Stool problem
This discussion, gross or not, is necessary and a part of life for some of us. It can't always be avoided. So, with anothers, as well as my own interest at, uh, well,
end, I guess, here
goes.
You will pardon my puns, won't you. I simply can't let a prime opportunity get by without taking advantage of it.
I too have very large hard stools due to the methadone and morphine I must take for chronic pain. I also take lasix to remove fluid build up in my leg. Due to a right inguinal lymphectomy some 20 years ago, huge amounts of fluids build and that can lead to cellulitis, or an infection in the subcutaneous layer of the skin from the presence of excessive plasma (90% water).
It's very dangerous!
So . . . considering the pain and possibility of death if I avoid medications, I accept the resulting monster turds, to use the vernacular, and continue to also suffer somewhat ingloriously with a waste removal problem. As it cannot be any other way, I accept it, and also seek a better solution.
Those who suggested sticks and gloves to deal with fecal matter should be advised that it can contain dangerous bacteria; salmonella among others and contact can cause typhoid and paratyphoid fever. Salmonella can live for days, dry and out of the body and months in water. When cleaned up, it easily spreads and can becomes airborne, part of the water we use, and even find it's way into our food. Breathe it in, ingest it, and you can become extremely ill. Death is a real possibility. So, now that you have been advised, leave the stuff alone if at all possible.
Any suggestion stools be allowed to "soak" and soften, is often made by those without hard stool experience. Yes, they will absorb water, but it often takes overnight or longer to create any reasonable fluid uptake that can result in sufficiently softened,actually flushable fecal matter.
When I arise in the morning to visit the bathroom, brush my teeth and take a leak, the last thing I want is the sight and smell of yesterdays mess. I'm certain most modern folks would say much the same. So soaking isn;t something most want to deal with--although I have done it. Ugggghhhh!
OK, on to the toilets . . . As a scientist and engineer, I am commonly called on to observe and suggest, and to eventually solve difficulties of all sorts. In this case, observations are vital, if a bit disgusting. Are the stools actually going into the trap? The lower bowl design of some toilets holds larger stools at the rim, keeping them from entering the opening to the trap. Stiff, hard, overly long stools are most prone to this. So look, and see if the stools that fail to flush, have actually entered the trap. If not, the design of the lower portion of the bowl may be too narrow. Most toilets actually have what appear to be two bowls. The upper larger one, and at the bottom, a smaller bowl shape that additionally contains the tap opening or entrance. The shape and size of this lower bowl may be what is giving us the the problems.
I had a new toilet recently installed by an unconcerned contractor who did take my words seriously enough. He installed a toilet designed for the removal of normal size flexible stools, not the wide and lengthy, extremely compacted hard product of my intestinal tract. And, although it has 3 inch dump valve and a two and an eighth inch trap tunnel, the stools do not enter the trap easily. Instead, they tend to sit on top of that smaller, lower bowl, requiring multiple flushes or (good grief) an assist to properly enter the tunnel. Uck!
When I have waited long enough and flushed often enough the stools eventually align moving into and through the trap easily. However, because the stools always hang up on the top portion of that lower bowl, they leave a mess that requires cleaning. Oh Ugghh!
Additionally, there are indications that chlorine will damage the items in the tank. As I am on a country water system that requires excessive chlorine to kill known bacterial organisms, I am concerned with product longevity. (toilet parts, not stools) <Whew>
This may not be a good purchase even though at only $98 bucks, it is less than many others that are also rated for 1000 gram flushing on a single try. FYI, the MaP flushing trials are performed using soy paste wrapped in plastic to simulate human waste.
Interestingly, some time spent looking over the material provided by MaP reveals this toilet had an initial rating of only 600, to be later upgraded. Then it was called by another name. Niagara is the manufacturer of the Glacier Bay line of toilets sold at Home Depot. I cannot help but wonder if a redesign was committed without a nomenclature change to achieve this sparkling rating for only $98. It would not be the first time something similar has been pulled off by an American business.
This particular toilet is a Glacier Bay model number 331-725 and was purchased at Home Depot. The MaP index gives it a 1000 gram, single flush capability, but those performing the test may not have been using soy paste of an abnormal length, girth, solidity, or enough soy paste units at one time to simulate an old man with an intestinal difficulty . . . like me. . In real turd tests, this toilet has extreme difficulty removing hard waste of size or length as it tends to sit on top of the lower bowl and does not easily reach the trap.
My research seems to indicate that any of the pressure assisted toilets with a bowl shape that does not have an additional "minor bowl" at the bottom to keep the waste from entering the trap effectively may be useful for those of us with this difficulty. I have been investigating some of the Kohlers and the Highline and wellworth pressure lite models seem interesting. I have not seen the bowl design as yet however.
I have not been able to look inside many toilets as I have trouble getting around, but a Google images search for "inside toilet bowl" revealed a wide variety of differing shapes.
If you follow my URL's below, in the first image you can see a bowl containing blue fluid that could potentially trap lengthy hard stools on the edge of the lower bowl preventing them from entering the trap. They would have to be angled end down to go into this one.
The second is better, and the 3rd is closer to ideal. They allow the fecal matter a much more natural course to end up entering the trap. I think this is what to look for. Regrettably however, this shape is not designed to ideally suit the 1,6 or 1.4 gallon flush capacity of today's high efficiency toilets. Still, this bowl shape, combined with both a wide throat and a polished, or highly smooth trap passage. If the trap tunnel curve is smooth and wide, not the typically short radius, it could be ideal. I know one of the Toto toilets comes close in specifications,but is not pressure assist. I have not seen it yet, so all I can offer is specifications.
Combine the above with a power assisted flush and the problem may be as close to solved as possible. I would suggest a look at the Toto Ultramax toilet MS854114S. If I recall correctly, it has a well rounded 2 1/4 inch trap and a 3" dump valve. If the bowl and especially the lower bowl shape are proportioned correctly as well as decently designed, it may prove to be a realistic and affordable solution.
May I suggest you look on line and review the MaP test reports. Not only will that provide a listing of current specifications, but it contains manufacturers model names and numbers that can be fed into an online search engine like Google that has image results. Perhaps the toilet can be reviewed both through specifications, MaP reports, customer approval ratings, and others before you waste your time and money on the purchase of a facility that once again, proves sadly ineffective.
The URL's for the toilet images and MaP reports are below. They were too lengthy to include above as links.
Toilet #1 - Poor
Toilet #2 - Better
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/220/512412202_96764118ec_m.jpg
Toilet #3 - Best
http://www.sharkenterprises.biz/jtm/toiletstains03.jpg
Toilet #4 - excellent
https://www.map-testing.com/
Contains numerous PDF files sorted by manufacturer, performance, flushometer.
Scroll the web page down to see them sorted by gravity fed, dual flush, and pressure
assisted.
Good luck, I hope my natural desires to research have been of some assistance to you. I am well aware of how many people find this sort of research so detestable that it is just above cleaning a four day old clog from a well jammed up commercial toilet--by hand! If I can assist personally, please avail your self the opportunity to contact me via email. I just joined, so I am unsure if the site contains my email address, but, replacing AT with the proper symbol, and using cojon at the front and suddenlink.net as the ending, your message will arrive here. Sorry, but that manner of providing my address is the best method of stumping the internet combing bots that are responsible for my inbox having 600 or more monthly ad's.
Good Day!
John Marion Cook