Dnia Fri, 01 Nov 2013 13:01:42 -0500, A.L. napisał(a):
> On Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:47:55 -0500, "Pszemol" <P...@P...com>
>>Powtarza jakieś zasłyszane, nie do końca sprawdzone, historie.
>
> Pre-1994 residential and pre-1997 commercial flush toilets use 3.4 US
> gallons (13 L) of water per flush (gpf or lpf). In 1992, the United
> States Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which mandated
> that beginning in 1994 common flush toilets use only 1.6 US gallons
> (6.1 L).[19] In response to the Act, manufacturers produced low-flow
> toilets, which many consumers did not like because they often required
> more than one flush to remove solids. People unhappy with the reduced
> performance of the low-flow toilets resorted to driving across the
> border to Canada or Mexico, or buying salvaged toilets from older
> buildings.[20] Manufacturers responded to consumers' complaints by
> improving the toilets.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilet#US_Standar
ds_for_new_toilets

Ale tak prawde powiedziawszy ... jesli czesto jedno splukanie nie
wystarcza .... to znaczy tez ze czasami wystarcza. I juz mamy
oszczednosc, chyba ze "more than one" oznacza "czesto wiecej niz dwa".

No i jesli daje sie zrobic muszle mozliwa do splukania mniejsza
iloscia wody, prostymi srodkami - to czemu nie ? Po co marnowac wode ?

P.S. Duzo wody mozna stracic przez nieszczelna spluczke. Drobny
wyciek, trudny do zauwazenia, a litry leca. Przec cala dobe, na
okraglo. Warto sie zainteresowac rachunkami i licznikami.

J.