Continuous roll toilet paper verses single dispensers

As ease of cleaning and timing aspects become more important for cleaners, more and more public buildings are swapping their toilet paper dispensers for the continuous rolls. Having discussed this with several people I am of the opinion that this kind of toilet roll is a waste of paper, and the serrated cutting edge at the base is dangerous.

There are two ways to use toilet paper: fold it up to form a small compact hand size wad, or scrunch it into a ball. Depending or your preference either way is useful and presumably does the job. Personally I am a fold-up type, but my mother used to scrunch it into a ball; so, to each his own.

Whichever way you prefer, I am aware that when removing the paper from the continuous roll the amount of paper distributed is always more than if I had taken sheets from a single dispenser, or torn a specific number off the perforated sheet roll.

Over the years I have discovered that five sheets of toilet paper gives me the protective amount I need. I have heard others recommend the same number. When I remove paper from the continuous roll: I am very careful to ensure I don’t cut myself on the tearing edge and once I fold the paper into the same size as a single sheet, I end up with many more folds than equivalent to five. Meaning my hand size wad is somewhat thicker than I would usually use. Therefore a waste of paper.

Why do I and others with whom I have discussed this, take more paper when using the continuous roll? I do believe the dangerous cutting edge has a lot to do with it. Because there is no perforation, the cutting edge is required. But, as that edge is sharp and dangerous, people pull out more paper so, when they tear, their hands are far away from the jagged edge. This means there is more paper being removed with each tear.

By having continuous toilet rolls, someone, somewhere is saving money. But that is only on the manufacturing side. Elsewhere there is a loss because more paper is being used. Maybe adding the perforations would help. At least they could then remove those awful jagged tearing edges at the bottom.

I feel someone has come up with a cost saving idea which they haven’t completely thought through. What do you think???