The Bush Toilet Discussion

[tasadam]

Since long before my Long Drop Residents topic, I've been thinking about making a topic on toilet waste in the bush.

I have discussed the idea of doing a pictorial on how to dig a hole and do the deed, so next time I feel inclined, I may add that to this discussion.

I've been mindful of what to do in winter - a bit of snow camping. Can't just dig a hole, and if you do, (a) what are you digging? (b) what if you keep striking rock? (c) probably think of heaps of negatives here.

I've heard about poo tubes. Not that I've seen one, but I imagine a long cylinder made of poly pipe, sealed with a cap at one end and sealed with a screw lid at the other. What, I suppose a diameter of something like 50mm - 75mm would work, and a length convenient enough to strap on the outside of the pack.

Doing the deed on paper towel so the whole lot can be carefully picked up and dropped in the tube.
A yukky job to empty it. And any air-freshener type additives are really bad for the operation of composting dunnies if you want to empty when you find one, so you shouldn't use them.

Another idea that I thought of recently was brought about courtesy of a recent visit to a hospital where they have sick bags.
The concept seems sound - a plastic bag with a lightweight plastic ring wide enough to position, or hold, then tie the bag off or seal it with a clip like what holds loaves of bread closed.
Then the whole bag goes in the tube. But what to do with it? Cannot just empty into the composting toilets or the pods about the place, that would not be good for them because of the plastic.
Take them home to dispose of them in the rubbish? Biohazard I suspect, But if it is, how many full baby nappies are disposed of in the rubbish each day?
So maybe that is an option, I don't know.

I took this idea a step further and contacted the Australian distributor of these bags, they actually have a website for these - http://travelsicknessbags.com/
They sent me a few sample packs of the sick bags, and another product, I will elaborate on these further later.

It would be nice if I could find bags that work for the purpose but are biodegradable. Maybe paper bags? Straight in the tube then surely can be emptied into any installed toilet facility such as composting or pod.
But paper bags come with a risk in that if things get wet, they will get messy in more ways than one.

I know from personal experience there are people out there that do not care where they "dump" - I have had to bury (OK I didn't "have" to, but ordinarily I can't just leave them there) other peoples indiscretions at Frog Flats (just off the track), in the bushes at South Coast Rivulet (that person seriously was not well), Walls near Dixons Kingdom, and I am sure I am not alone. (I couldn't do anything about the one at Mt Anne as referred to at the bottom of this post.)The discussion of the dump beside the lake at Echo Point, the Lake Rhona problem as mentioned, I am sure people have other shocking stories.

Whilst talking to some PWS staff I gleaned the following on toilet developments...
The normal progression goes something like this.

Phase 1 - People go where they like in the scrub. This then turns into a "public problem" either because of "visual pollution" (scats and paper around the place) or through gastro (which generally has nothing to do with toilets and more to do with an individuals personal hygiene).

Phase 2 - The problems above generates debate so the next level of infrastructure is considered either a long drop (no longer legal in most places) or a fly out tank with no building (like the Western Arthurs). This introduces minor problems with waste disposal as most is considered "toxic" waste (untreated) so it can only be disposed to special sites (some councils only)

Phase 3 - People that don't like bush squatting or the tanks suggest we should put in a building. This often occurs through walker displacement as a place becomes well known. Old clients (the tough walker) get replaced by the less tough clients who like a few comforts. This can be a building like at Wild Dog Creek where numbers allow a regular inspection to change the bins (not much volume in bins ...about 400 litres so inspections need to be regular) - still toxic waste. (As an aside, because of recent discussion on this forum about this problem at Lake Rhona, here's hopping something happens there soon.)

Phase 4 - Volume of use creates a maintenance nightmare with bins/overflows. Next step up is the hardest! Remove the liquid (high volumes) from the piles and reduce solid waste by composting. This is the toilets on the Overland and believe me they are probably the only ones that work in that environment with the current numbers. We have tried just about every system on the planet! Can be downgraded from toxic, subject to serious testing, compliance to standards and slightly less issues with disposal.

Phase 5 - More use that overloads the system above. OK, do you now multiply the number of composters (to give needed compost time so it doesn't revert to toxic waste) or do you try something else. Most of the next set of toilets rely on water based processes (septics or hybrids like Gough systems). OK, so now you need water and possibly a fair bit (depends on system/use levels). This also introduces next problem. Can you put overflow effluent to ground/surface or does that also need to be flown out or processed in some way.... and what happens when the system is full? Septics need to be pumped eventually as do most hybrids (even with microflush systems) but at least that can go straight to sewerage schemes (in most cases) so disposal is easier...after you get it out of the bush!. We have also had very little success with evaporators to reduce liquid waste volumes.

The Overland is probably at about Phase 4.3. We are removing waste slightly quicker than we would like (but still compliant last time I checked) but there are some challenges with Phase 5. New Zealand often has septics and spray to surface systems (Milford, part of the Kepler, some of Routeburn) BUT they often close and drain them in winter and open up pit toilets for off season use.

Its a challenge for all managers and sometimes it comes down to us accepting lower standards. Personally I think Tassie does in better (environmentally) than NZ as far as toilets go on their major tracks. With much higher rainfalls they don't have some of the nutrient problems that we face when we try and disperse to ground or surface.

This sort of suggests that if we used tubes of a sort, and emptied them in existing facilities, we would not be assisting the current problems faced with these issues.

So now I will throw it open for further discussion - maybe as a group we can find a solution to some of these problems that might well assist us all.

It would be nice if we could keep this discussion on topic, if it strays too far I might delete / edit / move posts as needed to try and keep the topic to the point.

Anyone got any ideas? Seen how it's done elsewhere? Something to add?

[photohiker]

I guess maintenance is the issue, otherwise I'd suggest this or this.

[corvus]

Not peeing in them if you can avoid it would be a big help I believe (boys and girls walk away an pee behind a tree) it is not that difficult.
c

[photohiker]

While we are on the subject, we can eliminate toilet paper apparently.

[Chris]

While we are on the subject, we can eliminate toilet paper apparently.

Phew! A fascinating read, but rather daunting
Good to see that the only decent scientific study on decomposition came from Tassie!
I was amazed to learn that burning is a favoured technique in the US, despite their huge forest fires; only noted one caution about burning in windy conditions.

The suggested method sounds microbiologically very suspect to me. The amount of soap and water necessary for safety would hardly be practical here. Makes me think that the "carry out" technique is probably well worth pursuing, but will await further info on suitable equipment. Thanks for starting this off Adam.

[the_camera_poser]

There used to be biodegradable plastic bags in the US- using one of those to collect everything and give it the pitch in a receptacle would be the best. You could even design a light-weight folding frame to hold it so there's no handling involved.

[Son of a Beach]

The bags, tubes, etc, may be a good idea for remote locations without facilities (as much as I would find it very had to get used to, myself). For the popular areas with facilities, where the composting toilets are struggling to keep up...

I have a friend who's invented a no-chemicals-input AWTS (Aerated Wastewater Treatment System), and has started up a business for manufacturing, selling and servicing them. The first production unit is installed at my house, and the prototype is installed at his house, with a few other units currently being sold for houses and industrial businesses. The certification testing (done on my unit while it was connected to the town sewerage system - ie a LOT of input), showed that it far exceeded the required standards.

No chemicals go into it, and it does not need cleaning out anywhere near as often as most other AWTS systems (maybe once every two or three years would be enough - just to remove any solid grit, such as sand, from the bottom). The water that comes out of it irrigates my garden and looks like pure clean water (although it's probably not as pure as it looks).

Systems such as this might be OK for some places in Tasmania. It requires electricity, but only a very small amount (pumps, etc), so it could run off a small solar cell. He is already planning an small solar cell option for it, and is widening the range of models (sizes).

The main problems with a system like this for Tasmania, would be:

• Needs a bit of water to go in, like a flushing toilet. No problem in many parts of Tasmania - just means that we'd need extra water tank(s) and flushing toilets (with minimal flush).
• Effluent disbursement. This is what the parks information referred to above. Is it safe to just sprinkle treated 'clean' effluent about the bush. How certain do we have to be that it's not going to run into creeks and lakes? Especially during heavy rain? Will the additional nutrients upset the ecosystem? (Believe me, my trees at home are growing like rockets! There's a lot of nutrients there.)
• Maintenance. If a pump or other component fails, it would require trained plumbers/electricians to fix, and possibly substantial spare parts (pumps, electronic controls). The system is fairly reliable, but everything fails occasionally (it has an comprehensive failure alarm system which could be connected to the ranger's hut by wire, or to a wireless transmitter). The system has a few days' worth of spare capacity in it, so that it can continue to operate without pumping out for a few days before it fills. This spare capacity would need to be increased substantially for remote locations, and some system of qualified repairers who can get to those locations quickly with all the required spare parts would have to be put in place.

I'm not suggesting that this is the solution to the problem for very popular (or any) areas. But just a possibility to consider. It's certainly better than AWTS systems that introduce chemicals to the effluent, and better than a septic tank which has barely-treated effluent.

[photohiker]

The suggested method sounds microbiologically very suspect to me.

I couldn't agree more. The immediate health aspects of handling e-coli are well known, why take chances when in the bush, especially with the same hands that are preparing your meals?

[photohiker]

It's certainly better than AWTS systems that introduce chemicals to the effluent, and better than a septic tank which has barely-treated effluent.

Nik, the AWTS systems I linked previously are both non-chemical. The Biolytix one is worm farm based and doesn't even need a pump if there is a suitable irrigation area below the site. We have one of the Novaclear systems at home and it's effluent water is classed as A+ (this is a step below drinking quality)

I think the issues with AWTS in the Tasmania bush would be up front costs, maintenance and capacity. I think they are quite probably a very good solution for at least some of the sites.

[tastrax]

Hi Folks,

A fascinating subject that could keep a Ranger talking for hours! For some light humour I feel I must at least suggest this product....now back to the serious stuff.

The big thing to check with most alternate systems is their actual handling capacity - how many dumps can they handle and still work. This is the downfall for many systems that work well in homes with families up to say 5-6 people and the occassional shock load (Christmas dinner with the family!). Imagine the capacity required continuously over the summer at a place like Pelion - maybe in excess of 100 uses a day(??).

On the poo tube front, on the couple of occasions I have used them I found the most convenient method was to use thin paper towel for the drop zone, then fold it up and place it in the tube. All the deposit could then be placed in a normal septic or sewerage system on return.

I will scrounge out a few photos from my toilet collection to show the variety of systems out there - it always provides a few laughs.

[Son of a Beach]

Nik, the AWTS systems I linked previously are both non-chemical. The Biolytix one is worm farm based and doesn't even need a pump if there is a suitable irrigation area below the site. We have one of the Novaclear systems at home and it's effluent water is classed as A+ (this is a step below drinking quality)

I think the issues with AWTS in the Tasmania bush would be up front costs, maintenance and capacity. I think they are quite probably a very good solution for at least some of the sites.

Yes, I meant to add that I thought the worm systems were also a great idea. I saw them at Agfest several years ago. I've just not seen any in person, or heard from anyone who has. I presume they work as advertised. I just wanted to point out a system that I use personally every day (and it sure copped a beating this morning - what did I eat last night?).

One unique advantage (for Tasmanians) of the system I use is that the company is based in Tasmania (although tanks are manufactured on the mainland for now), so you'd have more direct access to service and support.

The big thing to check with most alternate systems is their actually handling capacity - how many dumps can they handle and still work. This is the downfall for many systems that work well in homes with families up to say 5-6 people and the occassional shock load (Christmas dinner with the family!). Imagine the capacity required continuously over the summer at a place like Pelion - maybe in excess of 100 uses a day(??).

The system I'm using has several models (and can be tailor made to order, although each new model has to undergo certification, which is time consuming). One new model is about to be installed at an industrial site with a lot of live in staff (a mine, I think?). So they can be made to any capacity you want, it's just a matter of how much bigger it will have to be, and how much space it will take up, and how much treated effluent will be produced.

The system at my house is actually about 3 times bigger than it needs to be. It will handle about 10 or 15 people apparently.

[Ent]

Content deleted by poster

[photohiker]

The big thing to check with most alternate systems is their actually handling capacity - how many dumps can they handle and still work. This is the downfall for many systems that work well in homes with families up to say 5-6 people and the occassional shock load (Christmas dinner with the family!). Imagine the capacity required continuously over the summer at a place like Pelion - maybe in excess of 100 uses a day(??).

These are quite different use cases. In a domestic circumstance, the AWTS takes all wastewater from the home, of which the toilet is a small part. Showers, Laundry and Kitchen dump a large quantity of water into the system relative to the 5-10L (or is it 3-7L now?) per flush of the dunny. In the bush, these units would just take the dunny and perhaps a handbasin.

Also worth thinking about If the AWTS unit processes the waste to an adequate standard, the effluent could become the flush water. Novaclear is doing that already in Qld I believe.

Michael

[Phil]

Not my area of expertise but a very interesting read/forum.

It's certainly better than AWTS systems that introduce chemicals to the effluent, and better than a septic tank which has barely-treated effluent.

Nik, the AWTS systems I linked previously are both non-chemical. The Biolytix one is worm farm based and doesn't even need a pump if there is a suitable irrigation area below the site.

I have seen the Biolytix system in action at a home that our company built last year and from what I've heard there has not been an issue so far (except that they forgot to deliver the worms initially!). Absolutely no chemicals and very little maintenance, obviously has a sensor that sends an alert when something isn't operating correctly which is ideal for the type of applications that we're discussing. They basically operate on a supply and demand basis......the more poo, the more worms! Although I'm not sure of how much supply they could handle as tastrax noted earlier

[Ent]

Content deleted by poster.

[Nuts]

Adam, I really cant see someone who does'nt do things right in the first place then agreeing to carry anything with them. In areas that do have toilets they really do need to 'evolve' a bit. Some people wont use them just because they cant face the smell. Interesting topic though. Personally, I think that its either fly out or go to a system with (powered?)active breakdown (for heavy use areas).

[tasadam]

Another issue is the hiker that just has to use a strong bleach to get the sitting area clean. Remember you have to have a system that has some tolerance to user stupidity.

This counts for a couple of things worth commenting on -

Chemicals in bush dunnies are a very bad thing, as you probably know.

Also, the issue that already exists with composting dunnies where the stupid lazy (add a heap of adjectives here) "people" that put things like plastic bags and other rubbish in the dunnies...
I have seen the evidence of such down the hole - not a pleasant job that a ranger has to fix.
I'd bet a ranger assigned such a task would seriously love to get hold of the idiots that do that.

Problems of foreign items being placed in new fangled receptacles needs to be considered.

Do you actually sit? I usually squat / hover above, no need to touch the seat. A hand on the back wall adds stability. Usually takes all of 30 seconds given the right diet and timing...

Lastly, if you can develop such control, when digging a hole the task is made easier and quicker and less potential for mess by taking care of the number 1 behind a tree before assuming said position for task.

There's a lot to it, really, isn't there

[tasadam]

Adam, I really cant see someone who does'nt do things right in the first place then agreeing to carry anything with them.

Agreed, though who knows what might develop from discussing it.
Re the carrying, I'm thinking more for people like myself that might go somewhere remote and sensitive, and need to remove said deposit rather than leave it there. I really don't think people doing the Overland track for example are going to carry poo tubes and remove their waste.
I hope the conversation develops to cover as many aspects as possible.

[Ent]

Content deleted by poster

[tasadam]

With poo tubes turning up on mass they might not be so forgiving.

Or the contents thereof...

Then the whole bag goes in the tube. But what to do with it? Cannot just empty into the composting toilets or the pods about the place, that would not be good for them because of the plastic.
Take them home to dispose of them in the rubbish? Biohazard I suspect, But if it is, how many full baby nappies are disposed of in the rubbish each day?
So maybe that is an option, I don't know.

So a biodegradable bag, or a suitable repository for them, possibly at popular start / end of walk locations. Much the same as the dump stations set up around the place for all the campervans. It's the same content... So there must be a way.

A couple of links to dump stations around Tasmania - HERE and HERE.

[tastrax]

For those that may have missed previous Poo Tube discussions

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1506&p=12486&hilit=poo+tubes#p12484

In general the poo tubes are emptied into existing toilet systems rather than disposed of as landfill, so the biggest issue is the "wrapping" that might be used to contain the poo or the use of chemicals to keep everything pleasant whilst transporting it around the bush.

[tastrax]

More dump station locations at http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/

[the_camera_poser]

From memory those biodegradable bags inthe US were made from sugar byproducts or some such thing.

[the_camera_poser]

Biodegradable plastics

http://www.science.org.au/nova/061/061key.htm

[whynotwalk]

Fascinating discussion! And as Phil said, rangers - and quite a few others - can talk about this til the cows come home.

Here's the type of poo tube I've seen, from DoC in NZ.

They're about the size of a jumbo fish-oil capsule "tub". For those too young to need such things they're about 90mm in diameter by 170mm deep. They sell them for $5 in NZ, and have helpful warning notices - such as "Do not use for food storage" The Poo Pot comes with a supply of biodegradable cornstarch bags (550mm x 430mm) in a zip-lock bag, as well as a small bottle of antibacterial hand-wash. Here's how they work:

1) Open one cornstarch bag as wide as possible and place on ground
2) Do your business
3) Wrap up bag and place in the poo pot
4) Re-seal poo pot lid & place in pack
5) Clean hands with gel
6) Never open a tub in the dark mistaking it for dehyd. curry!
7) Dispose of contents in a normal toilet (composting or flush) when next available.

Okay ... ... I added #6. But that's the basics. It's possible to buy cornstarch and other biodegradable squares or circles too. (Easier target when on ground!) As for smell ... interesting story from our son, who's living in Bulgaria for a year. The plumbing in their flat, and in many places, is primitive. So you don't flush the paper, just the faeces. You put the paper in a bin next to the toilet, and empty periodically. He says it's surprisingly not smelly!

cheers

Peter

[whynotwalk]

This could start a whole new gear freak specialty!

The "biggest" cornstarch bag supplier seems to be a Norwegian mob called BioBag - see http://www.biobag.no/
They have an Aust/NZ site at http://www.biobaganz.com/Site/Pet_Produ ... ioToi.html

It includes a nice piccie of their folding toilet seat. Now if we could just make it out of titanium ....

Peter

[north-north-west]

It includes a nice piccie of their folding toilet seat. Now if we could just make it out of titanium ....

Wouldn't cornstarch be lighter?

[walkinTas]

I have a friend who's invented a no-chemicals-input AWTS (Aerated Wastewater Treatment System), and has started up a business for manufacturing, selling and servicing them. The first production unit is installed at my house, and the prototype is installed at his house, with a few other units currently being sold for houses and industrial businesses. The certification testing (done on my unit while it was connected to the town sewerage system - ie a LOT of input), showed that it far exceeded the required standards.

Have any studies been done on volume? Systems that work well for home use don't always scale up to the level of constant use required by a public toilet.

[tasadam]

The "biggest" cornstarch bag supplier seems to be a Norwegian mob called BioBag - see http://www.biobag.no/
They have an Aust/NZ site at http://www.biobaganz.com/Site/Pet_Produ ... ioToi.html

It includes a nice piccie of their folding toilet seat. Now if we could just make it out of titanium ....
Peter

I checked out their website then contacted them, they replied and are happy for me to post their input.

Hi Adam,


Thank you very much for writing.


The BioToi itself is probably not the product for your group. It's a great product designed for and used by Nato force and in places such as Antarctic. It is well suited to large groups where loads are spread around. Individuals carry their own rolls. It is used on bush treks etc and in lots of visitors to Nepal and Tibet use them.


What you need is something to use with a poo tube. A bag large enough for convenience (sorry about the pun) but not too large to pop into a poo tube for later disposal. We used to recommend a bulk dog poo bag sold to a particular council but we no longer make that bag.


There are 2 possibilities.


a) our all purpose bag - this is a small compostable bag with handles (for tying only), semi-translucent white in colour. This is probably the thing but we will not get stock for some weeks
b) possibly our new dog poo bag on roll., not sure - it may be a bit on the small side but it's a neat small roll so if it does suit that would be good; We have just a few samples until the main supplies arrive from Europe


Our other bags are too large.


Unfortunately we do not have distributors in Northern Tas I wish we did as I am certain there would be plenty of customers but I can send a roll of the new dog poo bags.


The bags will break down in composting toilets and when buried.

I have asked them to keep me updated.

[climberman]

I have a friend who's invented a no-chemicals-input AWTS (Aerated Wastewater Treatment System), and has started up a business for manufacturing, selling and servicing them. The first production unit is installed at my house, and the prototype is installed at his house, with a few other units currently being sold for houses and industrial businesses. The certification testing (done on my unit while it was connected to the town sewerage system - ie a LOT of input), showed that it far exceeded the required standards.

Have any studies been done on volume? Systems that work well for home use don't always scale up to the level of constant use required by a public toilet.

Good point. My experience (through work) is that composting dunnies struggle in the public sphere as the use is not regular. At home, you can well judge the daily, and annual volumes. In the field, a particular toilet may get no use for a month, or three, and then be utlised to capacity in four days (as examples - in my field this difference is even larger). As such, appropriate sizing is difficult - do you get one that overflows, or that doesn't have enough material to keep the compost type system running ? neither is a good outcome for the manager of the facility, or the public. Add in the vaguaries of dealing with the public (vandalism, misuse, chemical input - Grey Nomads emptyimg their chemical toilets !!) and the system gets harder to manage. We often go for pump-out systems these days.