SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the read-this-while-having-a-nice,-hot-cup-of-tea dept.
When you hear about businesses with a high environmental impact or activities with a high carbon footprint, you are probably more likely to imagine heavy machinery, engines and oil rather than hairdressing. Yet hairdressing, both as a sector and as an individual activity, can have a massive carbon footprint.
Hairdressing uses high levels of hot water, energy and chemicals. Similarly, in our homes, heating hot water is typically the most energy intensive activity. For the cost of a ten-minute shower that uses an electric immersion heater, you could leave a typical television on for 20 hours.
So while it helps to turn lights and appliances off, the real gains in terms of reducing energy usage are in slashing our use of hot water. A quarter of UK emissions are residential and, of those, the vast majority come from running hot water. The longer it runs and the hotter it is, the more energy intensive (and costly) it is.
Mostly the hot water used carries a high carbon footprint, but the chemicals in shampoo don't help either.
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:49AM (1 child)
And my hair has a great so-called "Carbon Footprint." Because I NEVER go to Hairdresser. And I never Blow Dry. So please, eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & Military (foolish). But stay away from my hair!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @02:03PM
Hair today, gone tomorrow.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:52AM (18 children)
According to TFA, washing your hair twice a day uses 14222 liters of water per year. Washing your hair twice a week uses only 613 liters. Yet: 14222 / 613 > 23. Granted, they also talk about conditioner, but they are still fudging the numbers. Moreso, because washing your hair twice in one shower is going to use less water than washing your hair on two different occasions.
OTOH: A daily shower is really not necessary. Even when I worked a very stressful job, and needed to shower for body-odor reasons, it was a quick 2-minute affair most days, not some sort of extensive scrub. The same for clothes washing: generally clothes are good for more than a single wearing.
Lastly, by what weird definition is heating water "the most energy intensive activity" in a house? In places like Arizona, it's going to be air conditioning. In places like the UK, it's going to be heating. Even according to the link in TFS, heating is 59% of the typical household's energy budget.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:33AM (2 children)
Except underwear. Underwear is one-time please :D
(Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:41AM
Right way, backwarda, inside-out forwards, inside-out backwards.. that is four..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:58AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 12 2019, @02:01PM (10 children)
> Lastly, by what weird definition is heating water "the most energy intensive activity" in a house? ... In places like the UK, it's going to be heating.
In the UK most heating systems run by piping hot water around the house "Central Heating". This is different from US, where a lot of heating seems to be done by piping hot air around the house. Heating is typically running for about 5 months of the year, while air con only one month of the year (indeed most residential properties do not have air con installed).
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @02:44PM (9 children)
My house is heated by natural gas and I have a natural gas water heater. My averaged gas usage per month is 72 CCF. (I just checked) My monthly minimum usage is 13 CCF when the central heating is off in summer. The water heater consumes 18% of my annual natural gas budget usage leaving 82% for home heating which - last I checked - only runs a portion of the year. My math may be a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure 82 is bigger than 18. It looks to me like central heating is the most energy intensive activity in the home and this doesn't even take electric energy usage consumed by the furnace blower and electrical components.
Demand electric water heaters are showing up everywhere too. I suspect even inefficient electric tank water heaters are a similar minority of energy bills. I respectfully suggest the article author take their greasy head and preach to the dirty hippies in Portland. I'll be in the shower. Taking a nice long hot one.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Tuesday February 12 2019, @06:23PM (8 children)
Too many Popular Misconceptions out there (fake news, etc.) You mentioned "inefficient electric tank water heaters". I'm not sure why people believe that, other than salespeople trying to sell tankless units. Here's a great reference that compares efficiencies at the bottom of the page:
https://www.fastwaterheater.com/water-heaters/articles/water-heater-energy-efficiency/ [fastwaterheater.com] (bottom of page)
They did not list electric tankless (on-demand) units in the chart, but they talk about them in the article.
I do NOT recommend electric tankless for general overall house hot water because yes, the unit itself is efficient; the problem is that there are losses in generation and transmission of electricity. On-demand tankless electric water heaters draw huge current. Most older houses need an overall electric panel & service entrance cable upgrade to use one. The higher the current drawn, the more resistive (I^2 x R) losses in all of the wires and transformers between the generator and your water heater. For that reason, you get charged more $ / kWh based on your peak demand. The web page I linked talks about these losses.
The chart shows that electric tank-type water heaters are among the highest efficiency water heaters. Again, they didn't account for wire losses, but the peak demand is much less than on-demand ones. For example, most standard tank-type electric water heaters run on 240VAC through a 30 amp breaker (some are 40). On-demand tankless need 240VAC @ 60 - 120 amps (!!). (they run 2 or 3 40 amp circuits, NOT 1 120 amp).
There are almost no losses in transmission of gas (pipes).
Gas fueled tankless water heaters are much more efficient than gas fueled tank-types, but only because of inefficient designs of older tank units.
So if you don't have gas available (or don't want it) go with high-efficiency tank (or hybrid) unit.
If you have gas, go with a tankless (hybrid condensing is best).
The best systems are hybrid and include geothermal and solar heat.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:30PM (5 children)
So how much energy does it take to transport enough gas through the pipe to get 1 kWh of energy?
Also note that electricity is transported most of the distance on high-voltage wires, which means that the current is relatively low. So if at the house you have 120A on 240V, and the long-distance supply line is at 10kV, then the current on that supply line caused by your heater is merely 2.88A.
I'd really like a to see a fair comparison between electricity and gas. With real data. Because all I've ever seen as arguments is based on very naive assumptions.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:47PM (4 children)
Did you click the link I gave and read the article I summarized?
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:05PM (3 children)
A page by a seller of water heaters (certainly not an unbiased source) talking about money cost (not what I was talking about). In particular, it does not detail the energy cost (no matter what type of energy) that goes into transporting the energy to your house (that is, the very point I was talking about).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:32PM (2 children)
Okay, I spent some time and effort, did some research, posted a link to the best one I found which happens to agree with other references, the data looks good, makes sense, etc. It's an Angie's List award winner, in CA, the most energy-conscious and regulated state in the US (as far as I know and have heard). I don't see any reason for them to lie and lose their reputation, get sued, etc.
You don't like it? Please do some research and post your results and I'll check back.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @01:16AM (1 child)
> posted a link to the best one I found
You found something in units (dollars) that aren't relevant. If it's $100 to kill a dog or $2000 to fly to Disneyland, do you kill the dog? His criticism - that your data isn't useful data to an environmentalist decision - is valid. You didn't give useful data. Stop whining. You posted "the best one [you] found" and it was bad. Do better or cede the point.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday February 14 2019, @04:12AM
Who the hell are you? I owe you data? I owe anyone data? I spend time and effort to contribute here and you're whining about it? All you do is troll me whining about the data and link I gave, you give NOTHING but your troll? Go back under the bridge. Time for this site to eliminate ACs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:26PM (1 child)
You are only expanding on my proven point. The premise was that we need to revel in our own filth in order to satisfy the Green Nazis because heating water is such a horrible eco-disaster. TFS is clearly bullshit. I'm surprised they aren't railing about wasting water too. That's a common theme among the enviro-gestapo. The next step will be to have humanity huddling in a dark, unheated homes because banishing showers really wasn't our "most energy intensive" activity after all.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday February 14 2019, @04:19AM
I have no idea if you're the same AC who trolled me, but you don't quite sound like him. You make really good points. My take, if I'm grasping the situation and if this is what you're saying, is that some people will never be happy. They seize a cause and go at it no matter what. They won't compromise nor listen to anything or anyone else. Egos are growing faster than anything else on earth.
I forgot to add above: it's pretty easy to reclaim waste "gray water" heat- sinks, laundry, shower, etc., before sending it out to the sewer.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday February 13 2019, @01:08AM (3 children)
NOT MIL-SPEC mind you, in that I use hot water; in the Navy when aboard ship, everybody gets cold showers. Such is my understanding anyway.
Turn on water, get wet all over. Turn off water.
Soap up _all_ over, including shampoo in the hair.
Turn on water, rinse off, turn off water.
If we _all_ did it that way - I expect they do in many desert climes - Climate Change quite likely would be a far more gradual process than it presently is.
One Last Word:
What's the carbon footprint of one pound of animal protein as opposed to one pound of that of vegetable.
What's the carbon footprint of either form of protein shipped in from thousands of miles away, as opposed to being produced locally?
What's the carbon footprint of frozen or refrigerated foods vs. that of dried foods, or of most - but definitely not all - fruits and vegetables which need no cooling?
We in America refrigerate our fresh eggs. My understanding is that eggs are _not_ refrigerated in Europe.
To understand this, consider that eggs do just fine underneath a warm hen, even on hot days.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @03:29AM (2 children)
You're asking the wrong questions.
What is the carbon footprint of one pound of animal protein, compared with one pound of the equivalent in terms of nutrition (complete protein/balanced amino acid) sources, with allowances for the animals replacing machinery functions?
There's an example of a more complete assessment of an intelligent farming approach, rather than just grog-hate-carnivores boilerplate from the green rhetoric department.
Please note that in large parts of the world, growing a complete plant protein diet is agronomically infeasible, so the vegetarian approach has massive logistical costs built in.
The comparison of eggs being refrigerated or not is a false one. Eggs under a hen are living systems with resistance to spoilage. If they aren't fertile, they go bad and eventually explode, very aromatically.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:44AM (1 child)
Absolutely _all_ the vast majority of the world would need to obtain complete nutrition other than completely plant foods would be Cultured Milk, so as to obtain Vitamin B12.
After quite a lot of reading on my part, discussion with a B12-Knowledgeable Soylentil, my strictly Vegan cousin as well as a Vegan Facebook Friend, I have learned that B12 is ultimately produced by bacteria but is eaten by humans in meat, fish, eggs, milk and cultured milks as yogurt and keffir.
Cultured Milk is a particularly rich B12 source, so if we keep some dairy cows around, or goats or perhaps some yaks, then all we need otherwise is - yes: complete - protein, fruits and vegetables. While there's quite a lot of controversy regarding grains, my take is that grains are indeed desirable.
For complete protein, for the most part pairs of incomplete protein-bearing foods will do, such as the rice and beans or corn and beans that most Mexicans eat.
In my own independent researches, I concluded that I was woefully deficient in the Amino Acid l-Tryptophan. I fixed that by eating lots of Tofu, as Soy is rich in the stuff, as well as Hummus, chickpeas and sesame seed having lots of B12 as well.
Now I _will_ grant you that consumption of meat or fish makes it quite a lot _easier_ for the individual to obtain the nutrients he requires. But "easier" only in a strictly _local_ sense. When considering the effort of our food supply, transport, storage and sales system as a _whole_, a nice juicy steak or A Chicken In Every Pot require quite a lot more effort than do, say, rice and beans.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @04:55PM
Re: B12. Yes, it's important. Yes, you can get it from non-animal sources, including bacterial cultures and some fungi. I didn't raise the point because it's a relatively minor issue in terms of carbon footprints, which is where this started. For the brits and colonials in the audience, Marmite has plentiful B12 as well.
You state, correctly, that a blend of foods will do the job on protein completion. What you completely avoid is the question of agronomic feasibility. Large parts of the world are simply not agronomically capable of feeding their human population a complete protein, vegetarian diet. In fact some parts (UK, for example) are unlikely to be able to feed themselves above famine levels without massive imports of food or energy. Great while they could pour petrochemicals from the North Sea into their economy, not so great as it starts to run lower.
Thus we return to the question of: What is the carbon footprint of one pound of animal protein, compared with one pound of the equivalent in terms of nutrition (complete protein/balanced amino acid) sources, with allowances for the animals replacing machinery functions?
Just handwaving about rice and beans without checking which rice and which beans can be grown where with what rates of returns using which techniques and with what amounts of labour and automation, as opposed to (for example) oxen for draught and sheep for land clearing (hence the pound for pound calculation being complicated) doesn't cut the mustard.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:54AM (3 children)
I think the Army, Navy and Air Force might have been on to something.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:11AM (2 children)
Yes. Specifically on to the lice, which may be a vector for heaps of infectious diseases, typhus and plague included.
Military haircuts is not a recently acquired style and military regulations aren't the fastest thing to evolve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday February 13 2019, @01:12AM (1 child)
Specifically, a surgeon and a Captain for the US Army Air Forces during World War II.
I inherited from my grandfather the text "Rats, Lice And History". It's all about how the course of history is often determined by such public health problems as the outbreak of Cholera among one of the opposing armies in a crucial battle.
During the Siege Of Stalingrad, the Germans _attempted_ to supply their troops via air, but the Soviets knew damn well what would become of Mother Russia were Stalingrad's air defense not adequately lethal.
Just _one_ German transport plane landed safely. It's cargo?
You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 13 2019, @02:29AM
Out of copyright - PDF scan here [wordpress.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:00AM (23 children)
apparently it's standard to shower daily in some cultures, whether or not people are actually dirty.
it's ok to wash every two days or once a week, depending on how much you sweat and how much of your skin is exposed (to accumulate dust etc).
do change your socks as often as possible, as well as underwear.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:07AM (3 children)
Fewer showers. Take fewer showers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:33AM
I'm sorry. mai bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:28PM
Fewer showers. HAVE fewer showers.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:49PM
How about "lesser showers", meaning shorter, or somehow using less water?
For the record I use a water-saving efficient shower head with a valve that I shut mostly off when soaping / scrubbing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:15AM (5 children)
Be really environmentally friendly: have a sand bath
(Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:23AM (4 children)
Use Mother dirt [vice.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Informative) by knarf on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:53AM (2 children)
There's another soluti8on to the problem of body odour: stop using commercial deodorants, make your own using baking soda/potato starch/cocos fat (plenty of recipes to be found online). Strangely enough commercial deodorants seem to mask the smell for about a day after which it returns - or even emerges - with a vengeance, necessitating the use of... more commercial deodorants. It is almost as if the stuff is engineered to work that way. I recently got reminded of this when I staid over at my parents' for a week to help them with a building project. While there I used my father's commercial deodorant with the stated result, deodorant-smelly for a day followed by smelly-smelly. This was weird as I'm normally not smelly at all while I maybe use the home-brew baking-soda/starch/fat concoction once a week if it is that often. It wasn't related to physical activity either, I'm more active at home (logging, tending the farm, building, throwing my children across the room etc) than I was there in suburbia.
The conclusion is that commercial deodorants, just like commercial anti-dandruff shampoo is not designed to solve those problems. It is designed to get you hooked to using the stuff in perpetuity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:50PM
Redpill me on dandruff shampoo, senpai.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:03PM
For me, every day is different. For sure tangible stress causes stink, but some days it happens for no apparent reason. Physical work doesn't cause much stink (the sharp kind). Keeping underarm hair trimmed helps a lot. Some days I don't use deodorants and have no stink. Some days I use deodorants and they work, and I have several different brands going at once. Some days one brand works and another seems to make things worse. No clue why- so many variables.
Years ago I was using every anti-dandruff shampoo there was, including ones with tar (I do NOT like that head tingling feeling). It turned out that I didn't need that stuff- I must NOT ever use any kind of conditioner, body-building, enriching, protein, "energizing", etc. Just pure cleansing/clarifying, 2 - 3 washes (oily hair), and I'm good to go.
Once when changing automatic transmission oil I didn't realize some had dripped and I rolled my head into the puddle. I was horrified, but I used standard dish detergent as shampoo- it was awesome.
(Score: 2) by patrick on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:21PM
From the same article:
I'd be genuinely interested if someone has conducted independent studies. There may be something of merit there. Unfortunately, all of this (and others I've seen) are simple arguments from ignorance [rationalwiki.org].
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:18AM (5 children)
The more frequent you wash your hair, the more chances you'll develop dandruff.
Skin and hair have a slightly acidic reaction (that fat the skin secretes? Mostly fatty acids or esters oh them), soap and shampoo are neutral or slightly basic => washing too frequent and you'll dry the skin and it will flake easier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:57AM (2 children)
Also, stop using shampoo [biome.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 12 2019, @12:29PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:13PM
But using real poo doesn't exactly make your hair more clean!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 12 2019, @12:10PM (1 child)
At this point perhaps I should chip in that I haven't used shampoo or any soap/detergent product on my (old-school metaller length) hair since August 2017. All washing is done just with plain water. And it's never felt better, except when it's actually wet. I can't claim my procedures are eco-friendly, my hair-washing is part of my twice-weekly sauna regime, which at 9.5kW for up to 4 hours is probably a metric fuckton of carbon footprint, making the showers in TFA seem like toy money (the sauna being accompanied by half a dozen mini showers too, of course, though most of them will be pretty cold).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:48PM
I've been thinking about building a (Finnish) sauna, and trying to decide what kind of heater to use is the hardest part. Electric is convenient, but uses alot of energy. Wood require work to make fuel or money to buy. Gas requires expensive and dangerous infrastucture.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:23AM (2 children)
How often people shower, in various countries [theatlantic.com] I am surprised - if you believe this, nowhere do people shower less than 5 times per week. Not sure I believe it, either - it doesn't fit with my experience in Europe, where I would have thought 3-4 times per week was more typical.
Obviously, one needs to shower after sports, or after actually getting dirty. But for your typical office worker, if you have decent deodorant? Daily is not really necessary. As I've gotten older, I find that showering daily is bad for my skin - obviously a personal thing, but probably not atypical.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:37AM
The confusion is that shower != bath. And the less shower people are actually more bath.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:17PM
Save the environment: Avoid sports! :-)
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:20PM
At one time (UK) showers were only found in sports changing rooms, and normal houses (built pre-1970ish) only had a bath, which people typically took once a week. Then there was a campaign by the water companies to get people to shower "because it uses less water than a bath". But that assumed people would only shower once a week, but people found showers more handy and thus the current culture of daily (or more) showers was kick-started.
But even that assumed that a shower uses less water than a bath. I have a 7yo nephew who spends 30+minutes in the shower. My boss's teen daughter would take so long in the shower that one day he timed her (going by the noise, from outside the door!) and later returned to experiment, directing the shower head into the bath. He found it filled the bath to the overflow outlet one-and-a-half times.
Personally I hate getting wet, and hate showers because I have less control over them than a bath. They also swing betwen scalding and freezing in my experience. I bath in about 4" of water, once a week. But some idiot one day will ban baths on the die-hard assumption that showers use less water.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday February 12 2019, @02:49PM
I bet there's four superimposed graphs going into the signal:
1) bell curve certainly includes people who shower more than once a day, I lift weights about three times per week and often do physical "stuff" at least once a week outside the gym so maybe a dozen quick showers a week for me. So me, plus some hikki guy who showers once a month average out to an average that has nothing to do with anyones lifestyle.
2) If I'm overheated from yardwork / exercise / hot weather I'll sometimes take a cool shower. I wonder if turning the AC up a degree ends up using more energy on average when factoring in extra showers. Likewise it doesn't help or cure sunburn, but if you get a sunburn, then at least for a few minutes you'll feel better under cool shower water.
3) For youth its a private place for self pleasure. So whats the lifetime cost of a separate bedroom and lotion vs bunk beds and long "showers" ?
4) Much like TV viewing or social media addiction is a power law there are likely OCD people taking 15 showers a day which boosts the average of an entire subdivision by a measurable amount although its really only one mentally ill person.
The super imposed total graph must be interesting, probably not a boring bell curve.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:23PM (1 child)
Instead of taking less showers, share the resources, shower with your significant other.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 12 2019, @08:38PM
And how is showering with imaginary people supposed to save resources? ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by aim on Tuesday February 12 2019, @10:31AM (4 children)
A couple of thoughts about washing hair / this blurb:
* electric heating isn't necessarly the most carbon-friendly variant of heating, unless those electrons get pushed by nuclear power plants or renewables. I replaced the electric boilers by one connected to the highly efficient central natural gas heater - which also saves some money. Insulation on the warm water tubes also helps.
* many gels or shampoos have included some sort of micro-bubbles which usually aren't caught in sewage plants. These should be forbidden, if they aren't already, as they get into the environment as part of the much-discussed microplastics.
Also, while staying clean is certainly a necessity, there's no need to overdo it - actually, too much can be quite bad for your skin. Non-liquid soap and a face cloth can go a long way, and uses much less resources than showers or baths.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday February 12 2019, @12:18PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nuke on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:25PM (1 child)
Don't you mean microbeads? Already banned in most of N America and Europe.
(Score: 2) by aim on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:31PM
Right! Thank you for the precision, my memory didn't serve up the proper term "microbeads".
From the wikipedia article, not everybody has banned these yet, but it's on its way.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday February 12 2019, @02:54PM
Next step up is a heat pump, always cheaper to move heat than to make it. I am told you can long term average over 300% efficiency using a heat pump water heater. Donno if true or false. Big decision for me, I've had a tankless for like 20 years and they only last 30 years (unlike tanks that struggle to make it 5 years) so should I stay tankless or go tanked heat pump?
Tankless never runs out of heat so I can shower then dish washer then laundry one right after the other and when I'm not using hot water the energy consumption is about 3 watts of control board power.
Heat pump transports heat rather than making it, so I use power constantly and the tank is only X gallons in size which must suck, but I don't use much peak power.
Then too, theres solar direct water heating and despite living pretty far north its quite possible. Or solar to help power my electric heat pump. Hmm...
Overall I'd probably rather buy a heat pump, than never wash my hair again the article or whatever nonsense.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:38AM (6 children)
If you REALLY CARED about using minimal resources, you could still easily shower every day: just turn on the water, get wet, then turn it off.
Rub yourself with soap and shampoo. Turn water on and rinse. I've heard this called a "Navy shower."
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday February 12 2019, @11:45AM (2 children)
Navy shower? Many sailors at once, or cold water only?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:23PM
Or using sea water?
Maybe all three at once!
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:36PM
My wife and I shower together some times: usually it's longer than 10 minutes, though. ;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Informative) by donkeyhotay on Tuesday February 12 2019, @03:21PM
As a Navy veteran I can confirm this. Fresh water is a rationed commodity on a ship. In my day, the showers had "wands" with push buttons on them that released the water. You wet yourself, then lather up, then rinse. The water does not continuously run like a civilian shower. It's not nearly as satisfying as taking a normal shower, but it gets the job done and you get used to it. Aboard ship, being able to take a continuously-running shower is called taking a "Hollywood" shower.
Sometimes, if a ship is having trouble keeping up with the demand for fresh water, the crew is placed on water rationing. A limited amount of water is allowed for drinking only and no one takes a shower. Things can get a little "aromatic" if it goes on for more than a couple of days.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:21PM (1 child)
But then, how do you remove the soap? I certainly turn it on after applying soap, to wash that soap away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @01:13AM
This is stated in literally the following sentence. READ.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday February 12 2019, @12:17PM (2 children)
I do take cold showers every day for about two years now. Apart from making you more cold resistant, I have considerable less colds as compared to previous times (maybe one mild cold per year). The first moment is still somewhat unpleasant (maybe 2 seconds) and probably will always be. Being attracted to the cold would as a default would not be a good survival strategy. After that it is pure refreshment and you feel warm during the shampooing no matter the ambient temperature.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nuke on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:27PM (1 child)
I have seen reports of people dying of heart attacks triggered by cold showers. FWIW it is also the traditional cure for excessive libido.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:34PM
Sure, most heart attacks happen in the morning as circulation is ramping up. A cold shower is an extra kick, so if you have heart problems you might not want to take cold showers. I should also add, that the first month or so, the cold showers are unpleasant throughout. So, as ones tends to say, nothing for the fainthearted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:31PM (1 child)
Do the regressives take into account that the only susceptible section of the citizenry is exactly their own electorate? *snicker*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:25PM
I did not realize phys.org was a member of the DNC *snicker what an idiot*
(Score: 5, Funny) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 12 2019, @01:54PM
Only wash your hair with real poo!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by meustrus on Tuesday February 12 2019, @04:01PM (4 children)
Washing hair daily isn't particularly good for hair anyway. I've heard from hairdressers that they only wash their hair once a week. In part that's because they do all kinds of other labor-intensive styling that you would not want to do every day. But it's also because they know that the chemicals in shampoo actually damage hair over time, and it's best to avoid overexposure.
I've also heard from older men that hair loss can be exacerbated by frequent washing. Some people I've known have switched from daily to weekly hair washing and actually reversed the beginnings of a receding hair line.
Caveat emptor; I have no sources to cite for these claims.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:48PM (2 children)
You can get away with that with very long hair maybe. I haven't cut mine for almost 25 years, aside from getting it cleaned up now and then, and usually wash it, all of it, twice a week. The hair more than an inch out from your scalp or so doesn't get as sweaty and ick as the hair closer in.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday February 13 2019, @01:03AM
And yes: I am bald. But that patch of bare skin on top? It still produces as much hair oil as it did in the days of my misspent youth when my hair went halfway down my back.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:41AM
Instead of shampoo, try cornstarch on the scalp. (Basically what 'dry shampoo' is.) Wet-brush it out, or rinse as needed, and voila, clean scalp without drying it out (which is what makes it produce excess oil in the first place).
Or rinse out with rainwater (needs to be soft water) and you may find you can give up other cleaners altogether.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Wednesday February 13 2019, @10:41AM
Even better... instead of fighting hair loss, help it along. When you are bald, you do not need to wash you hair at all. And a bald head is far simpler to dry as well when you get out of the shower.
And yes, I know... I've been doing this for roughly 10 years now.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 12 2019, @05:35PM
"God made a few perfect heads. The rest, he covered with hair."
I admit I was a little disappointed when I started losing my hair in my teens, but since it finished, hair care has been a lot simpler.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Tuesday February 12 2019, @07:32PM
After all, germs aren't real because you can't see them.
Don’t shake hands with Pete Hegseth. [yahoo.com]
Story from many other sources too... [duckduckgo.com]
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by corey on Tuesday February 12 2019, @09:29PM
... Washed my hair in about 6 months. Never smells or has any issues. It is dry as hell after washing it.
A good conditioner is olive oil.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday February 13 2019, @12:56AM (1 child)
Most of our water consumption is due to flushing our toilets.
While I reside maybe four miles from the Mighty Columbia River, to maintain a constant water pressure, our water is pumped up a hill then up into a large, tall water tank. There's a lot of people here, we flush our toilets quite a lot so the carbon footprint due to pumping that results from our collective flushing is considerable.
Quite likely a more-severe carbon impact comes from the lack of any consideration as to maintaining laminar fluid flow when pumping water through increasingly-many branches of increasingly-narrower pipes. Go to your local hardware store then examine a Pipe Tee. Gas and residential water Tees are crudely cast iron, with lots of sharp edges, nooks and crannies so as to cause turbulence.
There is also the incredibly complex Control Systems problem of adjusting input to an arterial pipeline - not just water, but high pressure - and so high-density - natural gas, petroleum, and the various gases used by chemical plants - while at the same time, a vast array of consumers adjust their own usage by abruptly opening and closing the valves.
The electrical grid has that very same problem: because of Magnetic Inductance, it's very hard to start-up the mains after a power failure. After my Dad had been studying for his MSEE for a little while, quite abruptly whenever we had a power failure - at the time in Moscow, Idaho, such failures were commonplace - he would _demand_ we turn off all the light switches so as to not load the system!
With water pipes, if you too-forcefully restrict the output, or too-forcefully increase the water input, you'll get a burst water main.
In the case of high pressure gas pipelines, for example all the way from Siberia to Western Europe, the consumption patterns of the end-users can only be very loosely modeled, while at the entrance to the pipe the entire Natural Gas Production of Siberia is fed into just a very few wide, strong pipes.
That gas input is under very high pressure, and so possessed of quite a lot of intertia - and so momentum and kinetic energy.
That had the eventual result that a significant contributor to the breakup of the Soviet Union was a gas pipe that detonated immediately next to a passenger train.
The whole Soviet infrastructure was just like that. That led many Westerners to _incorrectly_ regard the Soviets as backwards, or as taking no pride in their work of what have you.
In Reality, the Communists were _far_ more afraid of America than the Americans were afraid of the Communists, and for _very_ good reason. Consider this excerpt from an address that then-California Governor Ronald Reagan delivered to a banquet of Republican State Legislators and GOP Big-Wigs:
During his 1980 Presidential Campaign, Reagan said the following ON LIVE TELEVISION during an interview by Televangelist Jim Bakker:
During his tenure, Reagan regularly invited leading religious figures in to the White House that they may be given National Defense Briefings by the Pentagon and our Intelligence Agencies.
And who could possibly forget?
What leads me to assert that the very-closest we have come to Global Nuclear Annihilation was _not_ the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the early years of his Presidency:
Not long after the Fall Of Communism, I read a former Soviet Spy's account of being inserted into London, where each night he counted the number of lit-up windows in the British Defense Industry headquarters then reported them back to Moscow.
Too Many Lit-Up Windows Would Result In A Soviet First Strike.
If you ever wonder just _why_ I write the particular way I do, it's because I have long known that I am the very most _creative_ - if not actually the most-lucid - if I write when I haven't got enough sleep!
For reasons I have no clue about, I as well write quite a lot better code that way too.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @05:07PM
... and the point to this stream-of-consciousness ramble was what exactly?
Something about flushing toilets leading to nuclear armageddon and lots of scared russians, I think.