Talk:Septic tank

message: In no. 2, it would help to explain what is meant by "non-biodegradable hygiene products."
How long do septic tanks (systems) last? We are in the process of buying a 20 year old home with the existing septic tank, what questions or concerns should I have?
: I shall take this question to Wikipedia:Reference desk. Dunc|☺ 19:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Specifically Wikipedia:Reference desk#From talk:Septic tank. hydnjo talk 20:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Erma Bombeck's book The Grass is Always Greener Over the Septic Tank () and the common expression that is the same as the title is technically incorrect; the grass is greener over the leach field which is better watered and has more nutrients than the surrounding land. However, it is not unusual to find better growth over the septic tank itself as well, particularly the end nearest the leach field.
TRL 02:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The phrase has 19,000 hits+ in Google and 3 references within Wikipedia.  In the list of books article it is wikilinked suggesting that the book merits a Wikipedia article.  If you want to remove the book reference, fine, but please leave the explanation that the phrase itself is wrong.  Samw 04:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm really not sure that this is a "common expression" except in relation to the book.  "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" is a common expression and a metaphor, but it seems to me that the septic tank reference is just a humorous adaptation of that.  Even if it is generally regarded as true, how is it an "expression"? People don't use that phrase to "express" anything other than the literal meaning of the phrase. --Universe Man (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Potential Problems"

message: This section contains several incorrect statements, for example, nitrates as the main culprit in septic systems. Nitrates can only form under aerobic conditions, in a rather slow microbiological process. Septic systems as anaerobic systems produce mainly ammonia as the main nitrogen species. I have edited this section to reflect the main issues: uncontrolled release of greenhouse gases, pollution of groundwater with ammonia and phosphate, leaching of potentially pathogenic micro-organisms into the groundwater. I also took out the ridiculous argument that the cost of wastewater treatment is detrimental to community development. PeterH (2006-07-10)
:Don't septic systems have a critical aerobic polishing treatment stage referred to as a leach field. Isn't the discharge to the environment of anaerobic effluent considered evidence of leachfield failure? -- Paleorthid 04:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental Issues

message: I concur the contents as they stand now are very similar.  I'm not an expert in the field to know whether there's a subtle distinction between the two.  Google shows many more hits for "septic tank" than "septic system" thus I'm inclined to keep "septic tank" and make "septic system" a redirect.  Samw 14:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also concur with what you say above. The "septic tank" article should be retained with current content and the "septic system" content merged or added initially. I think the distinction is that "septic system" when used by those  "in the know" includes all the components that result in a functional system, ie Septic tank and french drain.., as opposed to other systems such as a municipal connection. Gregorydavid 16:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I too support the use of Septic tank as the main article into which information from Septic system should be merged. In other places the phrase Septic system has been used to describe a variety of anaerobic processes whereas septic tank is specifically a system from treating and disposing of human sewage. Velela 08:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the system begins with a flush toilet, the middle is the septic tank and it ends with a french drain. Gregorydavid 09:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Has been done during June 2006. septic system added to this article septic system changed to redirect --209.244.43.113 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The components other than the tank have their own articles. --209.244.43.113 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of [[septic tank]] and [[septic system]] 

message: I replaced the statement referring to dominance aerobic processes in waste treatment on a plant scale. It was misleading to the reader. Certainly most secondary treatment in these municiple wastewater treatment plants is aerobic, but most solids reduction processes is anaerobic digestion.  These treatment plants require both water treatment and solids reduction.  To be fair, a septic system also does both water treatment and solids reduction.  Further it has both an anaerobic treatment stage  and is intented to be matched with an aerobic stage in the septic drain field. -- Paleorthid 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparison to aerobic sewage treatment was misleading

message: As somebody saw fit to revert my comments on environmental issues, I've had to put a WP:POV tag on this section.  As it stands, it provides a very one sided argument and ignores many of the positive aspects.  For a reference, my edits are here:   130.95.128.51 06:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: It would be useful to describe alternatives to conventional septic systems. Biocycle is marketed as a greener alternative (see for example ). I am not an expert, but I gather that the combination of aerobic and anaerobic reactions improves the quality of the waste water. Can someone say whether these types of systems are genuine alternatives or just marketing hype? --RDS 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternatives to Septic Systems 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support: The proposed move better represents article content. The current name is a source of confusion, and discourages editing on the larger topic. -- Paleorthid (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised assessment: with Velela's comment, my proposed move becomes controversial, and this is the wrong process for anything controversial. A workable alternative is to move sections (per Andrewa comment).  However, to address the controversy, the article needs to first heed the disconnect in understanding of the terms involved.--Paleorthid (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: If the septic tank is required by law to be replaced every 'x' years, why not do the following: construct a pit with concrete floor and walls (and appropriate drains  etc so it cannot fill with water, install the plastic tank in the pit, and the seepage beds adjacent to it.
When all is installed and operational build a deck or other easily  removable covering over the tank/pit. 
Future changeovers can then be achieved with minimum disruption.
:There is no such law. The actual tank is the least likely component to fail. The soil component is the most likely treatment component of the septic tank system to fail. --Paleorthid (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimal disruption 

message: Order does not matter, so don't use numbers.174.3.111.148 (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbered List 

message: "The use of garbage disposers for disposal of waste food can cause a rapid overload of the system and early failure".  Well, that seems perfectly logical to me.  However, compare this opinion from "Country Plumbing" by Gerry Hartigan, pp 71-72 (Alan C. Hood & Company Inc, Chambersburg PA, 1984, ):
Every day I hear people say they have a garbage disposal unit, but don't use it.  The excuses are endless.  Rather than attempt to list them all, let me say there is no evidence to substantiate any reason for not using a garbage disposal.  
I have had the opportunity, over twenty-five years, to monitor many tanks, both with and without a grinder in use, and I can honestly say I think those tanks work better with the addition of ground garbage.  This, of course, doesn't include the silverware my wife manages to feed ours.  My advice is: if you have a kitchen pig, use it.  If you don't have one, get one. 
Hartigan discloses no interest in the makers of garburators; I have no connection with Hartigan but have found his book most helpful (septic tanks are poorly understood here in the UK). Moletrouser (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why garbage grinders should be treated cautiously when connected to a septic tank is that they simply increase the load on the system. Just as having many people living in a house increases the load so does adding extra putrescible material. It won't lead to early failure but it will cause the tank to fill more quickly and need emptying more often. However, if a small tank is in use and it is very rapidly loaded by the use of a grinder, pouring oil down the drain or having many visitors to stay over Christmas, failure can result because the rate of decomposition is not equal to the rate of loading. I have no references for this - only personal and practical experience as a past regulator of septic tank installations  Velella  Velella Talk   18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbage Disposal Units & Septic Tanks 

message: The statement that there is no "rule of thumb" for how often you should remove the sludge from the tank is misleading if not factually incorrect. Most building codes specify minimum tank and drainage bed size based upon the designed occupancy of the structures served by the system. The specifications are based on average use and include a specification for sludge removal frequency for systems in year-round operation - usually two years. It would be more helpful to include this information than pretend that no such guidelines exist. Every system has a designed capacity, and part of that design is the pump-out frequency in typical use. The rule of thumb is to follow the designed capacity guidelines - which for modern systems properly permitted, installed and inspected can be obtained from the local permitting body, or simply inferred from the building code on the assumption that the system has not been intentionally oversized.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.142.83 (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periodic Pumping - there IS a rule of thumb. 

message: I removed a string which referred users to a page: www.septictank.org in reference to "Biomat Failure"
Not only did the linked site not contain information about Biomat failure, it was just a link to the site rather than a link to a page containing the information.
It contained septic tank information, but did not contain the description or even term "Biomat Failure". In addition no citations were found and it added no true value to the article. It seemed to be a page to generate Ad Revenue. MediaRocker (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Direct Advert Link

message: I have been successful in the water and waste water treatment business for over twenty years.
I can tell you it is possible to extend the life of your existing septic tank treatment system, period.
Basically you only have two ways you can do it. 
1. Reduce the loading to the septic tank system.
  
2. Improve the treatment capability of the septic tank treatment system.
Here are some ways of doing both safely and with very little work or cost on your part.
1.  This one step alone can double the remaining life of your treatment system. Filter the discharge water from your washing machine. Use at least a 300 micron filter capable of capturing most of the non-biodegradable clothing fibers.(usually enough to carpet the living room of a three bedroom home each year).  Avoid wasted rinse water cycles. After you have filtered it, not before or you will have a living room carpet, every year, wherever you put it.  If you can get the wash or rinse water out of the septic system, then get it out. You can't drink it but its safe to use as toilet water, lawn watering, car washing, etc., and it doesn't stink and can easily be treated by small gravel or sand mound systems easily.
2.  Stop drinking tap water.  Running tap water for several seconds before drinking or using it can double the flow to be treated  by your septic tank system everyday.
3.  Reduce bathing water useage, not time bathing, please stay clean.  Always use showers for bathing.  Install a bypass valve or wand in your shower so you can turn it on and adjust only while you are actually in the stall.  Use bathtubs sparingly and at half levels when necessary. 
4.  Adding air to the water as it comes in or goes out of system will increase biological activity and treatment up to 20 times, period.  The trick is to not to disturb settling solids so they end up floating out of the tank and into the drain field. So only aerate minimally and at the very begining or very end after the water has left the septic tank.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodmom (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to Rejuvenate Your Septic Tank System 

message: The function of a septic tank is to retain and accumulate the organic material contained in sewage waters. Is there an estimate as to what percentage of the organic pollutant can be extracted and removed from the sewer by the use and periodic cleanout of a properly maintained septic tank?WFPM (talk) 00:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen any reliable  figures for this. I do know from practical experience that the carbonaceous BOD in septic tank effluent often exceeds 600 mg/l as soluble organic matter and fine particulates. Much of this will probably be removed by soil and sub-soil micro-organisms. In the tank itself bacteria, protozoa and some higher organisms will convert much of the organic material to methane, carbon dioxide, water and a multitude of lower molecular weight soluble and micro particulate organic entities. Over extended time, the sludge in a septic tank becomes richer in minerals and in synthetic fibres from modern clothing with most of the organic material having decomposed and been washed out in the effluent stream or vented as gas.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Organic pollution reduction capability

message: A sentences in the article used to read as 
:Periodic preventive maintenance is required to remove the irreducible solids that settle and gradually fill the tank, reducing its efficiency. In most jurisdictions this maintenance is required by law, yet often not enforced. Those who ignore the requirement will eventually be faced with extremely costly repairs when solids escape the tank and destroy the clarified liquid effluent disposal means. A properly maintained system, on the other hand, can last for decades or possibly even a lifetime.{{cn|date=February 2012}
I changed this to:
:Periodic preventive maintenance is required to remove the irreducible solids that settle and gradually fill the tank, reducing its efficiency. Eventually solids will completely fill the tank and enter the field drains and destroy their effectiveness leading to costly repairs. 
The reason for the change is that there is no evidence provided 'most jurisdictions require [this] maintenance by law, yet often not enforced. I personally know of no such jurisdictions or requirements in countries such as UK, France, Greece or New Zealand.
The statement that :
:A well maintained system can last for decades or possibly even a lifetime is unreferenced and untrue. No matter how effective the system, septic tanks receive a wide range of materials that do not decompose or only do so very slowly including soil, synthetic fibres from clothes washing and food residues. The reality is that septic tanks do fill with solids and become less and less effective in time frames of a few years (or a few months if badly treated).  Velella  Velella Talk   17:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Maintenance

message: The regulation section is reads like it's 18 months ago, and suggestions of things that should've been implemented by January 2013.
Could someone who is actually familiar with the subject matter drag that up to date? Thanks! Reedy (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regulation section needs updating 

message: I am planning to remove the "see also" link list at the bottom because this doesn't conform with Wikipedia article style. Such hyperlinks should rather be included in the article itself.
EvM-Susana (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the "See also" Link list 

message: I moved the text that was visible in the external links section to here:
"Note: this could use some improvement.  The following links are general agency/department sites covering a whole gamut of related topics.  They may very well prove to contain content related specifically to septic tanks, but which would take considerable additional effort to locate.  Thus the reader is not provided with relevant information but with an additional searching task.  A general internet search would probably be more useful."
And I agree the external links list needs improvement. EvM-Susana (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text that was with the "External links" section 

message: How important is the inlet wastewater pipe? Can the tank operate without it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.44.54 (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Vital and no. Where would the sewage come from if it didn't come through the inlet pipe?  Velella  Velella Talk   16:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Septic tank