Do the potty police have science on their side?

[roygee]

In the flounder run, in the fall in southeast Texas, there are at least 10000 porpoises in six miles of the pass. Multiply that for the poop!

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Thats my understanding of the science also. Scientists told me anything boaters add to the high quantity of nutrients in the sea are negligible.
Its a no-brainer - sea-water is loaded with nutrients/plankton etc - just smell the clean seawater thats been allowed to die in your plumbing system.

This may elicit wailing from those who think that if something smells bad, it must BE bad, but we squirt about 3 tablespoons of San-X TDX into the bowl after a flush. This product contains formaldehyde and kills e coli. It also prevents urine from forming deposits on the sides of the bowl and allows you to use the head throughout the day without any objectionable odor. Then, when you empty the tank (3 miles off shore, outside NDZ, etc.), you are discharging the elemental components of human waste, not the bacteria. The johnny doesn't get flushed except in the event of a solid waste experience, so we use maybe 2 gallons a day of fresh water. With a 250 gallon black water tank, that means we can be really selective about where we empty the tank, making sure it is in deep, deep water (3 miles offshore, outside NDZ, etc.), knowing we aren't adding a bacterial load to the ocean, which given the fact that the average whale poops a ton or so at a time is the proverbial drop in the ocean.

And, just to irritate eco-warriors even more, when you pump NPK into the ocean, you feed krill, which are in turn at the base of a food chain responsible for the enormous carbon sink that is the ocean. So, when you flush your johnnie into the ocean you are fighting global warming!!

[a64pilot]

I don’t know about the formaldehyde though, it may be better if it wasn’t there?

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by thinwater

The general argument seems to be "I'm special so I can poo anywhere I want." Or at least that is what this thread would sound like to any non-sailor. How do we argue that our poo is somehow better? Sure, fish poop in the ocean. Bears shi_t in the woods. I don't understand the argument. We're not fish and we're not bears.

Hey, easy there. I'm just trying to understand the actual facts and whether the facts and the science support the policy. If they do, great, I'll play along. If the science says that Type I/II systems are inadequate even in areas where they are lawful, well, that's going to inform what I put on my boat; my present home waters are not in a NDZ so these systems are attractive from a practical standpoint but I'm not going to install one if it's clearly a bad idea ecologically.



From a legal and regulatory standpoint, it's clear that there's wide variation in the rules from place to place despite the biology and ecology of the situation being broadly similar whether you're in, say, Connecticut or the Bahamas. Hence the questions.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I don’t know about the formaldehyde though, it may be better if it wasn’t there?

It's produced by every cell in your body and decomposes rapidly in the presence of sunlight. If it wasn't there in your body, you would die.

The best argument against using it in the form I use it is that in its concentrated form, it is a known carcinogen. However, so are many household cleaners, so like any chemical, prudent usage is a requirement. I use a very high tech way of dispensing it - an old ketchup squirt bottle that I place right next to the water before squeezing. The result is that I am not exposed to anything obnoxious, and I would rather do this than discharge e coli into natural waters, wherever they are.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Simply not true. Manufacturers have a real tendency to exaggerate beyond all reality. You can Google the EPA standard and EPA studies.
EPA Summary Data (results in mg/L)

Annalyte After Treatment Result EPA Sewage Treatment Standard
BOD5 780 45
TSS 1,000 45
Fecal Coliform < 82 200 (swimming areas)

The data was quite variable, with standard deviations over 100%.

--

Basically Type 1s bleach your poo. You decide if that is really treatment. I think the answer is "sort of" and "probably good enough" most of the time.

----

The general argument seems to be "I'm special so I can poo anywhere I want." Or at least that is what this thread would sound like to any non-sailor. How do we argue that our poo is somehow better? Sure, fish poop in the ocean. Bears shi_t in the woods. I don't understand the argument. We're not fish and we're not bears. We are people and there are a LOT of us. Yes, 3 miles is a random number, but would discussion be any different if it were 2 miles or 1 mile? I don't think so.


If you want to argue for improved POTW treatment, reduction in overflows, and elimination of combined sewers, make the argument. Separate subject. This rings of "don't ticket me for speeding because the other guy was much worse." You worry about you.

No, the general argument is whether non point discharge of treated human waste poses an empiricallly substantiated problem. Political inclinations would say yes, science says no. So, if politics informs your view on public policy, then NDZs make all kind of sense. If science informs them, not so much.

For example....how many boats flushing their heads would be needed to congregate around one location in Puget Sound to discharge 244 million gallons? And would that discharge be a disaster? Apparently not, so given this, how do you justify enforcing a NDZ in the entire area of Puget Sound? Politics, that's how.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...rely-affected/

[senormechanico]

At one and a half gallons per flush per my ElectroScan maximum (ours works out to around a half gallon per flush) that would be 162, 504,000 boats.
If all were like ours, that would be 733,200,000 boats.
Imagine that in any anchorage or even drifting someplace.

Neither of the above scenarios would be realistic and even if they were able to be enacted in reality, there would be lots of other problems more important than the poop production !!

FWIW, from PM's and other received, I sense a big blow back starting up over all this unnecessary NDZ baloney.


Tell your congress critter how you feel and give them some reason to actually DO THEIR JOB !

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Simply not true. Manufacturers have a real tendency to exaggerate beyond all reality. You can Google the EPA standard and EPA studies.
EPA Summary Data (results in mg/L)

Annalyte After Treatment Result EPA Sewage Treatment Standard
BOD5 780 45
TSS 1,000 45
Fecal Coliform < 82 200 (swimming areas)

The data was quite variable, with standard deviations over 100%.

I assume that the study has been reviewed meticulously.

So what is the scientific/ecological and/or human health concern about the BOD5, TSS, Fecal Coliform results and associated statistical analysis?

Is there a belief that the referenced study results are not valid for policy creation and enforcement?

[Jim Cate]

Here's my take on the "science" thing:

The Med is jammed with pleasure boats of many sorts. These, according to folks who sail there, do not use holding tanks or on board treatment. Rather, they dump directly, in crowded harbours, near beaches thronged with tourists, and wherever they may be. So, LOTS of direct discharge in highly populated areas.

It seems to me that if this long term practice was in fact harmful to human health, there would be overwhelming epidemiological evidence to support that idea. The science for making such determinations is in hand, and in fact I believe that many studies of various health factors are routinely done for other reasons.

I am not aware that this area suffers from unusual health issues of the sort trumpeted by the anti-dumping crowd, as surely there would be if the hazard is real. If I'm wrong about this, some citations would be nice to see.

And on the side: there have been some mention of diseases that can be spread by fecal contamination, things like hepatitis and cholera and other bad actors. I don't want to come across in the "my poop don't stink" group, but if I am not infected with these diseases, I don't think my feces can infect others. And I doubt that many active sailors are infected, either. If live bacteria or viruses are found in seawater, would a more likely source not be land based hospitals... places where sick folks congregate, and whose effluent may not be effectively treated before discharge?

This unsavory subject is always treated emotionally in the sailing fora, and it takes a sorta brave soul to argue against current laws, but some thoughtful examination of reality isn't a bad thing. I think that "science" isn't on the side of the poo police.

Jim

[markpierce]

Please, keep your **** to yourself.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Please, keep your **** to yourself.

Science is not on your side, you should get rid of it.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Here's my take on the "science" thing:

The Med is jammed with pleasure boats of many sorts. ......

Jim
Not that I disagree with your point, but I can't see holding up the Mediterranean as any kind of an example of a healthy sea.

[sailorboy1]

There’s science, there’s politics, and there there’s real real.

The discharge rules and NDZ in the USA have no practical chance of being loosened because it’s a political thing to do. It makes the vast number of people (voters) good that they are “doing something good” by regulating “those boaters”, and which doesn’t cause any inconvenience to themselves, so why would they slacken the rules.

[Exile]

There are way more non-boater voters who don't understand the issue than actual boaters who do. Why take the time to understand & explain the science when you can get re-elected by convincing people it's a bona fide issue? Meanwhile, outdated & overcapacity sewage treatment facilities continue to overflow, and most people aren't even aware of run-off issues which are probably more significant than anything else. As someone said earlier, they regulate recreational boaters because they can. It's the type of fact-deficient, feel-good politics that is all the rage these days.

The analogy to "everyone else is speeding so why shouldn't I" is specious. The proper comparison is the justification to ban plastic straws in Calif. to "save the oceans" when over 90% of the plastic entering the oceans is from China and 3 other SE Asian nations. The U.S. contribution is almost nil because of landfills. These sorts of "environmentally" based regulations & initiatives are actually worse than doing nothing since they cause people to think they're actually doing "something," leading to real solutions getting ignored.

Most US & Canadian boaters probably have holding tanks and it's not a big deal for them to comply with pump-out requirements. I, for one, am happy to do so and, who knows, maybe it helps. But telling people who have spent a lot of money on Lectra-Sans & other onboard treatment systems only encourages non-compliance imo.

There are already some jurisdictions which require grey water holding tanks. Where does it stop?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Jim
Not that I disagree with your point, but I can't see holding up the Mediterranean as any kind of an example of a healthy sea.

Because of recreational boaters discharging overboard?