Urinals in Our Homes? The Guardian Wades in to the Debate

Image credit: Urinal.net

From peeing in public to the Shared Flush, I am somewhat known for writing about toilet habits. In fact, lloyd even declared his love for my musings on green pee on Valentines Day. (That could so easily be misinterpreted Lloyd!) But I am clearly not the only one who worries about such things. In fact, folks at The Guardian have been asking why we don't all install urinals in our homes to save water. The resulting dialogue has been illuminating, to say the least. The topic, of course, is not a new one. TigerLily78 already posted on why all homes do not have urinals in our forums. And Collin has covered Kohler's no flush, no splash urinals as a low water bathroom option that looks a little nicer than the one pictured above.

But it's great to see that we are not the only ones obsessed with this topic. After all, everybody pees - so making our peeing a little more sustainable could have a huge impact. When Leo Hickman The Guardian asked why we don't use urinals at home, the responses touched some familiar topics.

From peeing in the shower to the sink (see Warren's post for the TreeHugger take on peeing in the shower), there were plenty of readers willing to think outside the toilet bowl—although Hickman somewhat squeamishly refused to endorse them as "practical 21st-century solutions". Likewise, peeing on the compost, argues Hickman (probably correctly) is not to everyone's taste.

Ultimately, says Leo, the answer lies not in such individual (and to many folks anti-social) behavior changes, but in changing the mandated performance specifications for all of our toilets.

No word in The Guardian's discussions on whether male pee is better than female pee. We'd best let that one rest.

Tags: United Kingdom | Waste | Water Conservation

WHAT'S HOT ON FACEBOOK