Return to Article: House taps Navy fund for urinal study
-
13303
Sounds like these things are already in use and/or have been tested for use under various conditions. So why would we commission yet another study? For $2 million? What could possibly cost $2 million? If this is such a great product, why don't we just permit the contractor to demonstrate how great it is (zero government funding) and we'll buy some if we like them and they meet our "minimum" needs!
-
13221
Oh, p*ss on it!
-
13191
Apparently these things work in some situations, (although not on Navy ships, which do really use saltwater) so why is it costing us $2 million to study? Here is the first $2 million of next year's raise.
-
13124
Waste of time and money! We have thousands of people who need homes, food, clothing, cars; why in the world would we allow a govt agency to spend $2M to see if a toilet flushes better when human confort and life is at risk?
Solution: We bought a new Trailmanor Travel Trailer which was designed by an airline pilot. It has a recyclable toilet just like those used in airplanes. Has anyone thought to ask them about it? In fact, anyone can call my husband and myself and we will be glad to tell you about it. DSN: 276-1541 x 3400. Thanks.
-
13117
Another $2 million of waste, fraud and abuse. Pork!
-
13112
Our Environmental Department installed them in number of our restrooms and they work great. There isn't even a trace smell of urine. Everybody should install them. My nose knows.
-
13108
Change is hard for some people, but the change to waterless urinals is a good one. They save water, and reduce costs in both water and sewage, while improving on the health of the bathroom. With the savings, the units pay for themselves within four years.
-
13072
What nonsense! Much worse than the $600 toilet-set scandal of a few years ago. As a Navy vet, I remember that all Navy ships used free seawater to flush their toilets. So why is the author of this article claiming that this product will save thousands of gallons of water (obviously fresh) onboard? Send in the inspector general's office.
-
13049
These people have got to be kidding. If they are serious, then let's put them in the White House for a trial period. That should get them out of town in a hurry.
Now that I have thought about it for while (one second) these things will keep the terrorists away. Even they are smart enough to stay away from people that are trying to kill themselves.
-
13044
As with everything else out there. If Uncle Sam would just try out these neat little ideas, things, designs, etc. (that they come up with themselves) on themselves first. I seriously doubt so much of the hard earned taxpayer money would be peed away as it is now. About like rich folks trying to tell the poor folks how to live. And yet, if the rich folks had to live on what us working taxpayers get - they'd say: "screw this!"
-
13043
How will waterless urinals save potable water on board ship since they use salt water for flushing?
-
13042
Forget the study, a solution has been around for decades: cat litter (silica crystals work better than the clay variety). My bill for analytical services to follow!
-
13039
"Advocates say the product could save thousands of gallons of water onboard ships and at military installations where water is scant." When I was in the Navy onboard a ship we flushed with sea water. No water shortage at sea.
If a Navy shore installation was not present I guarantee the property would have some kind of development on it. Same water issue? Do you think a private developer would folk over $2 million to Falcon to do the research? So why does the government have to "help Falcon Waterfree Technologies expand its budding military contracting business"?
-
13038
Follow the money! This stinks to high heaven. Money will be diverted from flying airplanes or maintenance in order to eventually line the pockets of this company via government contract. This will save zero gallons of shipboard water as sea water is used to flush urinals and toilets. There is ample supply of this type of water. Keep the money with the war fighters not the suits!
-
13031
The 21st Century version of the $600 toilet seat. I wish you guys were making this up, but alas.
-
13029
Finally, an article that's humorous as well as sad. Being an old Navy vet, I can't comment on the need for waterless toilets in the desert, but I can say that they're not needed on ships. Why? Simple. Because for decades U.S. Navy ships have installed saltwater-resistant plumbing, and the waste is pumped overboard, with no fresh water needed. For those environmentalists who will scream about this, think about the energy needed to pump out the stuff and process it through a commercial facility. Only our government could come up with something that's (in retrospect) related to the $600 toilet-seat scandal of several years ago.
-
13019
Heaven help us. They have them where I work and they stink. Only the government would buy them. Put them in the congressional facilities and see how long they last.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.