You might not be persuaded but this article says:
Somehow I feel you’ll find something to debate here, but it’s not ‘no reason,’ is it?
For me, none of those tp facts apply. I am on a private septic, so any tp flushed does not end up as treated sludge on some farmer’s field, and the tp in my trash doesn’t end up in the landfill- it goes in my compost box, where it breaks down with the rest of the compost.
And if people are seriously concerned about water wastage, one of the most important things they can do is to stop flushing the toilet when they pee, which to me is a criminal waste of water. If we assume conservatively that people pee 6 times a day, a family of 4, @ one and a half gallons per flush are wasting 36 gallons of water per day, to make a little bit of urine “go away”.
Water saved by using a bidet, factoring in how much water is used in producing tp, is a drop in the bucket, pun intended, compared to that.
OK, well this is a different point about The Washington Post generally, but here I think they did OK.
Without defending The Washington Post overall, I’ll take the bait and defend this article.
I think it’s reasonable to believe that the average reader has just so much interest in the details.
From the NRDC article we know that there is a wide variation in the amount of water used depending how the toilet paper is manufactured. That’s a level of detail that the WaPo article didn’t want to get into.
The WaPo article says that it takes more than six gallons of water to produce a roll of toilet paper (other articles say it takes more, probably because they’re looking at different manufacturing methods or used estimates using different methodologies).
What does WaPo cite as its source for six gallons?
It cites thepublicradio.org, which cites the Environmental Paper Network
That methodology is included below (I have time on my hands but I didn’t check out these links):
.
Are you referring to thepublicsradio.org as a low-level blog that only exists to make money from links to products??
Or are you referring to the Environmental Paper Network, which was first released by the Environmental Defense Fund??
Yes, you do have to look at the actual article and the sources it cites (see above).
I don’t want to upset you but this article and the posting was not just about you.
Sorry.
1 Like
Of course it’s not just about me. I just dislike articles which presume that everyone everywhere does things in the same way.
1 Like
On reflection they should have looked for and included (if they even exist) sources studying the all-in water usage of people who use toilet paper but don’t flush unless there’s crap, use a septic, and compost.
What a miss!
Where is Larry David when we need him?
1 Like
And what is involved in terms of resource extraction, pollution, etc. in producing one of those hand-held bidet attachments? They are made of metal and/or plastic, and most seem to have a one year guarantee. How many will end up in the landfill? So if we are really going to do a comparison in terms of environmental impact, that info needs to be factored in.
1 Like
The Washington Post, of course, is one of the most respected news organizations in the country - they exposed Watergate in the 70s among other ‘scoops’ - and I am pretty confident that the statistics they reported are accurate. But clicking in one of the sources cited, “Scientific American”, reveals even more stats and credits.
1 Like
I’m sure seeing a conspiracy in a newspaper accepting advertising from companies selling items that they write about seems logical in a world where Republicans think that Hilary Clinton is killing babies in the basement of a New Jersey pizzeria…
1 Like
Feeling haunted, are we?
The comedy continues. . .
Let’s take my actual quotation:
That article, excerpted above, says that there is a cost (what economists call an ‘externality’) for toilet paper disposal, whether disposed of in a toilet, or in a landfill.
You might feel that there is ‘no reason’, as you say, to flush unless there is 
on the toilet paper, but that doe not detract from the fact that however much toilet paper is used there is a natural resource cost in its manufacture and disposal.
Nor does it detract from what I will assume (here’s your chance for debate and play on words again) that most people flush after using the toilet (this study says 63%).
Your statement that there is ‘no reason’ to flush is a non-sequitur because most people flush. Regardless, the point of @Rolf’s OP and The Washington Post article I posted is that the all-in natural resources savings from using a bidet is considerable.
I’m not trying to persuade you of anything. The post was for the whole forum, not just for you. Sorry.
How interesting. Thank you for sharing.
So this is how I see our act. You me and @muddy, for starters. We’ll call it “I believe.”
It’ll be improv, where the audience throws out a statement that most people agree on, like “The planets rotate around the sun.” Or “The earth is round.” Or “The law of the conservation of energy is true.”
Then I start and say " I believe that . . . the planets rotate around the sun."
Then you and Muddy have your turns to dispute that, throw in non-sequiturs, change the subject, talk about your personal truths or make ad hominem remarks that don’t advance the discussion, like that I have a pool.
You each do this with a straight face, AND with ‘passion’ since here at the forum we are passionate Hosts, some more than others, butt – I now discover (who knew?) – never as passionate as when we can talk about basic bodily functions.
Well then, perhaps if “journalists” want to write articles about water wastage, they should be pointing out how much water people are wasting by flushing the toilet for every little tinkle instead of trying to sell bidets. They should be urging people to bucket the water out of the bathtub and use it to water the plants or wash the floor. Discouraging people from having pools and hot tubs. Pointing out that you can get just as clean in a 5 minute shower as a 20 minute shower.
There are so many things that would save far more water than using a bidet.
“Saving” the environment by buying more stuff is, in most cases, oxymoronic. And as JJD rightly points out, most of that stuff is made in sweatshops in China full of human rights violations and zero environmental regulations.
BTW, I was one of over 800 people arrested in the largest mass arrest in Canadian history, back in 1993, for blocking the logging road in Clayoquot, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, where the logging company was cutting old growth forest to ship to Japan to turn into toilet paper and phone books.
These protests led to some of the regulations for marking cut logs as old growth or planted trees, with many buyers then refusing to contract for old growth trees.
The non-sequitur (your step-dad is Muslim – Brilliant!) combined with the ad hominem (Exposed!: I have a pool), leavened with an emoji. You’re on a roll, JJD!
Truly you are gifted.
Though @Muddy is still a formidable contender with her not flushing (unless you-know-what), using septic, composting, raising the metal and or plastic content of a bidet (she missed ‘out gassing’ but maybe it’s coming), limited guarantees, landfill costs of the bidet’s disposal, and the yearning for a true, comprehensive comparison.
And Muddy wants ‘scientific,’ but on the NRDC article with 163 footnotes and an appendix describing 'tissue grading methodology" she just ghosts it. So, so skillful, like a Houdini with logic – you can never find it.
You, though, got to the heart of the matter – it was you who cited the lack of links, the lack of data (and math!), those low-level blogs that exist only to make money by selling products. Except for the links that were there, to thepublicsradio.org and the Environmental Defense Fund and over 140 not-for-profit orgs, to the data, the math (see 'Where We Got Our Numbers’), and lack of products the orgs sell.
Flustered? No, it’s the ‘Double Down’ round.
There will always be toilet paper even with a bidet. And not to be outdone by Muddy’s no-flush, septic and compost riposte , your personal truth is that you use the same amount of toilet paper with or without a bidet (please tell me more; inquiring minds want to know!). Except on rare occasion. And your step-dad was Muslim.
You two are giving a masterclass here. I am clearly out of my league with you two!
Maybe you’re right. The planets don’t rotate around the sun. Bidets and The Washington Post are just consumerism gone mad, environmentalism as virtue-signaling, pure rubbish that for you evokes ‘Mellow Yellow’ and that Muddy composts.
You’ve convinced me. I’ve seen the light. Why did @Rolf do this to the forum??
But I’m not giving up yet. I see there’s another post. More material! You guys never tire. You are relentless – you are so great!
1 Like
The rounds continue. This might go 15!
To ‘most people flush’ she says there’s NO REASON to. Not if it’s mellow yellow. This cuts to the chase when it comes to thinking about a bidet in an STR.
After all, Muddy says:
So why are we talking about bidets when we should talk about House Rules that forbid the flushing of toilets when the guests pee??
Follow along, everybody.
Forget the bidets; Get the guests who disobey.
Rare insights now emerge:
Duh.
The earnest clarification:
The hypothetical:
The search for the truth:
[Is JJD good or what?]
Then the reprise, like a song in a musical:
No, I don’t, or didn’t.
So what does this have to do with bidets when – please don’t get me in trouble here – but as a very rough estimate here about half the population identify as men, and half identify as women? So about half generally don’t use toilet paper when urinating.
And if you’re like JJD for whom reason is paramount and like Muddy for whom flushing mellow yellow is criminal, there’s no reason to flush with or without a bidet. And since there’s no reason to flush mellow yellow and doing so is criminal, we either assume that about half the population are like Muddy and JJD, or that they should be and so THAT is what we should be talking about, not bidets.
Can you spell ‘misdirection’? Under which shell is the pea?
And let’s talk about real bidets, OK? Folks, you are reading genius in motion here.
Do you follow JJD’s geometric logic? All it lacks is the ‘Q.E.D.’
Hint: You could choose to use the bidet only when having a bowel movement.
Have you forgotten what we were talking about?
WAIT! Muddy is back. Let’s see if she can beat JJD at this game.
It was the wrong subject all along! @Rolf and I posted about bidets but THAT was misdirection. The real issue is the flushing of mellow yellow. It’s not about the planets going around the sun.
It’s about Galileo never marrying his wife. It’s about Copernicus following Luther. Or CA growers who use one gallon water to produce one almond, or using five gallons to grow one walnut. If an article doesn’t discuss ALL ways that we waste water it’s ‘incomplete’. Get with it, folks!
Yes, not bidets, @Rolf. Shame on you for bring it up on a forum for Airbnb hosts. Why didn’t you raise this point??
Ouch!
Data? Sites??
Bidets are not enough.
Muddy brings us back to the REAL discussion, foregoing all distractions.
Insulation is another hoax. Flow restrictors, too. LED lights a farce,
The personal story that drives the point home that bidets are not the point. At all. It’s all about you.
What more can be said?
Muddy and JJD – in a rare double team win you won’t see even in World Wide Wrestling – they’ve done it, all of it. A knee pick, a headlock throw, armbreakers, the airplane spin and the takedown.
I’m tapping out.
The Scientific American article is based on info from 3 other sites, one of which is full of product placements and another which is a company that produces and sells bidets.
1 Like
@HostAirbnbVRBO None of my responses to the Wapo article you posted today have anything to do with Rolf starting a thread on bidets. They have to do with an article which is based on presumptions, contradictory information, incomplete research and comparisons, and your defense of them.
1 Like
I save water and forests. I don’t flush when I pee and I use recycled toilet paper for me and the guests.
3 Likes
Yes! I’ve seen the light.
Any article discussing a product that most Americans don’t yet use is mere consumerism.
Whether insulation, low-flow toilets, LED lights, or any product at all are . . . garbage.
I know that now.
Or if they don’t address your particular situation, they’re presumptuous. I get that.
How could I defend an article that did not address the largest mass arrest in Canadian history?
A senior moment? Lack of sleep?
I have no defense.
So what the article linked to a not-for-profit that linked to another not-for profit’s calculations that 'is widely considered as the most credible, most transparent and most independent calculator of environmental impact estimates for a wide variety of paper choices"?
I now understand that none of this was scientific, that the real question is whether you flush when you pee, an all-in calculation of disposal costs of the bidet itself, septic systems, composting and . . . being more like you.
I get that now.
That’s why I tapped out.
You won, and you want a re-match?
I actually have a sign in my bathroom telling guests that water doesn’t get sent down the lines 24/7 here, as they may be used to at home, and to help conserve water, not to flush when they pee if they can remember not to.
I’m not into “House Rules”, so there’s nothing for guests to “disobey”. I prefer to suggest and ask rather than dictate. Most of my guests are environmentally aware people and are happy to comply.
I wish I could be a guest at your Airbnb, which I now understand is not just a place to stay but a place where I can learn how to live my life. [Ring a bell?]
Do you? Actually? A sign? So interesting.
I bet they are. I’m complying too!
The Washington Post article suggested (like you, not ‘dictating’) that a bidet would save resources because less toilet paper would be used but now I understand that composting is what I should be doing, that I shouldn’t even be thinking about using less toilet paper – a red herring! – even though it takes more than six gallons of water to manufacture a single role and depending how it’s manufactured might take more, even up to 37 gallons per another article.
The Washington Post article was way off when writing about bidets and suggesting that they could lead to a lesser use of toilet paper. So what that most people use far more toilet paper with a bowel movement when not using a bidet. Irrelevant!
They key is not to flush when you pee. That’s all I need to know. I get that now.
Thank you.
Says the person who has a whole long list of rules and signs about what guests aren’t allowed to do. Like walk on the grass.
2 Likes