Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelert  |
Faeces, particularly from animals with short transit alimentary systems (carnivors, and some omnivors), particularly when dealt with in bulk, needs to be treated as 'hazardous waste'. Humans in developed countries have settled on water mediated sewerage systems as the safest way to handle that waste and as a health protection measure it is difficult to beat. Monkey Orchid makes some valid points about the 'cost' of water mediated sewerage, but given the availability of the system the flushable bag option for pet waste seems the safest and to the user, relatively low cost.
Water based systems that allow flow that may affect groundwater seem paticularly vulnerable to failure of containment. The most obvious health risk is from the persistence of parasite eggs in the soil or ground water - in the case of dogs, Toxocara canis is particularly dangerous to children and babies in the womb. The eggs can last for up to six years in favourable conditions and are resistent to many climate conditions with the exception of desication. On that basis I'd see the water based digester as a source of problems - certainly where the location is over a high watertable or that is liable to flood.
Prior to the popularity of the flushable toilet in the 19thC, there was some devlopment in the use of the 'earth closet' -
On-line: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and it's possible that a 'dry system' for dealing with pet waste would be a safer and cheaper alternative than a water based digester. The key thing would be to ensure the system remained closed apart from aeration and that the final product was desicated prior to distribution in an open environment:
Survival of Fecal Coliforms in Dry-Composting Toilets
Personally I'd regard any non working domestic animal as a pollution source and would avoid it's acquisition in the first place.
CM