http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6583067.stm
2007-04-25 09:45:50 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
Toilet paper is not really our biggest problem. Our environment is under threat much more from our choice of energy than it is from our use of toilet paper. However, our overuse of toilet paper does symbolize our squandering of resource and that is probably our second biggest problem, so Sheryl is not all wrong.
One square is a bit extreme though ;)
2007-04-28 17:00:56 · answer #1 · answered by Engineer 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why stop at one per dump, there are billions of peopel on this planet who use none! Toilet paper is a very Western concept. Go to any SE Asian non urban houshold and you will find a vessel full of water and a ladel for washing ur rear end, no paper required. In other parts neither paper nor water is an option. Still people survive. In boarding schools I've worked in, coconut husks were a popular item, and much prefered over sticks.
If ever toilet paper user saved just one sheet of toilet paper every dump it would be a very sizeable mound of saved paper.
Say 1 billion users x 2 dumps per day, thats 2 billion peices saved, @ 100 sheets per roll (most rolls are less) thats 20 million rolls per day. At 200 g per roll thats 4 million kilograms of paper a day or 4,000 tonnes of paper a day!
Thats a small forrest saved every week. Not to mention the reduction in pollution in the manufacture of the paper and reduced energy usage etc. And that is for just saving one sheet each per dump. Yes using less makes a difference. Do the math!
As to one piece per dump, well guess thas really up to the user, try folding it into 4 and being delicate? Try not eating so much?
2007-04-27 00:05:35 · answer #2 · answered by Walaka F 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well not really. You see most toilet paper is pretty biodegradable and can be completely decomposed in just a few months. As long as you aren't taking 30 dumps a day and using a whole role each time it wouldn't really help.
2007-04-25 13:39:05 · answer #3 · answered by justin d 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What would help the environment here is recycling both the toilet paper and the waste you put in. The silly saving of paper does nothing for anyone or the environment-waste all you want and recycle it after the flushing.
2007-04-25 09:55:28 · answer #4 · answered by jim m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I haven't really looked, but I would say that Sheryl Crow hasn't got a particularly big bottom. The bigger the area, the more cleaning required - it's basic physics.
2007-04-25 09:56:50 · answer #5 · answered by Rachael H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is crazy. I suppose using less resources, no matter how small the change, helps some. But give me a break! You can do more for the environment by just driving a small car instead of an SUV!
2007-04-25 09:56:45 · answer #6 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if I only use 2 sheets per poo, there is the knock-on ecological effect:
- additional water used for washing hands when figures go through the flimsy 2 sheets
- ditto above for fairy liquid
- additional washing of not-quite-clean-enough pants that get changed mid way through the day because I've found a mark
--so she's not thought that one through, has she?
2007-04-29 00:58:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Crows don't dump much anyway. Ugly birds don't have much use for paper to begin with. I sure won't shake her hand if I ever come across her.
2007-04-25 09:54:00 · answer #8 · answered by Kaiman 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't know but I'm sure food poisoning would increase - some dumps are bigger than others - and those that spread! No chance with one piece!
2007-04-25 09:50:59 · answer #9 · answered by First Ascent 4 Thistle 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's dumb. What if you ate something dodgy and got diorreah. Your hand would rip through the toilet roll. Gross.Sorry about the spelling.
2007-04-25 09:57:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋