Those of you who spend any time here probably remember that we've recently been having some renovations done to our upstairs. I had reached the point at which I refused to walk barefoot on our carpets, which I was afraid harbored MRSA or possibly a hantavirus (even though I've never seen a rodent upstairs... that's why they're called irrational phobias, people). We'd also been sharing one shower (the five of us) off and on for two three years because we were too lazy indecisive overwhelmed with daily crazy busy with other things to repair the master shower's multitude of leaky problems. And so, we ripped up the carpet, tore out both showers and bathtubs and toilets and realeased West Nile Virus and black mold spores and replaced it all with new shit (and shitters). Kohler's brand-spanking-new Persuade toilets with Dual-Flush technology, to be precise. These were purchased, along with their also-brand-spanking-new Forte 1.75 gpm handheld shower heads, as part of our attempt to reduce our water usage a little (since we're kind of stuck with that damned money-and-water-sucking pool for now). Oh, and I got a new energy-and-water-efficient washer and dryer, since our old ones were older than our youngest teenager and were randomly and unpredictably leaving holes and rust spots in our clothing and using approximately 300 gallons of water per washload. Even so, we found someone at hubby's work who took them off our hands, so they didn't go to the landfill.
With all of this water conserving doody in our house, I reckon that damned cement pond in our backyard is now truly justified, right? </sarcasm>
The toilets and showers we had in the upstairs bathrooms were water hogs. In the second bath upstairs, the one we had to share for a couple of a few years, the water diverter on the faucet didn't fully function, and so water poured from both the shower head and the faucet for the duration of one's shower. This would have been ideal if we'd had a small leprechaun needing to bathe each time we stepped in the shower or a sailor bailing water out of the tub as if we were a sinking ship. Alas, we had neither, and so we wasted copious amounts of water in the shower. For a good while, I kept a 3-gallon bucket under the faucet to catch water & then used it to mop floors or water gardens. Unfortunately, I was the only one who would remember to use it, and I already take the shortest showers in the household (except for Youngest, who simply doesn't shower more than once a week, brave water conservationist that he is). As for the toilets, I don't know how to tell how many gallons they used per flush, but if I had to guess, it would be in the neighborhood of thirty-four. Seriously, after seeing these new ones, it seems quite ridiculous.
Since I've blathered on incessantly and not ever gotten to the point here, and this post is already exceeding my pissant-sized attention span, I will cover each of our new water-savvy appliances separately, in separate posts, on separate days.
Dual-flush toilets, it seems, are nothing new in Australia and Europe, where they seem to understand the whole conservation issue a little more intuitively than we wasteful Americans. Here, stateside, however, dual-flush toilets are still "new-fangled." There are two flush options: 1.6 gallons for sizable solids, and 0.8 gallons for liquid or smaller loads. (Or, for those who prefer more directive, one button for pee and one button for poop.) The toilet looks differently, mounts differently, and flushes differently than traditional toilets. I most love that there are no screws and caps on the base around which boy piss accumulates and requires toothbrush scrubbing to clean. It's amazing.
One would think that, given the tiny amount of water in the bowl, that there would be more clogs or would be harder to keep clean than other toilets. I was skeptical myself. However, we've tested both flushing options multiple times by now, and I haven't had any complaints. Apparently, the flushing mechanism for this type of toilet lends itself to less clogs than traditional American toilets.
As a related aside, here's an interesting fact that I found on several plumbing websites. Because of the differences in plumbing technologies in various countries, a European or Asian toilet often has a brush next to it as a matter of course, to take care of "skid marks," which Europeans and Asians find normal and acceptable, but which we North Americans find disgusting. However, North American toilets often have a plunger next to it, which Europeans and Asians find distasteful. When I think about it in those terms, I most definitely would rather take care of a skid mark or two than a toilet boiling over with shit and toilet paper, yo.
Some people have mentioned that the bowls are harder to keep clean, but... how can I put this delicately... this one must be designed by geniuses who conducted many embarrassing experiments based on anatomy, because somehow, even though there are only about three teaspoonfuls of water in the bowl, the poop seems to be attracted to it like a tranny to a shoe sale. When flushed, the water pressure has almost always been enough to wash away any stuck bits. And, if you have to flush a second time, it still doesn't waste as much water as a typical American 3.5 gallon flush. (Admittedly, we haven't gone to eat all-you-can-eat Chinese or the local greaseburgers-with-a-side-of-greasefries joint in a while, so I might change my review a little then.)
Stay tuned for my review of LG's Tromm Steamwasher and matching dryer, as well as Kohler's brand-spanking-new Forte 1.75 gpm handheld shower heads.
Sore Sports
Today I was planning to write a post about my first bicycle ride in a year or more. I rode ten miles yesterday, three of them with 27 pounds of groceries. (I now feel as if I've had repeated rough sex with a bull elephant seal.)
However, I was reading the sports news this morning, and started wondering about how Mark Spitz reacted when Michael Phelps broke his single-Olympic record of seven gold medals; Phelps made Olympic history last night, winning his eighth, with the help of three teammates. When I read this article, I decided to change my post. It's still about soreness and sports, just in different terms.
Apparently, Mark Spitz is sore that the International Olympic Committee did not invite him to watch Michael break his record, nor hang Phelps's medals around his neck. Perhaps they did this because, in 2004, when Phelps first attempted to break his record, he was invited, and he made such a big deal about not getting any face time on television, they thought the better of a second invitation. Perhaps they did this because, even in his prime, he was an ass, disliked by his teammates for his detachedness and propensity for playing mind games. Perhaps they did it because Mark Spitz is always determined to make things all about Mark Spitz, and this day should have been (and was, thanks to Spitz's absence) about Michael Phelps.
This woman, Debbie Schlussel, has nothing but glowing praise to lavish upon Mark Spitz; she seems to think he must shit rose petals and purple unicorn dust. She demands from one commenter, who points out that she spoke with a former Olympic alternate who greatly disliked Mark Spitz, to know names, NAMES of people who actually knew Mark Spitz and felt this way, because SURELY no one who knew Mark Spitz could think that he doesn't shit rose petals and purple unicorn dust, yo.
Well, let's see. I'll venture that his former Olympic teammate, Steve Genter, felt that way. Genter, even after suffering a partially collapsed lung and surgery to repair it less than a week prior, and broken stitches in the first leg of the race in question, Genter was leading with 25 meters to go. Spitz only beat him, bleeding wound and all, to the gold medal by less than two meters. Afterward, Genter angrily revealed that Spitz had spent the time before the race trying to convince him not to compete; Debbie Schlussel would no doubt say it was concern, but Genter, knowing Mark Spitz, felt it was more of an attempt to psych him out, knowing Genter was Spitz's main competition.
Spitz also wants the world to know that he probably could have taken eight medals, too, if they'd only had the 50 meter freestyle, as they do now. AND he wants the world to know that Michael Phelps will probably break his record because they are so much alike.
Not on your life, Mark Spitzer. Michael Phelps is loved by his teammates and the world can see his humility and love for the sport, not just someone who is in it for himself and all the fame he can wring out of it. Bottom line: Yes, it would have been nice to have a supportive, humble, quiet Mark Spitz at Beijing when Phelps broke his record. However, knowing Spitz's propensity for self-aggrandizing when he should be there just to bear witness to Olympic history in the making, I'm supportive of the IOC's decision not to bend over backwards to make sure he was specifically singled out and invited. If he wanted to be there for the love of the sport and to support Phelps, he should have called Phelps or his people and asked for tickets, but not on anyone's dime but his own. And don't expect a camera to lovingly caress your face every time you open your mouth.
There are so many more issues I have with the Phelps naysayers that I can't even address them here and stay on-topic. I will, however, say that to minimize Phelps's success based on the argument that increased technology (better suits, pools, strokes, etc.) made it all possible is ridiculous. Perhaps these people missed the part about Phelps being a physiological anomaly perfectly suited to swimming. The man is a phenomenal athlete, and it's time to give him his due.
Posted on August 17, 2008 at 01:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Technorati Tags: bicycle ride, freak of nature, gold medals, Mark Spitz, Michael Phelps, Olympic athletes, poor sports, swimming
Save to del.icio.us