Response to the South London Press article supporting the idea of the super sewer

Dear Editor-in-Chief of the South London Press
I would like to comment on the article issued by Glenn Meredith in your paper earlier this year on the 21 June. She said that the super sewer is a necessity, and I would like to point out some areas that Mrs Meredith may not have considered:
The super sewer is only one possible solution proposed by Thames Water to the problem of the discharges of untreated raw sewage into the river Thames. There are however other alternatives that would appear to me not to have been considered at the moment. For instance, if we stopped the discharge of our own excrements into the current sewer system this would solve the problem to start with, although would create another one: how getting rid of that waste then? Well, there are solutions that could, if implemented, have the potential of, apart from ensuring a permanently cleaner river Thames, save water, energy, and produce high quality fertilizer for the promotion of local sustainable agriculture.
This could be achieved if all the current water closets in the capital were replaced by vacuum sewer systems or a similar technology, as explained in http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/09/recycling-animal-and-human-dung-is-the-key-to-sustainable-farming.html.
The problem needs to be solved, one way or another, and it is going to cost us money and inconveniences, but I strongly believe that the option of the super sewer would benefit Thames Water more than anyone else as they will continue to sell us precious water that it is going to be wasted down the drains with our excrements.