Scrutable

Sciolus wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:49 pm To answer this question, I think it's unhelpful to multiply up by the population, because you end up comparing mind-bogglingly large numbers against other mind-bogglingly large numbers.

tenchboy wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:43 pm I would have thought that your local water treatment plant is a very sensitive ecological niche: dependent for its success on the well being of millyons of little coprovores all munching on and digesting whatever goes down your drains; and that anything that you put down the drain that would cause any wider ecological harm would first have to be of such a sufficient concentration to have a noticeable effect on all the scatophagic activity there first.
But I really don't know anything about this at all.

In spite of its strong biocidal action, sodium hypochlorite per se has limited environmental impact, since the hypochlorite ion rapidly degrades before it can be absorbed by living beings.[54]

However, one major concern arising from sodium hypochlorite use is that it tends to form persistent chlorinated organic compounds, including known carcinogens, that can be absorbed by organisms and enter the food chain. These compounds may be formed during household storage and use as well during industrial use.[34] For example, when household bleach and wastewater were mixed, 1–2% of the available chlorine was observed to form organic compounds.[34] As of 1994, not all the byproducts had been identified, but identified compounds include chloroform and carbon tetrachloride.[34] The estimated exposure to these chemicals from use is estimated to be within occupational exposure limits.[34]

Bird on a Fire wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:31 pm

tenchboy wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:43 pm I would have thought that your local water treatment plant is a very sensitive ecological niche: dependent for its success on the well being of millyons of little coprovores all munching on and digesting whatever goes down your drains; and that anything that you put down the drain that would cause any wider ecological harm would first have to be of such a sufficient concentration to have a noticeable effect on all the scatophagic activity there first.
But I really don't know anything about this at all.

Don't forget the millions of tons of untreated sewage that get dumped into rivers and coastlines to save water companies money.

A sufficiently drain cleaner is probably far less harmful ecologically than all that nitrogen, to be honest. According to teh wiki:

In spite of its strong biocidal action, sodium hypochlorite per se has limited environmental impact, since the hypochlorite ion rapidly degrades before it can be absorbed by living beings.[54]

However, one major concern arising from sodium hypochlorite use is that it tends to form persistent chlorinated organic compounds, including known carcinogens, that can be absorbed by organisms and enter the food chain. These compounds may be formed during household storage and use as well during industrial use.[34] For example, when household bleach and wastewater were mixed, 1–2% of the available chlorine was observed to form organic compounds.[34] As of 1994, not all the byproducts had been identified, but identified compounds include chloroform and carbon tetrachloride.[34] The estimated exposure to these chemicals from use is estimated to be within occupational exposure limits.[34]

tenchboy wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:43 pm I would have thought that your local water treatment plant is a very sensitive ecological niche: dependent for its success on the well being of millyons of little coprovores all munching on and digesting whatever goes down your drains; and that anything that you put down the drain that would cause any wider ecological harm would first have to be of such a sufficient concentration to have a noticeable effect on all the scatophagic activity there first.
But I really don't know anything about this at all.

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:15 pm

Sciolus wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 7:49 pm To answer this question, I think it's unhelpful to multiply up by the population, because you end up comparing mind-bogglingly large numbers against other mind-bogglingly large numbers.

7 billion people each taking a 140g dump per day is a million tons of poo (which is a pleasingly round number if you're not too close to the whole lot). "Humanity produces a billion tons of poo every three years" makes a good OMG story, but we basically manage to cope.

Grumble wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 6:21 pm There are about 28 million households in the U.K., if we assume that they all have one bath, one basin and one bathroom sink and each of these has a bottle of sodium hypochlorite (the main ingredient) poured down it then we have
28,000,000 x 3 x 0.300 L = 25,200,000 L per week

Gfamily wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 12:42 am

sTeamTraen wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:15 pm 7 billion people each taking a 140g dump per day is a million tons of poo (which is a pleasingly round number if you're not too close to the whole lot). "Humanity produces a billion tons of poo every three years" makes a good OMG story, but we basically manage to cope.

140g a day seems a bit light. Data exhaustively gathered by looking at the top three or four sites in a Google search suggests 300g as a more realistic estimate.

Wasn't one of us doing before-and-after weighings?