| ▲ | SoftTalker 14 hours ago |
| How many hundreds of gallons of water for a bath, then? I didn't see that in the story. |
|
| ▲ | do_not_redeem 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If it works anything like a modern dishwasher, it would use less water than a normal bath or shower. |
| |
| ▲ | iancmceachern 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But if it worked that way (using a small amount of water over and over to clean) would be gross and unsanitary in this case. One could filter it but that costs a lot of energy and changing a filter weekly on your shower pod would not be very green. | | |
| ▲ | eru 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > But if it worked that way (using a small amount of water over and over to clean) would be gross and unsanitary in this case. Have you ever taken a bath? | |
| ▲ | _ZeD_ 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | it's not unsanitary on your plates, why should it be on your skin? | | |
| ▲ | sitharus 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your plates can be washed with temperatures that would scald you and with chemicals that dissolve your skin. But you don’t want to sanitise your skin, just get the dirt off, so I don’t see any real issues. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It looks like it completely fills and drains that big chamber at least a couple of times. If it were just a sprayer mechanism yeah that could be somewhat water-efficient. |
|
|
| ▲ | ExoticPearTree 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It doesn’t matter. Really doesn’t. We are talking about a device from 50 years ago where concerns were wildly different than the ones today. Water was cheap and plentiful. |
