A delicate subject ...
 

A delicate subject …

Perhaps this has been previously covered; I am just wondering if there is something to my observation that pipes block more easily here than in the UK.

Along with a greater (apparent) amount of acid stomach (http://britishexpats.com/forum/showt...t=acid+stomach) I find the toilets here block at a higher rate than compared to back home in blighty.

If I ever get a house built, I plan to dictate the diameter of the toilet pipe-work. Doesn’t mean more water, just means less blockages (and probably less flushes). *Blushes*

Anyone else observed this "phenomenon"? Perhaps it has something to do with crop-circles and things that go bang in the night! Something strange there lurks ... in the toilet/flush pipework!

toilets don't flush with the same velocity here as they do in the UK.
If you need a decent bog, with a bigger "whooomph" to get rid of the solids, buy a crapper from Canada..............

agreed their toilets just cant cope with our poop lol !! the dumbass who had our house before us 'remodelled' and in doing so managed to hook up the washing machine outlet to near to the toilet outlet so when the washer is on an extra large load the toilet bubbles up !!! Great !

Jan :)

I'm so glad someone else has mentioned this. The toilets here are pathetic. The s-bend thingy is tiny. I'm forever having to unblock ours. Thank gawd there are no curry places anywhere near. I really don't think it could cope.

I used to manage to block the loo in the UK too, mind you not as often as here. It's not the poop, it's all the toilet paper that it can't cope with :eek:

Though a curry would help losen it up a bit and probably ease the flow through the pipes...just my experience:)

Bog Blockers Anonymous
 

I thought I was the only one to experience this problem! I'm always blocking up the toilet. My most spectacular effort was causing an overflowing bog in the executive bathroom of a major US firm's corporate HQ...name withheld for reasons of embarrassment.

The WCs in our current house are water savers so they have less oomph about them. I find that a couple of "courtesy flushes" alleviates the problem.

Re: Bog Blockers Anonymous
 

which is stupid, because you end up using more water?!!!

Also gets rid of the smell...

So with the over flow situation, did you own up?

:D :D :D I think it does have to do with the s-bend pipe, certainly the one we had in the UK was a lot bigger. But hey I'm no plumber. One other thing we don't like is how low the toilets are over here. I'm not a very tall person, but I feel like my knees are in my face when I sit down. I like to use the disabled toilets when I'm out, just so I can sit on a properly high toilet. :D :D :D

Re: Bog Blockers Anonymous
 

No chance! This was at my father in law's office so it would have been excruciatingly embarrassing.

Re: A delicate subject ...
 

Resist it iron, resist it.... fight the urge to say anything at all about some people (or nationalities perhaps??) being so full of shit!! Don't say it, noooooooooo

Re: A delicate subject ...
 

I'm no plumber but my intended is, and he agrees with you all! When he bought our house he remodeled the bathroom but installed this ancient toilet plus the old size required pipes etc... Didn't (and don't) care about the details but when I asked him why not all new, modern stuff he said 'new toilets suck'. Now besides from the weird images I got from that one (:D)... there you have it - even a US professional agrees.

Elaine

Re: A delicate subject ...
 

Hey Mr Patent Attorney!

Off-topic

If i do a patent by myself, how much you charge to "overview it" and analyze it and point out problems, etc. before i submit? What % of patent applications are rejected these days? Thanks.

-= nav =-

Re: A delicate subject ...
 

:eek:

Re: A delicate subject ...
 

I know someone thats full of shit...

“I said when I was running for President, I supported ethanol, and I meant it. (Applause.) I support it now, because not only do I know it's important for the ag sector of our economy, it's an important part of making sure we become less reliant on foreign sources of energy.� – Bush at South Dakota Ethanol Plant 4/24/02

BUT...Here's the real story...

According to the AP, Bush’s 2004 budget proposes to eliminate funding for the bioenergy program that funds the Dakota Ethanol Plant he visited. [4/22/02]



Sorry Iron, I hate to bring this to a political level but when such a hard line Republican as yourself calls 'bullshit'...I'll always be happy to oblige.

My spouse (American by the way) noticed how crap (no pun intended) American loos are. The diameter of the hole for the S bend is patheticly narrow so no wonder there's blockages.

Is this an attempt to use less water when flushing?

Americans must, historically have had smaller turds or tighter arses

Re: A delicate subject ...
 

The US used to have decent toilets, but a decade or so ago, Congress passed a law regulating the size of toilet water tanks. That's why American toilets don't work. The ironic thing, is that the law doesn't even conserve water (the law's orginal intent), since people are flushing two or three times to expel the... well, you know.
Another example of the nanny government in action.

Well, one of our loos, that isn't that old, is flippin brilliant. But it does have a turbo charged engine attached!:D Actually, it's like going to the loo on a plane where you wonder if you will get sucked down the hole too:scared: :D

So for all of you thinking of changing your loo, don't think about going to the expense of changing pipes and anything else, just get a supercharged loo with added suction power:D

While in Lowes today I picked up a water conservation leaflet. It stated that by law, all new or replacement toilets have to be "ultra low flow toilets" at a maximum of 1.6 gallons per flush - compared to pre 1994 installed toilets which were 5 to 7 gpf.

It might tempt the kids to flush things! -- We had to take our downstairs toilet out on the deck when my youngest flushed the toilet roll holder.

Todd's grandfather was there and right in front of the neighbours he told me I shouldn't flush PADS... I stood there hopelessly protesting that I've known not to flush pads for about 24 years now.

Knowing where Todd's grandfather must have heard I'
d flushed a pad I gave Todd my very best "Oh my god I'm going to make you pay for this" stare!

When we had our house built our contractor advised us to have fitted these loos that build up pressure in a pressure tank in the cistern. These would flush the most demanding "output", never block and basically are a whole lot better than any loos in the UK that I ever used.
Only downside is that, like most American items in the house (washing machines, vacuum cleaners, microwaves, dishwashers etc.) they sound like a 747 taking off when you use them!!!

Andy.

I would like to point out that my (american) toilet NEVER clogged up until my (british) husband used it....

Must be all that newspaper we use (unwrapped from the fish and chips) then!

Its all a bit simple really look at the outlet pipe on a UK toilet and you will find one with a 4in diameter ... here its about half that ..
the Victorian specification was a lot better...

Yeah it's pretty much the size of the pipe I reckon. They are way smaller here...I block the bog around once a fortnight.

Thats good going mate, nearly every morning I need to plunge the buggers out!

I now have it down to a fine art...poopy = flush.....wipe 3 times = flush....wipe again for the winnets (just in case) and flush.

no bloody wonder my water bill was $115 last month:mad:

Methinks there's not another nation on earth whose citizens would be having this conversation!

Bloody 'ell, you flush with Evian then?

My downstairs loo is bunged. And I was going so well with not having blocked one for at least a week.:(

yah! I also bathe in Ozarka:D

(Rowlett is situated ON Lake Ray Hubburd, but we pay to have the water piped from Lake Lavon which is about 10 miles away, we also have to pay the city of Garland for the use of their sewage pipes:mad: makes one a tad angry....and yes I have already emailed the city of Rowlett's manager and voiced my opinion - in no uncertain terms of my disspleasure with my water bill.....I shit you not, I have to time how long my kids take a bath, if they go over 3 minutes, I have to bang on the bathroom door).

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!! Oh my god, I'm hysterical with laughter, the dog thinks I've gone bonkers - she's probably right!
:D :D :D :D

At a Britnet get-together in CT two years ago, the newly-installed toilet blocked every other flush. We all concluded (after several drinks, mind you) that you just need to develop some sphincter control and squeeze it out in two inch portions for easy passage around the s-bend. And yes, most of us had only just met, so there's definitely a nationality thing in this topic of discussion :D

Just be glad it goes that way! :eek:

:D :D :D

Low-flow revolt; Congress looks at repealing new toilet standard
By Ben Lieberman
Copyright 1998 Chicago Tribune
August 8, 1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of all the bills now facing Congress, the Plumbing Standards Improvement Act may affect you the most.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Joseph Knollenberg, a Republican from Michigan, would repeal provisions in a 1992 law mandating the highly unpopular low-flow toilets now tormenting Americans.

Don't laugh. Well, laugh a little bit, but this bill is an important battle in a war against a federal government gone awry, a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" that nonetheless does things the people can't stand, like forcing us to endure expensive new toilets that don't work well.

Included in the numerous provisions of the massive 1992 Energy Policy Act was a requirement that, by 1994, all new toilets sold in the United States must use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf in Washingtonspeak), well below the 3.5 gpf models most Americans are accustomed to.

The stated purpose of this standard, implemented by the Department of Energy, was to conserve water.

The bill, which also regulates water flow in new shower heads and faucets, generated little controversy at the time and passed easily.

But now, with the law in effect for several years, there are millions of Americans moving into new homes or remodeling bathrooms who have had to deal with these brave new toilets. The reaction thus far has been strongly negative.

In addition to costing more than the old versions, the new low-flow models don't work nearly as well. Many people say they have to flush several times to clear out the bowl, which of course defeats the entire purpose of water conservation. Other people have experienced more frequent clogs, and thus increased cleaning and maintenance.

Such complaints have flooded into Knollenberg's office. Indeed, some dissatisfied homeowners have reportedly turned to a growing black market in the remaining 3.5 gpf toilets, which now sell at a premium.

An intrusive and annoying federal "solution" is bad enough, all the more so when it is chasing a nonexistent threat.

"There is no national water crisis," says Terry Anderson, water policy expert and executive director of the Political Economy Research Center in Bozeman, Mont. Quite the contrary, Anderson adds that "water is cheap and plentiful throughout most of the United States."

Thus there is no justification for onerous national austerity measures. Those areas that do have water shortages or inadequate sewage-treatment facilities can best deal with these problems at the local level.

Doubtless they could find smarter ways to reduce water use than requiring dysfunctional toilets.

So why would the federal government do something that is both unpopular and unnecessary? Special-interest politics, of course.

Low-flow toilets, like many other eco-friendly product mandates, have three sources of support--federal bureaucrats, environmental activists and opportunistic manufacturers. In this instance, all three came out ahead.

Conspicuously absent from Washington's potty politics was anyone giving voice to the wishes of affected consumers, the ones who have to live with these newfangled toilets.

In fact, nowhere is there any indication of an effort to determine if the American people actually wanted them.

Fortunately, the fight is not yet over. Against the powerful and well- connected forces of the commode commissars, a freedom fighter has emerged.

Knollenberg is taking a stand not just for better toilets but for better and more limited government. "The federal government should be out of our bathrooms," is his oft-quoted rallying cry.

He has become the Patrick Henry of porcelain. And, judging by the public response, there are many freedom-loving patriots ready to support the cause.

Knollenberg's toilet crusade, though commendable, will need to be repeated in many similar contexts, as a number of equally dumb appliance regulations are currently in the pipeline.

For example, the Energy Department is considering a ban on top-loading washing machines in favor of front-loading models. As with the 1.6 gpf toilets, these new machines, which supposedly save water and energy, are more expensive and have several performance drawbacks.

But department bureaucrats and their outside consultants (including the same "experts" who insist that the 1.6 gpf toilets are a great success) claim that consumers will love the new washers, once they are forced to buy them.

Of course, this new regulation is supported by a few front-loader producers hoping to make a killing once competition with the preferred top-loading models is put to an end.

One spokesman for a large home-appliance maker, in response to questions about public acceptance of the new washing machines, said that "selling it in the marketplace is easy, if there's a standard in place. It's not a matter, necessarily, of consumer acceptance."

In other words, consumers don't want this stuff, so we must mandate it.

Additionally, new energy efficiency standards for fluorescent lamps, ovens, water heaters and air conditioners, supposedly to reduce energy use and thus fight global warming, are currently under consideration.

If enacted, they, too, will raise product costs and compromise performance while doing no more to save the earth than low-flow toilets.

Again and again, federal bureaucrats, with the support of environmental advocacy groups and advantage-seeking manufacturers, are spending our dollars to further limit our choices in the marketplace.

Apparently, money and individual liberty are two scarce resources Washington isn't interested in saving.

err...
 

I think it is all in the flick of the wrist. As I mentioned, my poor husband regularly clogs our toilet up but when I lived in London I caused my landlady no end of trouble with her plumbing. I could never get the hang of it.

Trust me, there is nothing quite a mortifying as coming home to see your landlady elbow deep in (your) crap that (for three days) would not flush down. It was the most awkward confrontation I've ever experienced and wouldn't wish it on anyone...

So I think it works both ways....

Re: err...
 

You couldn't flush your turds in London?:eek:

you must have turds the size of texas :D

May I recommend a garbage disposal for your toilet. That thing'll mince a few pounds of monkey fudge in no time.

Re: err...
 

ROFL :D

We brits use too much loo paper. My son-in-law, a plumber, is forever saying its the paper that blocks the toilets. He keeps telling us to use a certain brand- I forget which one LOL shows how much notice I take. I like my Kleenex loo paper- softer on the bum.