Toilet Explosion Leaves Man Afraid to Flush

Four were injured in toilet explosions in a Brooklyn development.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Amy Eckert

Four people are injured, and one man is afraid to flush, after a series of toilet explosions at a Brooklyn development.

As the Daily News reports, the drama began when Michel Pierre, a 58-year-old Flatbush resident, heard that plumbing maintenance was being done in his development to install a backflow prevention valve. At 11 PM, he flushed the toilet to see if the building’s water had been reactivated, only to have the toilet blow up in his face. Pierre was knocked unconscious by the blast and lacerated by multiple pieces of ceramic shrapnel.

“I remember there was a ‘boom’ and the thing exploded in my face,” Pierre recounted to the Daily News. “I was blinded and pieces flew all over the place.”

Pierre awoke covered in blood and cuts. He was treated at Methodist Hospital, where his wounds required a total of 30 stitches. In addition to Pierre, three other members of his Caton Tower development were also hurt by other toilet explosions.

However, for Pierre, the lasting damage is as much mental as it is physical. He is too afraid to flush the toilet from inside the bathroom, and now uses a piece of string to turn the handle from a safe distance.

After all this abuse at the hands of his throne, Pierre’s lawyer, Sanford Rubenstein, believes his client is entitled to some kind of compensation. “Toilets are supposed to flush, not explode,” said Rubenstein, who is filing a lawsuit agains Century Management, the development’s owner.

A lawyer representing the building’s co-op board informed The Daily News that the development’s engineer and insurance provider are still investigating whether the explosion was preventable. Experts told the paper that a buildup of air pressure in the pipes during plumbing work is the most likely reason for the blasts.

While legal matters are hashed out, victims of the commode explosions will be working on getting over a trauma still fresh in their minds. “It sounds silly but I’m still scared,” admitted Pierre. ”I can’t stop thinking about it every time I look at the bowl.”

5 comments
Geoffwakeling01
Geoffwakeling01

As soon as a part of the water closet mechanism fails or is too worn to act right it will hinder complete operation and generate plumbing problems like sweaty bowls, obstructed drains and overflowing toilets. Plumbing service providers will detect the fault and put into use a befitting solution to collect get your toilet working again.

http://www.plumbarena.co.uk

PeterHo
PeterHo

Something is more than "Bizarre" here! 

Only if the toilet tank had a microscopic hairline crack AND the lid was fastened to the tank with an airtight gasket AND the rubber flap that lets water go from the tank to the toilet bowl was of an inflexible material with a sealing gasket AND the pipe bringing water to the tank was probably on the order of an inch in diameter across AND the fill valve having a pipe of like size (no such toilet fill valve of that size is produced), could water of any conceivable pressure push enough volume of air into the tank faster then the air could escape, could this have happened.  

And any water that would come flowing following the air would have produced a flood. 

The odds of any one of the conditions are possible, but of all of these simultaneously happening would likely be in the tens of millions to one. 

Even if a pressure tank within the toilet tank of a water saving toilet had blown up, the volume of air released into the tank would be in-sufficient to blow up the tank faster then it would leak out.  

Only a chemical reaction could have produced the volume of gases in excess of that which would leak out around the tank cover to do this.  The picture shows no such evidence of any tampering or water damage. 

The odds of this being a staged accident are magnitudes of times greater then it not being a staged accident.

That, or it's a bogus story. 

PeterHo
PeterHo

Something is more than "Bizarre" here! 

Only if the toilet tank had a microscopic hairline crack AND the lid was fastened to the tank with an airtight gasket AND the rubber flap that lets water go from the tank to the toilet bowl was of an inflexible material with a sealing gasket AND the pipe bringing water to the tank was probably on the order of an inch in diameter across AND the fill valve having a pipe of like size (no such toilet fill valve of that size is produced), could water of any conceivable pressure push enough volume of air into the tank faster then the air could escape, could this have happened.  

And any water that would come flowing following the air would have produced a flood. 

The odds of any one of the conditions are possible, but of all of these simultaneously happening would likely be in the tens of millions to one. 

Even if a pressure tank within the toilet tank of a water saving toilet had blown up, the volume of air released into the tank would be in-sufficient to blow up the tank faster then it would leak out.  

Only a chemical reaction could have produced the volume of gases in excess of that which would leak out around the tank cover to do this.  The picture shows no such evidence of any tampering or water damage. 

The odds of this being a staged accident are magnitudes of times greater then it not being a staged accident.  That, or it's a bogus story.

PeterHo
PeterHo

Something is more than "Bizarre" here! 

Only if the toilet tank had a microscopic hairline crack AND the lid was fastened to the tank with an airtight gasket AND the rubber flap that lets water go from the tank to the toilet bowl was of an inflexible material with a sealing gasket AND the pipe bringing water to the tank was probably on the order of an inch in diameter across AND the fill valve have a pipe of like size (no such toilet fill valve of that size is produced), could water of any conceivable pressure push enough volume of air into the tank faster then the air could escape, could this have happened.   And any water that would come flowing following the air would have produced a flood.  

The odds of any one of the conditions are possible, but of all of these simultaneously happening would likely be in the tens of millions to one. 

Even if a pressure tank within the toilet tank of a water saving toilet had blown up, the volume of air released into the tank would be insufficient to blow up the tank faster then it would leak out.  

Only a chemical reaction could have produced the volume of gases in excess of that which would leak out around the tank cover to do this.  The picture shows no such evidence of any tampering or water damage.  The odds of this being a staged accident are magnitudes of times greater then it not being a staged accident.  That, or it's a bogus story.

PeterHo
PeterHo

Something is strange here!  Only if the toilet tank had a microscopic hairline crack AND the lid was fastened to the tank with an airtight gasket AND the rubber flap that lets water go from the tank to the toilet was of an inflexible material with a sealing gasket AND the pipe bringing water to the tank was probably on the order of an inch in diameter across, could water of any conceivable pressure push enough volume of air into the tank faster then the air could escape, could this have happened.   The odds of this happening would likely be in the tens of millions to one.