Talk:Greywater

message: I thought greywater was the water in septic tanks. Say explicitly if true or not. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.201.31.246 (talk • contribs) 
:I would say it is true and if not then that is where it belongs.  What do your think about, greywater being used for fake snow? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.164.80 (talk • contribs) 
:My greywater tank comes from the bath/shower and kitchen/bathroom sinks. The kitchen sink goes via a grease trap to remove the grease from washing up (it gets pumped out every 3 months or so and disposed of). The greywater gets pumped out every day into my acreage yard. The septic tank is ONLY hooked up to the toilets and settles out before gravity feeding into a soakaway pit.
:So no, greywater isn't necessarily in septic tanks.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.140.98 (talk • contribs) 
:Australian laws define grey water as non-toilet - ie no faeces.  However, the laws also say we may only use grey water from showers, bathroom handbasins and laundries.  We may not use water from kitchens because people use caustic dishwashing powder, and because the volume of solids is so much higher than the other sources.  Our native plants also die if fed phosphates, so we must use nil-phosphorous or very low phosphorous laundry powders.  Another issue is that we can't release grey water above ground.  This minimises human contact.  See Art Ludwig's site below. {{--Richardh9935 11:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Septic tanks 

message: Can I add a link to this article on cheap ways to use greywater?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/gardening/water.html
Ozfreediver 07:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My article

message: This article needs to cite some sources. The governmental stuff an anon has been adding is great info, but we need sources. I added one to the end, to support the statement about a new law signed into effect in Montana. - Greywater 14:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: In my edit , I removed the section entitled "Tips on how to minimize health risks associated with greywater", because I think it violates WP:NOT#GUIDE --83.255.42.37 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied that deleted content to Appropedia as it fits the purpose of that wiki.  I also added a link to the site under external links.  Thank you, --LRG 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove section 

message: Are soap and detergents safe to discharge onto plants or soil?  --71.107.217.63 18:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what about soap?

message: Does anybody know the history behind the Neutrality Notice that someone inserted back in 2007? Aside from the lack of apparent discussion here, it doesn't look like there is a basis for keeping that notice in place.--Coro (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think the article needs improving but it doesn't seem particularly biassed. I'll remove it. Chris55 (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality notice 

message: THIS ARTICLE IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION SEE HERE:  ☻☻☻Sithman  VIII !!☻☻☻ 16:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a copyright violation - it's recycling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  COPYVIO 

message: Hi, Oasis Design here, greywater advocates/ educators/ researchers.
We'd like to respond to the plea to improve the organization and referencing of this article. There are various references to information on our own site that could be beneficial to Wikipedia readers and appropriate within all external link guidelines ([links])--provided we do not post the links ourselves. (Someone posted ours as the top link on the appropedia greywater wiki page, where it's been unchallenged since as far back as the edit history goes [2006]).
Would you please take a look at these links and post any that you think have merit? 
Possible external link:
Grey Water Information Central 
Possible references:
Gray Water Policy Center {under "Governmental regulation"}
Greywater risk calculations and references {under "Recycling/ ...health hazards associated with greywater}
Open Source Laundry to Landscape Greywater System {under "Garden irrigation water diversion systems/Laundry to Landscape" 
Common greywater Mistakes and Preferred Practices  {under various locations, for example indoor reuse, health issues...}
Thanks
Gwguru (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please consider adding these links 

message: Are Americans Ready to Start Drinking Their (Treated) Toilet Water? "Tests show it's impressively clean and safe. And good enough for Texans who are drinking it." by Elizabeth Svoboda, from the November 2011 issue; published online October 28, 2011 Discover (magazine).
Also current (December 2011) issue cover story is "Water Wars: The coming battle over Earth's most precious resource ... The Future of Water", starting page 48 with Heidi Cullen for Climate Central, Bill Richardson on World Resources Institute, Grady Gammage Jr. attorney with Arizona State University Global Institute of Sustainability, and Pat Mulroy of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.  
Past notice http://discovermagazine.com/nsf/changing-planet-adapting-to-our-water-future/
See Planetary boundaries.  
97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Discover (magazine)]] resource 

message: I deleted the photo at the top right because my friend requested that she not have that picture of her there... It was not exactly kosher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.10.70.163 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 November 2011
:No problem. I've restored a cropped version of it, as the rest of the picture seems useful. --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys I solved it better and just put up a different photo with all parts of the system.  --David Shankbone 02:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removal 

message: In the article I read: "Greywater typically breaks down faster than blackwater and has lower levels of nitrogen and phosphorus[citation needed]. " Now , I don't know whether the intention was:
"Greywater typically breaks down faster than blackwater[citation needed] and has lower levels of nitrogen and phosphorus." which I suppose would be reasonable, but as it stands citation demand suggests that the citation must support the N&P content remark, which seems to me so self-evident that I would not know where to look for a citation (I was not the author btw, just passing). Surely a comment equivalent to saying that blackwater contains more muck than greywater doesn't need citation, any more than the claim that water in drains runs downhill needs one??? JonRichfield (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just driving by this talk page - haven't looked at the content you're referring to, but there must be tables of breakdown times for different waste streams under various treatments. Jojalozzo 16:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does self-evident material need citation?

message: I am planning on overhauling this page over the next month or so, one section at a time, I am an expert in the field and the page, as it currently stands is pretty conflicting with professional opinion, British and International Standards, I will be bringing the page in-line with BS8525 : 2010 part 1 and 2 and also with references to the american LEED standards. The combination of these two standards should bring the whole page up to date with most current international views of grey water and it's use in recycling.
Please use this "talk" section to comment and help me bring this page up to scratch, I will be using comprehensive citations to the relevant sections of each standards, however I am based in the UK with experience of UK, US and Middle East markets and standards. I would greatly appreciate input from other geographical areas. Will Douglas Shearer (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete Overhaul 

message: I have changed the image to a real grey water recycling system - myself and many other people have all commented on how silly the image of a wash hand basin sitting atop a WC cistern is, it really bares no resemblance to what grey water recycling is about. I have added a small domestic system with no branding, please feel free to comment, perhaps we could add another image of a larger commercial MBR or Multi-media filtration system too.
Thanks Will Douglas Shearer (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Change 

message: "Sewage can then be treated to limit pollution and health risks"  "Then" should follow one of two things.  Either a previous step in the process, or a conditional "if" statement.  Which is this supposed to be?
71.163.117.143 (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  non sequitur 

message: The single word Greywater looks weird to me; Grey Water looks comfortable, so I checked with Google.
"Grey Water" gets about 590,000 hits compared with 366,000 for "Greywater".  "Gray Water"  gets fewer hits than either, but far more than "Graywater".  It appears the world agrees with me, but not strongly.
Any objection to changing the article to consistently use 'Grey Water' as the main term? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Lokier (talk • contribs) 
:You're right about google hits. I prefer greywater - maybe something to do with being a chemical engineer, that we make our common terms, such as "flowrate" into a single word. But Wikipedia isn't a specialist's resource, and it appears either is acceptable so I wouldn't object to a move. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's leave it as "greywater". I don't think one particular dictionary is relevant here. What is relevant is common usage at a global level. Same applies to wastewater versus waste water by the way. EMsmile (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to make a case (again) for changing the article page to "Greywater" (one word). I work in wastewater treatment and all the literature uses "greywater" not "grey water" - see also the references cited in this article. Google hits are 4.5 mio for greywater and 3.1 mio for "grey water" (interesting how the numbers have changed compared to 2006, see comments just above!). EMsmile (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  After no further communications since Dec 2019, I take it as broad consensus that greywater is better and have changed it to that now. Will also get the article name changed now. EMsmile (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grey Water vs. Greywater 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Grey water →  – Copied from talk page discussion: I'd like to make a case (again) for changing the article page to "Greywater" (one word). I work in wastewater treatment and all the literature nowadays uses "greywater" not "grey water" - see also the references cited in this article. Google hits are 4.5 mio for greywater and 3.1 mio for "grey water" (interesting how the numbers have changed compared to 2006) EMsmile (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Compare also with blackwater (waste) which is already spelled as one word. And of course wastewater is one word as well, even though older literature used to spell it in two words. EMsmile (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The case insensitive n-grams makes the case more clearly  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blindlynx (talk • contribs) 14:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't notice that making much of a difference. I don't think it would normally be capitalized unless at the beginning of a sentence or in a title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't in this case, but it is a good practice to look at how capitalization affects ngrams in general—blindlynx (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that. Looks like it's supporting my proposal. :-)  EMsmile (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 August 2021 

message: 11:54, 15 August 2020‎ Thumperward talk contribs block‎  71 bytes +71‎  Thumperward moved page Greywater to Grey water over redirect: conform with article use 
The article usage having changed (see above) this rationale is no longer valid. Andrewa (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous move

message: A section discussing types of greywater is needed. In particular to their properties for reuse.
A good example is clean water that is flushed through the system for particular reasons.  When running a hot bath, the initial cold water can be flushed away.  Potentially this cold, clean water could be captured before going down a drain.  It may not be pristine drinking water, but is much, much lighter greywater than most other domestic greywater.  In particular, it hasn’t got much in the way of contamination restricting how it can be stored.
Here is one of the better commercial articles that does attempts some of this.  See
https://thesafegroup.co.uk/guides/what-are-the-different-types-of-domestic-wastewater/
This commercial article also describes different types with a wider perspective.
https://thesafegroup.co.uk/guides/what-are-the-different-types-of-domestic-wastewater/
I am not familiar with the details of greywater, but a brief overview that can help readers appreciate how different types of greywater can be identified and addressed prior to be treated as generic greywater, or worse, as generic blackwater. CuriousMarkE (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants that of Greywater