Appropedia needs your support - Please Donate Today

Talk:Composting toilets

From Appropedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ok, I think there needs to be some additional information added to this to be useful.

First, it needs to give much greater emphasis to the importance of carbon addition to produce good compost (and also to disinfect adequately the dangerous pathogens present in the sewage sludge). Generally speaking you need twice as much carbon-rich material as sludge, which can be difficult in a situation where carbon rich material is expensive.

Second, there is no mention of bioaerosols, which are a significant health hazard, particularly in confined spaces.

Third, it may need to be said about safety issues with the use of composted sludge - generally speaking it is not a good idea to spread onto crops you are actually going to eat (eg salad crops etc). Usually you'd be wanting to spread long before you're planning to sow, wherever possible.

I'd say that composting sewage is a viable option, but you really have to know what you are doing (particularly if the sludge gets wet at any time) otherwise you are just providing a fantastic incubator for the pathogens.

editing[edit]

This page is pretty horrible as it stands. I am going to try to improve it soon. Joeturner 04:01, 16 January 2013 (PST)

Links[edit]

These seem redundant, move to other articles or remove

KVDP 07:47, 3 October 2012 (PDT)

What do you mean by "seem redundant," here? Are these things better covered by other links?
I clicked through each - some are off topic, but a few are useful and I restored them. --Chriswaterguy 21:12, 23 February 2013 (PST)

check contacts[edit]

tagged as needing contact details checked. plus detailed check of what is being said Joeturner 13:40, 7 February 2013 (PST)

Reorganisation of information[edit]

I have decided to do the following: this page contains general information regarding the use of composting toilets; construction, maintenance and operational issues to be put on Composting_Latrines. I did consider merging the two pages together, but that would make one really long page. So intead I have moved temporarily some of the content from this page to A:Incubator/composting_toilets_extra_info with a view to trying to work out where it should be put. Joeturner 01:56, 12 February 2013 (PST)

reorganisation of page[edit]

I have decided that I am going to try to reorganise this page so that it is easier to understand by someone coming to appropedia to find out about composting toilets and acts as a signpost to other useful information on appropedia. I have moved the original page to Appropedia:Incubator/composting_toilets. This process might also involve some kind of merge with Composting latrines as I don't think it helps to have a distinction that is not in common usage. Most people talking about a composting toilet are meaning the whole system rather than just the toilet part. I think that it should help to have the avkopedia pages I have been porting to link to in the text. Joeturner 01:29, 14 February 2013 (PST)

are VIP latrines the same as composting toilets and ecosan?[edit]

Jim Dauster posted this on facebook

except that VIPs and pit latrines literally aren't composting toilets or ecological sanitation. they don't kill pathogens.

I think there is a legitimate argument to say that VIP latrines are not composting and are not ecosan. However, I can also see with convergence of these terms in academic literature and use within WASH circles. Personally, I'd be very happy to say that one should assume absolutely nothing is happening in a VIP latrine. Joeturner 04:27, 25 February 2013 (PST)

So, if the terms are used imprecisely within academic literature, should the Appropedia article aim to define the terms clearly, while noting that others might use the terms differently? (I think that's what we should do.)
I see you've done some more work on improving the choice of external links in the article - cool. I also changed a compostingtoilet.org link (a site sponsored by Envirolet) to its quite good FAQ, which seems more useful than the rather vague and somewhat promotional front page of the site. You might want to just check the FAQ, as I haven't gone through in detail, and you've got the knowledge on this. --Chriswaterguy 02:03, 26 February 2013 (PST)
To clarify, I think there are reasons to use a VIP (eg fly control), so well constructed latrines may well bring health benefits. I cannot really edit pages on design, which is one of the reasons I ported pages from Akvo. But I do think we should point out that the sludge in the latrine may not be undergoing any significant sanitation, and that therefore additional treatment is highly advisable. As I have said on the Infection_risk_from_Ecosan page, one academic working in the field says that any material from a toilet should not be used for food production for 10 years. I think this is sound advice, and we should be very hesitant in suggesting that any ecosan or appropriate tech system is completely sanitising feces, because it probably is not. I think we should encourage multi-stage processes, ideally including some kind of community co-composting and encourage users not to use any materials from these processes on food.
I was in two minds about the compostingtoilet.org website. On the one hand, it does seem like marketing. On the other hand, the idea is actually sound - providing moisture levels are maintained and there is sufficient aeration, it is not impossible to imagine a composting toilet system like that which actually works. But I'd say there is a mix of information on that page (and in general on the website), and the risks are not properly explained. So the FAQ can probably be said to be sound - but only as far as it goes. As a compromise, I'm reluctantly happy to let it stay, but not hold too much sway from it. Joeturner 02:21, 26 February 2013 (PST)
Just recording an interesting conversation I had yesterday with a guy who installs toilets in nature reserves and out-of-the-way places. In his view, urine can be considered to be a useful amendment, whereas sludge is a problem to be sanitised. I think this is a bit extreme, given that sludge contains organic matter and other nutrients, however it is a way of thinking I had not really appreciated before. If sludge is to be treated as a dangerous waste, then the priority must be to make it safe. In which case, maybe we need more destructive mechanisms in places where the standard methods are not consistent enough. For example, perhaps there is some way to make biochar with it in a rocket stove, and then bury. I'm not sure what to do with this idea, so just recording it here for discussion and future reference Joeturner 06:54, 27 February 2013 (PST)

Infection hazard banner[edit]

Is this overdoing it? Joeturner 06:53, 26 February 2013 (PST)

I do think that banner is a little overboard, especially considering our general disclaimer and the general danger of many community/individual based projects addressing basic needs. --Lonny 16:36, 13 April 2013 (PDT)
fair enough. I was trying to illustrate that although the concept sounds simple, it carries with it significant infection risks, particularly in a AT context. Joeturner 23:58, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

Gallery[edit]

Are any of the toilets in the gallery at Composting_toilets#Gallery actually tested? --Lonny 16:37, 13 April 2013 (PDT)

they seem to be overgeneralised schematics to me. Suspect unlikely to have been tested, prob wrong, need to be deleted. Sigh. Joeturner 00:05, 14 April 2013 (PDT)

A few extra sites with perhaps some information of interest.[edit]

-- comment by User:KalleP

thanks. these are links to specific products, I'm not sure what they add, can you explain why you think these products in particular should be given weight on the page? The manual looks interesting, not sure about the others. Joeturner 08:32, 15 April 2013 (PDT)
The links are just for a bit of background. I agree they add little to the page but might give editors some idea of what are commercially available. The images if they were available might be better than some of the diagrams on the page in terms of practical working poducts. Some of the complexity alluded to on the page is not real. The 'composting toilets' are pretty much better all around than a legacy long-drop or bucket system so should be offered as an improvement on those and not a grudging ran-last on everything else. I left one link out because I mistook the use of the generic term (ECOSAN) used in the page as including information about it already, I have added it below. I like them better than a septic tank for any informal or less permanent site. I seem to remember the spiral one is being tested or used underground in mines here.
http://www.ecosan.co.za/product_info.html
KalleP 07:56, 16 April 2013 (PDT)
I don't agree, the evidence suggests that in many situations a composting toilet is not much better than a bucket (in fact, sometimes no different as no composting is actually taking place). What evidence do you have to suggest that the complexity is not real?
Your last link is interesting, although I don't think that is in anyway representative of the widespread use of the term 'ecosan' in South Africa or anywhere else. I don't support adding commercial links to these pages - for one thing there is a good amount of information and evidence from non-commercial sources, second they tend to over-sell their own effectiveness, third they tend to confuse terms.
No evidence, just gut feel. I lived with a outdoor long-drop early during my high school time when we moved to a farm. We dug and fitted a septic tank system eventually. The main benefit in my personal gut feel would be having to clear it less often than a bucket system and having the option of an indoor toilet over a long drop. If I had to add toilet to a farm in future I would use 'composting/desiccating' over others unless there was reliable water for a septic tank flush installation. The benefit is not in making compost, it is in making less waste and requiring less maintenance in my personal view.

Fair enough. I've just been reading an academic report about the perception of UDDT compared to pit latrines in eThekwini, SA. Here is the abstract:

"The current environmental challenges that most middle- and low-income countries have been experiencing has led to new environmentally sustainable and economically viable sanitation solutions, such as waterless systems with source separation of human waste. We conducted a cross-sectional study in eThekwini municipality to explore the post-implementation challenges of urine diversion dehydration toilets (UDDTs) after a decade of installation and the adaptive processes necessary to increase the sustained use of the toilets. A structured questionnaire was administered to 17 499 households in 65 rural and per-urban areas of eThekwini using mobile phone technology. Results report low levels of satisfaction with the facilities as well as an association between perceived smell in the toilets and malfunctioning of the pedestal, and low use of UDDTs when a pit latrine is present in the dwelling perimeter. Conclusions relate to the importance of educational and promotional activities that stress the economic return derived from reusing urine and excreta in agricultural activities."

Personal perception is a big part of this. If people perceive composting toilets, UDDT, VIP latrines or other forms of ecosan as inferior, they probably will not value them and will not use them well. The reality might be that a flush toilet (or septic tank) is no better than a form of dry toilet, but users will often feel discriminated if they are offered it. And if dry toilets are not valued or used and maintained properly, they'll probably be even less safe. Joeturner 09:09, 16 April 2013 (PDT)

Heated composting toilet[edit]

For the composting toilet to work perfectly (and make the safest compost), the composting needs to occur at a particular temperature. Exactly what is that temperature and do composting toilets exist with heater wires and a PCB with temperature sensor ? That way, the heater wire can be activated by the PCB when the temperature is too low, and switched off when it's at the correct temperature, or when it's too high. If it exists, mention in article KVDP 05:39, 19 April 2013 (PDT)

Most people suggest over 50 degrees C. I don't think I've seen anyone wire up a toilet with an external heater, but then I'm not sure if the heat is actually killing the pathogens or it is indicative of a temperature which inhibits the thermophyllic pathogens. I think it is unlikely that an external heat source would reliably kill all pathogens at these low temperatures because you'd have to ensure all of the sludge was heated together. Usually when people talk of compost temperature they're measuring the temperature of the natural processes in the compost, although this too can be misleading if the measurement is only a point measurement.
'Perfect' composting means that you've created conditions to inhibit the growth of pathogens, usually by encouraging the growth of non-pathogenic microbes which out-compete them. This requires optimal moisture, temperature, oxygen, aggitation etc. It is unlikely that you are therefore ever going to be sure that you have optimal conditions in an unmonitored enclosed container AT composting system. More likely in a co-composting site, but can be difficult to tell if you have optimal conditions even there,
If you are going to heat the sludge, you are better to use a system of pasteurisation, which would need to heat to over 70 degrees C, but this is obviously a monitored industrial process. Joeturner 05:51, 19 April 2013 (PDT)
You understood me incorrectly, I just meant the optimal temperature for composting, not for killing the pathogens (worm eggs). For anaerobic digestion this is atleast between 7°C and 35°C, so I assume there is a similar temperature range for composting ? Perhaps mention it at the composting page btw. Besides the heating itself, I assume there should also be some way to "stir" the pile so that the heat is distributed evenly

KVDP 06:54, 19 April 2013 (PDT)

Well it is essentially the same thing, the safe microbes which out-compete the pathogens are the ones which are breaking down the material into compost. And the pathogens are not just worm eggs, Helminths are commonly used as an indicator species as they are quite difficult to destroy and the assumption is that if you've killed the Ascaris Helminths you've very likely killed other pathogens which are hard to kill but more difficult to isolate. Joeturner 07:09, 19 April 2013 (PDT)
Regarding the kiling of pathogens: I'm still reading the Infection_risk_from_Ecosan page. Pasteurisation may be a suitable way to kill worm eggs, but then again that's rather energy intensive/expensive. Perhaps there's another way to deal with it ? How long do the worm eggs survive in nature btw, and do they need a host to feed themselves or can they collect nutrients from feces directly, ... ?
This is a good point, pasteurisation is impractical in many AT situations. The helminths are hard to destroy and have been measured many years after sludge application to soil. They're the ova of intestinal nematodes, so the issue is more about whether the eggs persist in the sludge and are still viable than whether they are infecting a host directly. Again, they're used as an indicator because they are so hard to destroy - although they are also pretty unpleasant themselves. You have to understand that this is a current area of study KVDP - scientists are currently trying to come up with the best ways to kill them off, until fairly recently E.coli was used as an indicator, but it was established that this did not model the hardier pathogens very well, so most studies switched to using Ascaris helminths as an indicator. There are no good ways to be sure you have destroyed pathogens, this is part of the problem. In a situation where you do not have access to a microbiological laboratory, you are guessing. I hold out some hope that biocharring sludge will be a reliable low-tech solution, but the studies are in very early stages. Joeturner 07:09, 19 April 2013 (PDT)
I haven't read any info I require in the Infection_risk_from_Ecosan page and so added searched and added the temperature range myself. I don't think btw we need to follow what the scientists and what the "research" concludes. We just need to work out an approach that works reliably and economically and which is legal in (all) countries.KVDP 06:16, 21 April 2013 (PDT)
I totally disown this approach. see below. Joeturner 08:54, 21 April 2013 (PDT)
As I indicated to you, the legality is a complex issue and it is totally not appropriate for Appropedia to suggest that it is the last word on the legality of composting toilets. For example, in the UK, the legality is entirely dependent on context. I have no idea of the regulations in the Netherlands, but suspect that whilst you may be able to 'get away' with a composting toilet, you may also get into some serious trouble, especially if something was to go wrong. Even in a country like Australia, there may be differences if you were to attempt this in a back garden in a town or in the outback. Many developing countries clearly have no regulations about sewage disposal at all. Joeturner 09:28, 21 April 2013 (PDT)
I'm not sure whether I would use a composting toilet in the Netherlands (if I were to live there) at all. In some countries, it is for example illegal for any (new) house to not connect to the sewerage system (whether or not you have a flush toilet). It's Kafkaesk but that's how it is. So clearly, legal issues do have practical effects for anyone that wishes to use ecosan-style waste disposal systems.
Anyway, can we include some more info on how to make the composting action as efficient/safe as possible, ie by detailing the amounts/types of "bulking agents" that need to be added (ie per kg of feces). Also, I was wondering whether a meter can be used to measure the C/N ratio; that way the person can add the perfect amount of bulking agent to the feces. Perhaps that use of de-worming herbs may also be used by the users. Finally, what is the maximum amount of time the worm eggs can survive (with a sufficiently long resting period, the feces can be made 100% safe I guess) ?
No, the N and C measurements are laboratory experiments. And they are of limited use anyway, because there are different pools of carbon, some of which are not accessible to soil microbes so do not break down in compost. The C:N ratio can only be a guide. You have no expertise on legality of sewerage and nor do I. And nor, I suspect, does anyone else in this community have the level to give the kind of legal advice you say you want.
I have answered your other points several times: many years (in an imperfect composting toilet as described) for the eggs, as much carbon rich material as possible. There is no perfect number. There isn't anything else to say, if you don't believe me, read the science. Joeturner 01:32, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

Page update[edit]

I did some minor updates to the page, moving some info to more appropriate pages and improving these aswell (ie the ecosan page and WASH page) I also tried to remove some of the many typo's and weird vocabulary/sentences (sometimes it's not even really clear what the autor meant to say/information he wanted to give with certain sentences).

I noticed however that Joe deleted some important sections (although he also added much new and appreciated info). These sections are:

  • the construction section
  • the placement section
  • the operation and maintenance section (see [www.appropedia.org/index.php?title=Composting_toilets&oldid=219117 my old page]) I am wondering why this information was deleted (the article seems very incomplete without these); the section are now at Appropedia:Incubator/composting toilets extra info but I wonder why this is ?

In addition, I saw that Joe also (almost completely) reinstated the old composting page before I started to partially redo the page he made (making an effort to make the page a suitable compromise for the both of us). Appearantly, working together on pages and accepting some minor adaptations proves a real challenge to him. So, I am wondering whether we could just agree to disagree, and make each a page for ourselves. Organisations allready have "Original:page name" pages, so perhaps this is possible for us aswell. That way, Joe can fiddle on his own -scientifically correct- page and I can work on my own page aswell, focused for practical use (I may have a project coming up where such pages may be essential). Any other articles (where the both of us do not have disagreements on) can just remain to be unaltered (no 2 versions). I think the approach can avoid a lot of annoyance. KVDP 06:10, 21 April 2013 (PDT)

I hope we can resolve this without attempts to make separate articles - which I don't think will solve the problem. If Joe thinks that certain statements are unsuitable for Appropedia, I want to take his concerns seriously, not make a separate page that he is supposed to ignore.
Could you please provide diffs for each edit that you take issue with, along with a link to any discussion that has taken place already? That makes it much easier to understand what's going on. (Anyone else can do the same if necessary.)
Without getting into the details of the disagreement, there is at least one area where I strongly agree with Joe - the need for clear sources when making claims, especially where it impacts on health or safety - that is part of A: Rigor as I see it. If you have such sources and Joe still disagrees, then we can discuss the sources together.
Joe and I may see things a bit differently in some ways, though I'm sure we can work it out. E.g. sometimes Joe might want to delete something, where I would prefer to keep it with suitable sources and disclaimers. We should not keep everything, though, and I'm happy if we discuss where we draw the line. --Chriswaterguy 07:11, 21 April 2013 (PDT)
Really, this drives me nuts. KVDP does not know what he is talking about on this issue, but insists on writing things that have no scientific basis and are not properly referenced. He insists on changing things that I have (at least attempted) to properly reference.
The crux of the issue is this: people are (we hope) going to find information here useful in an appropriate technology situation. So there is no space in idle speculation, unscientific claims, or individuals who think they are too important to justify what they are claiming.
Now, KVDP, you cannot possibly be any kind of expert on all the subjects you edit on Appropedia. I cannot clean up what you write on other pages because I don't have the knowledge or the time to do the research. I can tell you for a fact that you know very little about composting. Which is fine, that in itself is not a reason to avoid edits, but in that situation you have to at least show that you are engaging with the subject and provide good sources to your information. Things are not just the way they are because you say so or because you want them to be.
As Chris says, I am have not written these pages as the final word on the subject, but as a means for discussion. If you have better sources or reasons to believe that the sources I've provided are wrong, or my interpretations of them are wrong, or that other sources are better or anything else, let's hear them. If you KVDP just want to reflect your ignorance on the subject by recreating pages filled with wrong information, I will delete them. Because some of the things you appear to believe are actually dangerous and should not appear in an appropriate technology wiki.
In future, I want to see all claims made about composting with a proper reference. If they are wild, undiscussed and unsubstantiated, I will delete them. If you don't like that, KVDP, I suggest you discuss your approach on Village Pump and see whether the founders of Appropedia would rather see referenced or unreferenced material here. Joeturner 09:09, 21 April 2013 (PDT)
Joe, in many instances, I have not seen you add much "sources" as you say here. I often seen you making bold claims, and not providing any source at all. In other paragraphs, there are sources, but there are no bold claims made at that section and it is unclear to see what claim you wish to substantiate there.
In the last paragraph here finally, you make it sound as if I'm some sort of vandal, and wish to make pages filled with wrong/unverified information. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't see where I reincluded any mistakes, and if I have, you haven't clarified which mistakes these are, but rather just deleted entire sections of text. I know I'm not all that all-knowing on composting and I have no doubt I sometimes make mistakes or write things that are inaccurate. As such, I don't mind at all if you delete things of me that are wrong (actually I prefer it, I want a correct page too). I however have great annoyance with your unstructured style of writing, and the fact that things which I find essential to comprehend the issue thoroughly have been deleted.
I think that people get lost in your unstructured texts/phrases, and mistakes, scattered info. I find that for people new to the subject it works like a maze and struggle to or do not find the information they require at all and just give up in the end.
Next, the changes necessairy. For the composting toilets page, just reinclude the info from the "incubator" page, and then delete this incubator page (see above).
For the composting page, see the differences at this comparison. As stated above, I don't know where the mistakes are, to me it just seems that you want your own layout and links/confusing style of writing. The video's also appear indispensable to you. As it is thus rather hard to come to an understanding about such things, I opted to just make 2 seperate pages.KVDP 00:45, 22 April 2013 (PDT)
Correct, you are a vandal. The videos are replaced because they illustrate the text and you have provided no reasoning why they should not be on the page. Your recent edits do not improve the page (for example, I purposely added a section called 'alternatives' - because they are alternative technologies - ie not composting). Your incubator pages contain no sources other than wikipedia. Your other deleted material claims a level of expertise that you don't have, suggest that the process is prescriptive, when it isn't, show image that you have no knowledge of their efficacy, ignore the science and are wrong in basic details. There is no reason to suppose that you have any expertise in saying whether or not these things should appear on the page.
I am holding you to account for your poor composting knowledge. I am reverting your edits and I am locking this page. If you wish to enter an actual discussion on the facts, or on your approach, you can do so in Village Pump or some other page. You cannot continue to make changes on things that you have no knowledge. Stick to things you know something about or provide good references. If you can't do that, don't edit. 01:25, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

(undent) Okay, let's all cool down. KVDP's intentions are positive, so I would never call him a vandal. Even if we have to part ways on a certain issue, or restrict anyone's editing, we can do that in as friendly a way as possible. So if anyone is exasperated, breathe a while then let's continue...

KVDP, thanks for providing diffs. I don't see any big issues with Joe's editing here, though. You corrected some spelling and grammatical errors - thank you - and Joe removed a small amount of content (second diff). Perhaps the biggest issue for you is the deletion of the related pages... the removal of the red links to the deleted pages is natural enough. Re the deletions:

  • Deletion in MediaWiki can be undone - no need to stress.
  • I prefer moving to the A:Incubator instead of deletion, except for actual spam. This is especially true where a page has some good information among the bad, which I think was the case here. Even where a page seems unsalvageable, A:Userfication is an option. "Prove me wrong - turn it into a good page." (But when moving, I do deselect the option to create a redirect - if a page isn't suitable to be in mainspace, it's probably not suitable to be linked from mainspace, either.)

Now, is there a way we can (a) put this energy into editing Appropedia rather than arguing, (b) unlock the page without edit wars, and (c) feel good about what we're doing here?

KVDP, how about editing compost-related content outside mainspace only (e.g. in the incubator), and making suggestions on talk pages as needed? We don't have to agree with all Joe's edits (just like no one has to agree with all of mine) but he does have knowledge about soils and compost, and I'd be happy to see him do more in this area. --Chriswaterguy 14:45, 22 April 2013 (PDT)

I don't accept that wrong/dangerous information should be available anywhere on Appropedia. And the information I deleted from this subject was replicated from pages that I'd previously removed to the incubator anyway.
Regarding the format of this page, I think it is sound, namely:
    • Explanation of terms
    • Brief explanation of the science
    • Advantages
    • Disadvantages
    • Safety - explained with many references on another page
    • Other issues
    • Case studies on Appropedia
    • Other relevant technologies on Appropedia
    • Links to organisations with better information
I do not believe there is any space here for:
    • Untested designs - there is no need for this as there are many good tested resources from other organisations. I certainly accept that additional links to external resources would improve this page.
    • False precision about the process
    • Unreferenced numbers (weights, volumes, etc).
    • Poor diagrams
    • Information that is not generally accepted - for example, the vast majority of good sources suggest that sawdust or ash should be used in a composting toilet, I do not think we should suggest that particular tree species are appropriate. Or if there is a source that says that they are, it should be indicated.
I accept that this means that someone will not be able to look at this page and gain enough information to embark on a composting toilet, but it seems to me to be far more appropriate for us to a) say what we know, and only that b) provide case studies and c) signpost to better/more comprehensive resources than to make it sound like we have more expertise than we actually have (again, I believe this is unnecessary as there are lots of good resources out there). Technology that is untested, unclear or wrong in this area is actually dangerous.
I believe as this structure stands, someone can come here, get an overview of the subject and find further information. I think that is what Appropedia is for. Joeturner 00:37, 23 April 2013 (PDT)
The structure looks good to me. Also agreed re what doesn't go. A topic page isn't the place for detailed instructions - they can go on a how to and project / case study pages.
I've had the impression that some material has been removed that wasn't wrong, at the same time as dubious content being removed. But what I saw may have been moved to the incubator as part of a different page, as you said.
KVDP has respected clear editing limits when they've been set in the past (where it hasn't involved a question of judgment, e.g. not renaming pages), so how about we go with:
  1. requesting him not to editing the content of composting pages in mainspace until further notice, and
  2. unlocking the page?
KVDP has the right to raise this at A:VP, of course, but I'd request that he refrain from editing these pages in the meantime.
That leaves the question of seriously inaccurate pages outside mainspace, which we need to deal with separately. --Chriswaterguy 17:52, 23 April 2013 (PDT)
I am happy to engage with a discussion with KVDP - or anyone else - about a better structure, but as far as that goes (and from what KVDP has attempted to reinsert into various pages about composting), in my view that is part of a wider discussion currently in play on A:VP because it cuts to the core of what Appropredia is here for. Layout and text within the structure is a different story, providing it takes account of the points I made above about content that should not be here.
Also to be born in mind is that the images currently displayed here are not tested and should be removed. In light of the discussion about KVDP's images in A:VP, I have not been deleting his images (other than a couple of very specific instances tagged in VP) until this is resolved.
Minor changes, including language, links, titles, grammar and spelling is of course a different issue.
As far as I am concerned, KVDP should only edit pages in the mainspace in composting if he works within these parameters, preferably with supervision. And I don't really want to see pages in his namespace that flatly disagree with them either. Joeturner 00:08, 24 April 2013 (PDT)
I never did understood why the Appropedia board promotes users that only just arrived. In my view people shouldn't be promoted to admin untill they have atleast done some 3-4 years of editing at Appropedia, but then again that's just me. In any case I see you took (good?) use of your new (locking) privileges.
In regards to the composting page: although Chris states he doesn't see any big issues with Joe's editing apart from spelling and grammatical errors, I actually do discover huge differences. For example, the entire intro has been rephrased and honestly, I don't see the point in letting anyone new to the subject of reading that "construct" (other than confusing him). I feel that we need a practical and understandable page for this, and it's not enough to just point people to other pages/articles as suggested at this talk page. The point of Appropedia is to supply immediate, in-depth, practical info. Else, they shouldn't bother with this page at all, wikipedia has a page on this too.
In regards to the particular tree species; I never suggested these as alternatives to sawdust or ash. Rather, I mentioned them as they provide good (soft) leaves to clean the behind, after which they can be left in the feces chamber. As they're leaves, they should be better alternatives to toilet paper (not chemically processed, and much cheaper)
I would agree with a userfied article on both the Composting toilets and the Composting page. If needed, I can place the gallery images on that aswell. I can btw add the OSAT tags to those pages. I don't like the idea of the "A:Incubator" pages. I find it the "incubator" in the name btw annoying; an incubator is a device for controlling environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity and is also discussed on some pages at Appropedia allready (allready designed one of such devices myself, ie for fish eggs) So using that name for pages that are being worked on will almost certainly create confusion.

KVDP 04:57, 30 April 2013 (PDT)

Content from PermaWiki[edit]

I've ported the composting toilets page from Permawiki here: Composting_toilets_(PermaWiki). It should probably be merged into this page, if possible. Given the past concerns about the content of this page by an expert in the field, I'd be careful about what information to bring in. Additionally, there is an article called Humanure for soil building project ([1]) which certainly needs some attention before it is "ready for prime time". Maybe I'll port that one directly into the incubator. --Ethan (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2015 (PDT)