In article . com,
Sacha wrote:

Anything that saves water has to be a Good Thing. ...

Sorry, but .... As a mantra, that is fine. As science, it is nonsense.

Water isn't "spent", it is merely diverted from one use to another.
The key question is what the OVERALL consequences of a change in use
is, and not whether it uses less water in itself. For example, using
less water at the expense of increasing the pollution load in run-off
is a Bad Thing.

I definitely agree with you (and said so, explicitly) that this
particular technique has effectively no downside, and therefore is
always on the side of Good. I can believe that using even 10% less
water in Jersey is desirable, but it is neither here nor there on the
UK. And remember that the "saving" of water by this method depends
greatly on the evaporation rate, which is somewhat higher in Jersey
than even in Cambridge - and MUCH higher than in most of the UK!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.