Last week, Jeffrey Tucker pointed out some of the unintended consequences of low-flow toilets: to deal with the backed-up sewage (and the resulting stench), the city is apparently thinking about fixing the problem with bleach. Here’s one of my favorite Tucker articles in which he discusses the problems with 1.6 gallon toilets.
This gives me an idea for people interested in health economics, epidemiology, and public health. It would be interesting to try to estimate the contribution of low-flush toilets and other restrictions on water flows to the disease environment. The theoretical effects are a matter of logic: low-flush toilets aren’t a free lunch. All else equal, weaker toilets result in dirtier, more disease-prone environs. The San Francisco case Jeff mentions suggests too that weaker toilets probably require harsher cleansers.
While I don’t know the precise history, I’m pretty sure that water-saving regulations were adopted at different rates in different places. This should provide a setting in which the researchers would be able to estimate the contribution of water-saving toilets, showers, and faucets to the disease environment.
I file this under “papers I would write if I had unlimited time,” but I have too much in the air right now to start another project. I hope there’s a graduate student looking for a dissertation topic who is reading this right now. If you’re out there, the next thing you should do is work out the logic of the argument. In particular, try to explain how we can understand the unintended consequences and public choice problems presented by these initiatives in light of the theoretical framework developed by Mises, Hayek, and others. After that, you should read Werner Troesken’s Water, Race, and Disease. For an Austrian/Public Choice perspective on the provision of services like police and fire, see Chris Coyne’s and my paper on the 1866 Memphis Riot. The revised version and a follow-up paper will be available soon, I hope.
{ 12 comments }
Interesting, not a priority in developing countries yet, but sure a possibility in the future. Do you Know, by any chance, how much water is needed for propper handwashing prior to surgery? I wander if it can be estimated and do some surveillance on this issue. Thanks from Argentina
Definitely an interesting idea, aaaaaand it just so happens that I’m an Econometrics grad student in need of a final project by the summer. I just wonder about the difficulty of collecting the data.
you are so wright. difficulties in data collecting may be most challenging. Topic is relevant in developing countries, I happen to know about an international infection control consortium leaded by Victor Rosenthal MSC. perhaps he can help you. I Highly recomend his web page
http://inicc.org/english/eng_index.php
Since I am Sociologist cost effectiveness is not my expertise but can assure findings will be most relevant and innovative.
Best regards
I would do the following:
1. Check the CDC and Natl Center for Health Statistics for information on disease rates, which might be available at the city level.
2. Look for variation in adoption of different water flow standards. The EPA might have data on this.
3. Diff-in-diff to find the effect of low-flush mandates on disease rates. The effect is going to be very small in the short run (before people switch) but probably larger in the long run as people have switched to the new equipment.
Also keep in mind that the CDC and EPA have significant incentives to skew the data in favor of low-flow toilets.
A wonderful example of the methods of the Austrian school. Conclusion first, then work backwards. Is this an instance of praxeology, or is this something else?
Interesting.. this proposal fits within the context of the blog, but when forwarded as a CSM article.. is it really an article? Or is it an article asking someone else to write the article? I expected seeing at least some research done or a quip from a county water engineer who could shed some light. My completely uneducated hypothesis: Does increased flow and volume increase levels of sanitation? Maybe there are some other issues lurking in San Fran’s sewers?
Also, what are these low-flow toilets combined with individuals water/sewer consumption rates compared to corporate and business consumption, including the conglomerates who continue bottling local tap sources even when severe droughts are present? (Dasani during the 2007 Atlanta drought, etc). Perhaps instead of letting these companies up-charge our tap water by 1200%, they should be paying for regional sewer health the way some companies buy carbon credits for reducing polluting output?
-Not a scientist, just rambling… Hope someone takes on this project. Sounds pretty important.
Read the title of the post.
Read my comment. Like I said.. This was forwarded to the Christian Science Monitor as NEWS. It’s sloppy.
curious to add info about the two flush choice toilets one finds in europe. one amount of water to flush urine, and a larger amount to flush feces. maybe just makes for more number crunching about water flow per flush. or, maybe it does help add volume that helps keep the sewer lines moving.
The sluggish river of sewage caused by water-saving lowflush toilets demonstrates one truism of physics: You can’t do just one thing.
It’s not even making a mistake.
Once you fix one problem, new problems will arise, no conspiracy required.
Always.
Unfortunately for them Canadians have a lot of access to american TV and it will take a of convincing to get even Conservtive supports to abandon the CHA.
Comments on this entry are closed.