Pup, with the sticky date I would first reference you to the Bristol Chart to work out the number and/or whether it needs a new classification!

From there, I've got nuthin!

Select to expand quote

BulldogPup said...

Oh ok , well they save on tree cutting thats gotta be good but what happens if you've got a "sticky date pudding poo" mate I'd still be tempted to have a box of tissues at hand just in case I'm off to the little lady's place afterwards , that would be embarassing eh .... then again a shower would fix that I spose!
Cheers for the update Simo

It's interesting to speculate as to why our Nipponese friends would like to use throne rooms such as these. Are they mindful of the environment and the need to conserve our ever dwindling forests, or do the simply prefer to use things that are new and high tech with the added bonuses of giving themselves a bit of a sensuous thrill and leaving them with a kissable clean rectal region

The case for the former has many weaknesses, the later has many strengths.

To consider the cost to the environment of a toilet such as that one, you need to look at it from the cradle to the grave and the amount of carbon used in its:

• Manufacture (inclusive if the mining, transportation and primary processing of the raw material)
• Transportation to market (inclusive of the any pure marketing requirements eg. The display lights in the shop to help sell the toilet)
• Installation energy
• Energy use throughout its working life, because, unlike a normal toilet, this one needs energy to continue to operate and I suspect it will also use a greater amount of water which, in itself requires additional pumping from a dam.
• Energy cost of disposal at the end of its lifecycle (inclusive of the energy used to recycle any of its components)

All these energy costs to the environment can be given a name, some people call it “embodied carbon” some call it “embedded energy” some call it “embedded carbon” and I'm sure there's a few others.

Depending on where you are in the world and how you make your energy, where the toilet was made and where the toilet was used, that embedded energy value differs greatly.

Eg. If it was made and used in Tasmania, its embodied carbon content over its lifecycle would be lower than if it was made and used in Sydney, why? Because most of the electricity we make in NSW comes from burning coal whereas they use a lot of Hydro energy in Tasmania.

Work out you own equation for Japan because they usually use Nuclear or fossil fuels.

Now let's compare that to the average bog we have at home.

• Manufacture? Yes but it's much smaller so far less carbon is expended
• Transportation to market? Yes but as above
• Installation energy? Yes but as above
• Energy throughout its working life? Yes, but only the infrastructure needed to pump water to it and the light in the room. (I'll talk about the paper at the end)
• Energy cost of disposal at the end of its lifecycle (inclusive of the energy used to recycle any of its components)? Yes, but because it's smaller, there much less energy used.

That brings up to the bum fodder, is it good for the environment to turn a tree into paper that you then shove up your dot and flush away to be processed? Well, probably not.

Is it worse than using energy to wash, dry, powder and pamper your dot? Well, probably not?

Why?

Because the act of growing a tree is carbon offsetting. Throughout its growing life it absorbs carbon and once it's gone, if you need more, you must plant another tree that will absorb more carbon.

Now this is not ideal, but it's a lot better than burning a lump of coal, damming a river or building a nuclear reactor.

I suspect Japans fascination with these types of gadgetry has little to do with the environment.