathroom sink that won't drain
properly, will put in a door bell, give me some more smoke detectors,
maybe some other stuff.

He mentioned that he can put in a low flow toilet instead of the old one
I have. I asked if it would flush OK. He said "yes." Now, I wonder
because my brother (La Mesa, near San Diego) has a low flow toilet (I
think they are mandatory there) and often times it doesn't flush
completely and you have to flush it again, sometimes several times.
That's annoying if not disgusting. The toilet I use 95% of the time
(downstairs), usually works on one flush. Occasionally it doesn't and
sometimes I actually have to break things up to get it flushed! I'm
afraid that getting a low flow in there would make matters worse. My
water usage is pretty minimal already and I use less than the 100
gallons a day that the county considers under the radar when water
rationing is in effect here (Alameda County, CA, currently no rationing
in effect.

Should I defer on the low flow? Are some better than others? I'm hoping
to sell my house in a few years. What's the scoop.

Dan

To cut back on water usage, I put bricks in the bowls of two toilets
made in the 1950's and 1980's and have not seen any decrease in
performance.

Andy


Does the weight of the bricks help hold the toilet down
during severe backfires? The toilet we have here at the
house has been known to come loose after a bean burrito
assault.

TDD

z wrote:
On Jul 12, 9:59 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
He's from the government, and he's here to help. As a tax
payer, let me assure you that nothing the government does is
free. It just means that myself and others like me are
paying to fix up your house.


the govt is just trying to keep the volume of sewage low for a while
to avoid having to upgrade the treatment plant for a while, which
would cost more than buying folks new toilets.

Then how come a bunch of government agencies (FDA, HHS, Dept of Agriculture,
etc.) are out there beating on us to eat more fruits and vegetables? Eh? Eh?

It's the non-food fruits, berries, nuts, and veggies that generate
"floaters" (instead of "sinkers") that often require multiple flushes!

On Jul 13, 11:06*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
z wrote:
On Jul 12, 9:59 pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
He's from the government, and he's here to help. As a tax
payer, let me assure you that nothing the government does is
free. It just means that myself and others like me are
paying to fix up your house.

the govt is just trying to keep the volume of sewage low for a while
to avoid having to upgrade the treatment plant for a while, which
would cost more than buying folks new toilets.

Then how come a bunch of government agencies (FDA, HHS, Dept of Agriculture,
etc.) are out there beating on us to eat more fruits and vegetables? Eh? Eh?

It's the non-food fruits, berries, nuts, and veggies that generate
"floaters" (instead of "sinkers") that often require multiple flushes!

Something about replacing an item that isn't really broken or doing so
unnecessarily seems unethical?

Glad the OP is having some misgivings about unnecessary work being
done. Especially on a public purse!

While knowing that there are attempts to stimulate the economy etc. is
it not better to (if possible) fix what's there now?

Realising this is not a case of 'Rampant Consumerism' and the OP
probably deserves some assistance towards decent housing.

But isn't what has got us into so much trouble is the overall "I want
more and I want it right now (on credit)", attitude?

Reuse/recycle, are now becoming fashionable? Seems like a return to
old fashioned values, to me!

Or maybe it's me being old fashioned; taking a certain pride in how
long something can be reasonably used and repaired and then reused
some more before being disposed of in some landfill. Perhaps a 100
years from now for those landfills to be 'mined' for the value of the
materials in them! After they have also provided some amount of
cleaner than burning coal (or fuel oil) methane from break down of
some bio-degradable products for many years.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Ask the agency where in the Constitution it gives them the
authority to spend my taxes on fixing other peoples houses.

He said it was a city agency, which derives it's powers from the state, so that
would be the 10th amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people."

-- Doug

In article
,
WhiteTea77581 wrote:



To cut back on water usage, I put bricks in the bowls of two toilets
made in the 1950's and 1980's and have not seen any decrease in
performance.

Andy

A novel approach. I would think a brick in the bowl would decrease the
toilet's performance substantially.

On Jul 13, 11:20*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

wrote:

To cut back on water usage, I put bricks in the bowls of two toilets
made in the 1950's and 1980's and have not seen any decrease in
performance.

Andy

A novel approach. I would think a brick in the bowl would decrease the
toilet's performance substantially.

Have you tried it?

It has no contact with any moving parts.
Water displacement = water savings

Andy

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Ask the agency where in the Constitution it gives them the
authority to spend my taxes on fixing other peoples houses.

States can do anything they want unless prohibited by the Constitution.
Until 1947 states could have a state-sponsored church. In most states (not
the 2nd Circuit), a state can quarter soldiers in your home. A state is not
required to obtain an indictment by a grand jury (though the federal
government is). You are not entitled to a jury trial in a civil case nor or
you protected, at the state level, against excessive bail or bonds.

In the instant case, it may well be that the feds said: "We'll give you a
billion bucks to fix up substandard housing but you've got to push low-flow
toilets. Your choice."

In article
,
WhiteTea77581 wrote:

On Jul 13, 11:20*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

wrote:

To cut back on water usage, I put bricks in the bowls of two toilets
made in the 1950's and 1980's and have not seen any decrease in
performance.

Andy

A novel approach. I would think a brick in the bowl would decrease the
toilet's performance substantially.

Have you tried it?

It has no contact with any moving parts.
Water displacement = water savings

Andy

Putting a brick in the *tank* used to be somewhat common. Not in the
*bowl.*

HeyBub wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Ask the agency where in the Constitution it gives them the
authority to spend my taxes on fixing other peoples houses.

States can do anything they want unless prohibited by the Constitution.
Until 1947 states could have a state-sponsored church. In most states (not
the 2nd Circuit), a state can quarter soldiers in your home. A state is not
required to obtain an indictment by a grand jury (though the federal
government is). You are not entitled to a jury trial in a civil case nor or
you protected, at the state level, against excessive bail or bonds.

In the instant case, it may well be that the feds said: "We'll give you a
billion bucks to fix up substandard housing but you've got to push low-flow
toilets. Your choice."


Golden Rule in action- he who has the gold makes the rules....

--
aem sends...

The low flush modern toilets never worked as well as the old toilets we used
to have. I was very disappointed with the low water performance. I ended
up getting pressure flush toilets. Those are the only kind that work as
good as the old ones. I'd highly recommend to keep your old one.

scorpionleather wrote:
The low flush modern toilets never worked as well as the old toilets
we used to have. I was very disappointed with the low water
performance. I ended up getting pressure flush toilets. Those are
the only kind that work as good as the old ones. I'd highly
recommend to keep your old one.

You're obviously not thinking of the children.

Science tip of the day:

Burning Hydrogen gas in an Oxygen environment will create "fresh" water. All
other water is "used" water.

It's possible that the refreshing drink of chilled Evian you have with your
quiche contains at least one molecule of the bladder evacuation from Julius
Caeser's death throes - "Et poo, Brutus?"

"scorpionleather" wrote in message
...
The low flush modern toilets never worked as well as the old toilets we
used to have. I was very disappointed with the low water performance. I
ended up getting pressure flush toilets. Those are the only kind that
work as good as the old ones. I'd highly recommend to keep your old one.
I've had just the opposite experience. My old water wasters used to back up
all the time, were constantly dirty, and they took forever to refill. My low
flow has NEVER backed up, it's easier to keep clean, and it's practically
silent. If I could afford it, I'd swap out my other high flow toilet for a
low flow. I have a Toto.

On Jul 13, 6:08*pm, Smitty Two wrote:

Putting a brick in the *tank* used to be somewhat common. Not in the
*bowl.*- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

if you eat a lot of cheese and rice casseroles.....