[weinzierl]

"Who among us hasn’t walked up to a drinking fountain, expecting a bubbling stream of life-giving water, only to experience the crushing disappointment of a measly trickle after smashing in that button?"

That'd be me. I traveled quite a bit all over the world and these seem to be a pretty American thing.

It's also a bit strange because for the countries that have them it is generally not recommended to drink tap water and for the few countries where tap water is considered safe to drink they are virtually non-existent.

[bombcar]

From my travels the USA is way more concerned with water-saving devices, even in areas where there really is no water conservatory problems.

Toilets in Europe will still seem to flush using the full power of Niagara Falls, which are quite rare in the US now.

[DoughnutHole]

Possibly an instance of the California effect?

National manufacturers have to design toilets for western states where conservation is a huge issue - might just be cheaper to sell those toilets nationwide than to have a different product line for wetter states.

[throwup238]

It's due to the Energy Policy Act of 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_1992#Impa...

It set a max volume for toilet flushes of 1.6 gallons and since it's a federal law, it covers everyone.

[gottorf]

Definitely an odd thing to regulate federally. No reason at all why toilets in New Mexico (average annual rainfall 13") and Mississippi (56") should be held to the same legal limit of water usage.

[throwup238]

The low flow restriction was criticized at the time for exactly that but I believe the reason it ended up in the bill is twofold: manufacturers wanted a unified standard at the national level that didn't change at the whims of 50 different state legislatures and the bill was geared towards energy conservation, not water usage. Since toilets account for 30-40% of indoor water usage and pumping water around is quite energy intensive, it does have an effect even if you're in a wet region.

[gnicholas]

> pumping water around is quite energy intensive

How energy-intensive are we talking? Compared to what?

[mjevans]

Invariably, I end up using _at least_ 3.2 gallons as it takes multiple flushes to finish the job.

[brewdad]

If that is your normal everyday experience you should consider changing your diet and or your toilet. Neither my wife nor I clog a toilet more than about once a year. The double flush might happen once every other month.

[gnicholas]

I don't think GP is saying he clogs the toilet, but rather that a single flush does not clear it. We have very low-flow toilets, and sometimes my little kids have to double-flush. It's not about diet or anything — the toilets are just very low-flow (assuming you only have to flush once).

[djhn]

I’d argue that clogging a toilet with any kind of regularity is still a failure of either engineering or diet.

[TeMPOraL]

You use more water flushing, or more water scrubbing your hands, after having to scrub your toilet due to insufficient flushing pressure.

[Johnny555]

Sounds like you need a better designed toilet. Good low flow toilets do exist.

We replaced the old 3.5 gallons per flush toilet in our house with a new Kohler 1.28gpf unit and it flushes and clears the bowl just fine - no worse than the previous toilet with about 1/3rd the water use.

[bombcar]

One of the best things you can do in a house is replace "early post-ban" toilets with modern ones, the very first low-flow toilets were absolutely ... shit.

[matwood]

EU toilets are often of the 'poop shelf' design. Which end up requiring cleaning and multiple flushes after every bowel movement.

[lores]

As far as I know that's purely a Dutch thing, I've never seen them elsewhere.

[CorrectHorseBat]

It depends very much on the country, for example The Netherlands is a poop shelf design country, but Belgium isn't. No idea what's the reason behind it.

[throwaway8357]

In my Scandinavian country, we don't have a "poop shelf" either. But we don't use the American design with a huge amount of water in the bowl.

It's has a small amount of water at the bottom that receives our "output". There are also no problems urinating as it is easy to either hit the water or the porcelain wall at the bottom, that are much more vertical. Most of the accidental splashes that occur are either because the man is drunk and can't hit the toilet, or that the foreskin is pulled a bit back and doesn't contain the stream as well as it should.

[paulmd]

lower-calorie, higher-fiber european poops don't generally reach the size of american fast-food poops. but everyone loves the feeling of breaking the surface, so to promote a sense of social well-being some countries have artificially lifted the poop instead.

(the above is false, but it is unironically there so that you can look at your poop. admire the shape, the volume, the coloration. and just wait until you learn there's an easy at-home diagnostic test for diabetes mellitus!)

[thesmok]

Old EU toilets can be poop shelf. When I've shopped for new one in 2015, there was not a single one of that design.

[recursive]

Not to mention, I often have to do 2 or 3 flushes after a more productive session, not to mention cleaning.

Just like how I run the dryer twice on "hyper-giga-dry" if I actually want dry clothes.

[ssl-3]

I just put the clothes in the dryer and tell it to dry them.

It has a multitude of different modes, but "Normal" succeeds at this every single time -- regardless of the amount or dampness of what I put in there.

Am I doing this wrong?

[recursive]

You are not wrong, and I'm jealous of your dryer. There are like 5 levels on mine ranging from soggy to slightly damp.

[dmckeon]

Have you found and cleaned all the lint filters and exhaust air passages? A shop vac and/or an electric leaf blower may serve to improve throughput.

[ssl-3]

It's just a regular ass-dryer. It has a way to detect moisture (and therefore will run until clothes are dry, whatever that takes), but AFAIK that's pretty common and has been for a long number of decades. (I've never really had an issue with a clothes drier unless things had become broken or clogged -- they've all worked fine until they don't, and then they get fixed or replaced.)

But you should be jealous of my toilet: The American Standard Champion 4. It just flushes shit. There's no long-winded swirling water display to make a spectacle of dancing turds. Instead, it is fast and to the point: Push lever, SPLASH, gurgle, and the shit has disappeared. Every single time, without fail.

It scares children.

[HeatrayEnjoyer]

Europe doesn't have the water scarcity issues of the US. When my brother in law from Germany visited a few summers ago he was shocked by the amount of drought news and water conservation instructions broadcast daily on TV.

[rjmunro]

Europe != Germany. Plenty of parts of Europe have drought issues and water saving laws.

I expect plenty of parts of the US have loads of water and no droughts as well.

[bombcar]

They do. But most of the water conservancy laws affect sale federally. So even if you’re in a water flush area you can’t really get high consumption toilets unless you go quite used.

[softsound]

That's ironic because I remember a few summers ago hearing about droughts in Europe. Looks like they may have had issues too but maybe not as public.

https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-upda...

[Johnny555]

even in areas where there really is no water conservatory problems

Is there really an area that never faces water conservation measures?

Even normally wet Washington State is facing a drought due warm weather resulting in lower than normal snowpack, which is where much of the drinking water comes from.

https://m.kuow.org/stories/washington-state-drought-emergenc...

[radlad]

Living in/near Michigan all my life and water conservation has never really been a concern, except when it comes to uproars over things like Nestle sourcing water from the Great Lakes.

[rmason]

Live in Michigan as well. I think we are making a huge mistake conserving water as if is scarce. We act as if water is short and about to run out. We should instead celebrate our advantage over other areas where it is in short supply.

[lukas099]

Something to be said for not risking messing up a good thing.

[bombcar]

Many areas that mainly use rain/snow water via ground water aquifers haven't had many if any water conservatory issues.

Usually the problem around here is sewage capacity - but perhaps it's a population density thing, and as long as you're below a certain density and it rains enough, nothing really is needed.

[anikom15]

Canada and the Great Lakes states have a virtually unlimited supply of fresh water.

[mynameisnoone]

The style of toilet matters in the US. The problem is that the cheapest toilets tend to also meet all sorts of greenwashing (no pun intended) certifications while being unreliable, smaller, and not very good. Tankless ones are far more expensive initially, but are more reliable, flush with greater force, and use little water.

[lores]

Most toilets in Western Europe, at least new ones, have two buttons for low and high flow. Low flow is not an unalloyed good, though, it leads to sewer lines getting clogged, which can be a pretty expensive thing to fix depending on where the sewer access is.

[kurthr]

Oh man, don't forget the ones that spray 8 feet into the air!

At least you can usually tell, if the ground is wet around it... that it's going to take your head off, if you put your mouth over it before turning the knob.

p.s. europeans just have fountains, and you drink the water out them with your shoe like it's champagne!

[daviesYC]

Ha, I was just about to mention the 8' spray and surrounding puddle of evidence. What a waste... too bad I don't live in Europe, I would enjoy drinking shoe champagne.

[icambron]

I'm not quite following; are you saying it's not recommended that you drink American tap water? Or that there are bunch of other countries with sketchier water full of drinking fountains?

[weinzierl]

I would not drink American tap water, at least not in the cities that I travelled. It always smelt like chlorine and from what I googled apparently up to 4 milligrams per liter are regularly allowed in the US. This is definitely not a thing in western Europe. We don't need to talk about the things that you cannot taste or smell and what happened in Flint.

[radlad]

> It always smells like chlorine and from what I googled apparently up to 4 milligrams per liter are regularly allowed in the US.

Why is this a problem? Flavor? This is certainly different than places like Mexico, where the tap water isn't potable.

> We don't need to talk about the things that you cannot taste or smell and what happened in Flint.

If we're talking about unknown unknowns, this is true of anywhere in the world.

[weinzierl]

> "Why is this a problem? Flavor?"

Yes, if it already smells after chlorine, how can I know what else is in there. If it was from a clean source, it would not need chlorine in the first place.

> "If we're talking about unknown unknowns, this is true of anywhere in the world."

No, water supply in Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here.

[radlad]

> No, water supply in Germany is closely monitored at the source, at the water works and even close to the user in apartment buildings and rental properties. Also, our water supply is not privatized, like in the US. A disaster like Flint could not happen here.

I advise you look into the Flint water crisis, because your understanding doesn't sound accurate. The decision to change the source from one body of water to another was a municipal decision - made by the city's Emergency Manager (indicted on felony charges) - not one made by a private company.[0]

The EPA (another governmental agency) mandates contaminate limits and testing. MDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, another government agency) was not properly testing to federal requirements. Still, the issue was known by residents long before it was fixed, due to... private testing.[1]

What happened in Flint was criminal negligence, but it had nothing to do with water supply being privatized (it wasn't), or a lack of monitoring requirements (although it's believed testing may have been manipulated... by government workers.[2])

[0] https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2014/04/closing_the_valve_o...

[1] https://flintwaterstudy.org/2015/09/commentary-mdeq-mistakes...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/21/us/flint-lead...

Edit: Here's a good place to start - https://mphdegree.usc.edu/blog/the-flint-water-crises

Edit 2: Citations added.

[weinzierl]

I don't think it is a mischaracterization to say that privatization played a significant role in the Flint water crisis. For example The Intercept headlined "FROM PITTSBURGH TO FLINT, THE DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF GIVING PRIVATE COMPANIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR AILING PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS".[1]

That municipal decisions played an important role too, is - if anything - an argument for the thesis that the water supply in the United States should not be trusted and not against it.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/pittsburgh-flint-veolia-...

[ssl-3]

If it already smells like chlorine, you can know what isn't in there: Living organisms that want to kill you.

[weinzierl]

That is why you monitor the water supply. It is done in my rented apartment by a company commissioned by the landlord and it is done daily at the water works. If there are to many living organisms they add chlorine and inform the public, which happens only every couple of years.

The alternative is dead organisms plus a quite toxic substance in your water.

[fatnoah]

I'm a bit of a tap water connoisseur, and tap water in the US varies greatly. I grew up in the northeast US, in a town where the water comes from a mostly spring-fed lake. The water has zero chlorine taste or smell. I currently live in another town in the US where the water mostly comes from a local reservoir, and also has no taste or smell. In both cases, water pipes are buried to avoid frost, resulting in cold water from the tap all year.

San Francisco area also has surprisingly good tap water, likely due to the clay/soil in the areas the water is sourced from. In other places, like Florida, minerals and sulphur give the water a distinctly unpleasant taste, and shallow pipe depth keeps the water from getting cool.

[lukas099]

> tap water in the US varies greatly

Absolutely in taste. In terms of safety I think it is okay pretty much everywhere. If you live anywhere long term you should definitely look up the municipal water testing results at least once though.

[weinzierl]

I cannot add to my post above, but since people don't seem to take it well, I'd like to add some data to back it up.

Here is the link to a paper that compared contaminants in drinking water in various developed countries. When it comes to residual chlorine the USA demonstrated the highest levels followed by Singapore and Canada. After these three countries there was a huge gap before the UK and other countries which much lower levels.

Could it be that you are all so used to the chlorine, that you don't notice it anymore?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343719890_Comparati...

In addition, here is the WHO list of countries ranked by access to safe drinking water. The US is number 42 after Bulgaria and Guadeloupe.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_access_...

[radlad]

From your first link, Table 1, I see that the United States EPA regulates chlorine to 0.2-4 mg/L. The upper bound is lower than the rest of countries with regulations. Some countries - including the European Union, United Kingdom, and Ireland - appear to have no regulations at all.

Residual levels show 3 mg/L of chlorine in the United States which is higher than most other countries (Singapore, and to a lesser extent, Canada, excluded.) What I don't understand is why you see these levels, which are considered safe by most health agencies, as a cause for concern. As another commenter pointed out, the chlorine exists to ensure the water is safe to drink.

[weinzierl]

"From your first link, Table 1, I see that the United States EPA regulates chlorine to 0.2-4 mg/L. The upper bound is lower than the rest of countries with regulations. Some countries - including the European Union, United Kingdom, and Ireland - appear to have no regulations at all."

The European Union is not a country and it is not surprising that it has no guideline, because the member states have. That the United Kingdom and Ireland are similar to the US is not surprising. I could not find a source for the value of 5 mg/l for Germany, most sources say 0,3 mg/l but the actual text of the current law doesn't corroborate that. What it does is strictly regulate the reaction products of chlorine, which makes sense from a health standpoint.

"Residual levels show 3 mg/L of chlorine in the United States which is higher than most other countries (Singapore, and to a lesser extent, Canada, excluded.)"

I am not a native English speaker, so forgive me if I read this wrong, but the paper says of all the considered countries the US has higher residual chlorine levels than all the other countries (Singapore, and to a lesser extent, Canada, included)

In other words US is highest, followed by Singapore and then Canada.

"As another commenter pointed out, the chlorine exists to ensure the water is safe to drink."

As the paper shows most developed countries have safe drinking water without chlorine. So the question is not why I am against it but why the US needs it in the first place .

[radlad]

No, the question is very much why you are against it when your claim is apparently that the water is not safe to drink because of it.

[stonogo]

I don't think that WHO list is particularly useful. Included in the numbers of "people without access to safe drinking water" is everyone who draws from a well or a spring. The US is huge and well water is extremely common in rural areas; most well-water users have their own in-house water treatment equipment. Nevertheless they'd be classified as not having access to an improved water source under this survey.

[icambron]

I just read this whole thread, and it's all very silly. You've laundered "I don't like the water" into "it is not recommended that you drink the water" which are really different things. The latter implies that there is a consensus understanding about this, the way there is for, say, Guatemala. 200+ million Americans drink their tap water, and most visitors do too. There are many parts of the US where water could be improved, especially in lower-density places and especially for recently-discovered contaminants, but the idea that travelers need to be careful about it as a matter of safety just isn't true. Flint is a huge news story precisely because it is so aberrant in a country with otherwise good water.

[CivBase]

Since when was it "generally not recommended" to drink tap water in America? Most places I've been in America the water looks, smells, and tastes just like the stuff they sell in bottles.

[the__alchemist]

Interesting! USA seems to be the only country I've visited that drinks tap water, let alone has water fountains.

[WheatMillington]

I'm not super well travelled, but of the ~9 of the ~10 countries I've been to, including where I live (New Zealand) it's normal to drink tap water. Thailand was the exception for me.

Water fountains are somewhat normal in New Zealand and Australia.

[lukas099]

It definitely wasn't normal in Spain. I think they called it "water from the lake" or something dirty sounding like that. And don't bother asking for ice cubes in some parts of Europe, they might have to chisel it off of a big hunk of ice for you (happened to my mother in law)

[Angostura]

Got them in the UK. Together with their new cousins, designed specifically for refilling water bottle to cut down on plastic waste.

[luxuryballs]

perhaps where nobody is drinking the water there’s also no rationing of pressure or incentive to minimize flow for cost savings