Talk:Composting toilet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page will cease to be of use to the public unless contributors (1) confine their contributions to composting toilets, (2) document their assertions, and (3) cease attempting to promote certain brands of composting toilets. For example, a discussion of an incinerating toilet, a device that burns waste instead of composting it, has no place on this page (and that is why that paragraph was removed). Indeed, there already is an entry in the Wikipedia on the incinerating toilet. Likewise, a composting bog is not a toilet and thus the discussion of it belongs not on the composting toilet page but on its own page (please: those of you who added the bog to this page, remove it from this page and put it on its own page). Finally, we need a truce between the do-it-yourself community and the commercial mass manufacturing community. Both communities have their place, each community has its own legitimate concerns, and many fine people inhabit both realms, but this page is not the place to debate the virtues of the two approaches. What both communities need is a clear, concise, technically accurate, description of a composting toilet, and the natural processes that it employs, that is product-neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixeljim (talk • contribs) 09:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the solid compost is over-rated from a plant nutrient point of view as 4/5 of the nutrients are found in the urine and not the feces. Promoting humanure is both disregarding these facts AND are not safe since the only way you can claim safety in handling and use of it is too heat- or chemically sterilize it (especially parasite eggs are hard to reach). Maybe that the solids left alone for a very long time might do it but there are no studies to verify that. I think we should leave that alone until we have data to say that it is indeed safe to use. The liquid is different ... there is plenty of data from far back to show the consistent low pathogen count, especially after six months storage (see for example the studies done by the Swedish National Bacteriological Laboratories)

I feel this page could do with some rewriting- as it currently stands it presents compost bogs as expensive, smelly, risky and fiddly, wheras my experience, where 4 of us built a compost bog over a weekend using totally recycled materials (involving the princely outlay of £25!), has been that the resulting unit and structure has been efficient, hassle free, odourless, hygenic and aesthetically pleasing... And still in regular use 3 years later...

As with anything, there will be the expensive option which will invariably be problematic, and there will be the cheap and cheerfl and reliable option... Personally I think its all about demystification, anyone can build a compost bog as long as they've got the confidence, the right books and a bit of common sense... Will add to my to do list... quercus robur 00:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have made a major addition to this page since I don't think the concept was well represented by only do-it-yourself descriptions. I have worked with these systems since the early 1960ies, which does not give me a license to define it for everybody but it did describe a nisch that was too narrow. Let us all please try to make as good a definition of the concept as we know how. The large public systems are in fact making an inroad where flush toilets were totally dominating the market ... this is no longer true. Flush toilets in public facilities are seldom flushed (people do like to touch things in the bathrooms) so the WCs become repulsive in that environment. We are seeing a development where large composting toilet systems stop the wasting of water, does not pollute the surrounding but are major contributers to organic agriculture. That would be a good future of public toilets and we should in my view not define this technology as a strange, back-country hippie technology. It may have been at first but is not anymore. carl lindstrom

Consider the Biolytix[tm] system as an advanced efficient decentralised waste treatment for sewage and greywater not needing any black hole regressive technology.

Contents

[edit] language troll

This article is being trolled by somebody from account [1] who is pushing Americanised spelling in a confrontational and insulting manner. According to the wikipedia Manual of Style;

For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English. [2] Ie, American English does NOT have any sort of automatic cultural hegemony on wikipedia. I'd apppreciate other users keeping an eye on this, thanks quercus robur 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, nationally prominent. The national prominence regarding spelling on wikipedia is American English. This is why we have a Color article, and not a Colour article, which redirects to Color. It's really sad you've decided to turn this into some chest beating nationalism game rather than reasonably recognizing that American English spelling is the most common not only on Wikipedia, but in the world, and it's sad you've decided to start calling people Troll simply because they made a joke you don't get and that they don't agree with you. It's a good idea to have consistent spelling across the wiki; it makes editing and spell checking easier, as well as being easier for non-native speakers of English to understand. You don't own this article, you don't own wikipedia, and just because someone doesn't agree with you about how an article should be edited doesn't make them a troll. You need a vacation. Article reverted to correct spelling. 166.127.1.201 21:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
And you need to stop hiding behind an anonymous IP address, but unfortunately we don't always do what is best for us... Of course I don't own Wikipedia, but neither does America. To be honest I couldn't really care less if this article is American English or Real English, the issue I have is with your arrogant and insulting edit summaries. That is the trolling behaviour. I'm just kicking myself for falling for it.quercus robur 22:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Enough already. Yes the anon has been rather blatantly insulting and I've thought about blocking the IP (it is a school IP) for that reason. However, the original (non-stub) version of the article Revision as of 15:42, 19 October 2004 back in '04 had only the odor spelling. Since that time - up until this latest edit war began on 18 July both spellings have been in the article. For consistency only one spelling variant is preferred - and when there is a dispute it defaults back to the usage in the first non-stub version. That usage was odor without the u, so that is the spelling to be used per the Wiki-guidelines on spelling disputes. Now stop the silly edit warring, and anon please be advised of Wiki policy on civility and treat others with respect. Vsmith 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific System "Ads"

An individual with IP 206.248.172.37 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/206.248.172.37) that is near Burlington, Ontario (by IP address tracking) is continually changing the basic description of system types by adding statements that say a specific design stlye (specifically with a rotating drum, like one made by a company in same area, ie Burlington, ON) is superior in performance to other designs. Wikipedia is not a forum for sales pitches.

I think commercial links can/should be placed in the links area. But, this is going too far.

[edit] More Biased Additions Added

An example of more biased (as opposed to factual statements) changes to the CT entry.


From: Some composting toilets use electricity, while others do not. Some electrical systems use fans to exhaust air and increase microbial activity. Other systems require the user to simply rotate a drum within the composting toilet in order to allow for an aerobic breakdown of human waste.

To: Some composting toilets use electricity, while others do not. Some electrical systems use fans to exhaust air and increase microbial activity. Other systems require the user to simply rotate a drum within the composting toilet in order to allow for an aerobic breakdown of human waste. This technology is found to be the most optimal method to mix and aerate material, which is the key feature of a composting toilet. This method allows material to break down aerobically (with the presence of oxygen) in order to prevent any sort of foul smell typically found with septic systems or other composting toilets that do not properly mix material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.247.184.223 (talk) 20:23, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vermicomposting toilet

A dual system which also includes worms to be integrated into the composting toilet also exists. See this page. Also another composting toilet called Clivus Multrum may also have better advantages. See his website Include into article.

Thanks. KVDP (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Urine contains 90% of the nitrogen and 70% of the phosphorus in human waste according to wikipedia but another source says that urine contains most of the nitrogen and potassium and feces most of the phosphorous which sounds more correct so I think wiki had a typo. Whitis (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the source above disagrees with a comment above that said that urine contained most of the nutrients and thus the feces component was unimportant. It said both were important. Whitis (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)