Water for toilets would still need to be processed to remove sediments, or the valve in the tank would fail rather quickly. Salt water would not work for the same reason. With that in mind, adding a little chlorine would be the main difference between dedicated toilet water and drinking water, so it is easier and cheaper to just use the same water instead of having twice as many pipes running everywhere, both under the streets and in homes and businesses.
The alternative is a waterless system. Many pharmacies and other stores sell bed pans and related items if you'd prefer to save water that way. You could also check your local ordinances to see if outhouses are still allowed.
2007-05-15 16:56:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by Now and Then Comes a Thought 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
A great question. There hasn't been a great acceptance of a "gray-water" water supply for toilets in homes, since this would involve a second set of pipes, which would be a major investment effort for retrofitting. Perhaps it could be introduced in new home units, while the rest is worked on at a more leisurely pace. I believe something like this was tried in Jacksonville, Fl some time back, but I don't remember any details.
2007-05-15 23:26:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by cattbarf 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's not practical to go back, dig up every street in America and lay in a completely separate water system for toilets.
2007-05-15 23:26:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by Michael da Man 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
all water piped to a home is from a municipal water source where the water is treated. and really, would you want non-treated water in your house where this is a potential for contamination?
2007-05-15 23:25:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Extra Ordinary 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
because the state government is slack & the subject tires me so much & I don't mean you!!
you must be tired of all the slackness also & people are stealing from the dams i've heard
why don't they stop them also :)
2007-05-15 23:26:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by ausblue 7
·
0⤊
1⤋