Disposing of Solid Waste From a Dessicating Toilet

[Fore and Aft]

I may as well get my spoon out and say this all sounds like a lot of drama for just a pooh. I just push a button and the Jabsco does the rest. Yet to block or replace it after six years.
Cheers

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by Fore and Aft

I may as well get my spoon out and say this all sounds like a lot of drama for just a pooh. I just push a button and the Jabsco does the rest. Yet to block or replace it after six years.
Cheers

Yes but at some point you need to pump out the holding tank and no matter how good. They all start to smell eventually. Hoses need replacing, toilets need maintaining, etc. etc. Dessicating toilets are just simpler. my C-head is almost agriculturally simple. No custom marine parts, almost no parts at all. Install was just out of the box and bolt it down. Done. Maintenance is much "nicer" than dealing with a pump out.

[SVTatia]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

...



Better question... what to do with the pee bucket?

I have my 4 gal. pee tank where the previous 15 gal. holding tank was.
I pump it overboard every 10 days or so (only me on the boat) whenever I go sailing, mind you I am on lake Ontario.
Sometimes it could be 2 weeks, and it does NOT smell because I use a few squirts of dog urine neutralizer every time I use it.

Reference, post #18: https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...d.php?t=272114

[fxykty]

Originally Posted by SVTatia

I have my 4 gal. pee tank where the previous 15 gal. holding tank was.
I pump it overboard every 10 days or so (only me on the boat) whenever I go sailing, mind you I am on lake Ontario.
Sometimes it could be 2 weeks, and it does NOT smell because I use a few squirts of dog urine neutralizer every time I use it.

Reference, post #18: https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...d.php?t=272114

We use a couple of teaspoons of sugar - remarkably decreased the smell. Not nothing, but very mild. We’re using the default NH pee container and it’s not much of a hassle.

We gained a whole large locker (and removed and fibreglassed 3 throughulls) by removing the holding tank. 🥰

[Bill Seal]

Meanwhile, a malfunctioning sewage plant dumped another million gallons of raw, untreated sewage into LA/Long beach harbor. Third or fourth time this year.

[alanfw]

Thankyou everyone for the comments. They've been MOST helpful - to the point where I'm ready to lay down the cash for an OGO! Next question I have to decide is... When I haul out in a couple of weeks, do I replace the seacocks and skin fittings (in case I go back to the old toilet) or do I bite the bullet and glass the holes over!

Happy Sailing!!!

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by alanfw

Thankyou everyone for the comments. They've been MOST helpful - to the point where I'm ready to lay down the cash for an OGO! Next question I have to decide is... When I haul out in a couple of weeks, do I replace the seacocks and skin fittings (in case I go back to the old toilet) or do I bite the bullet and glass the holes over!

Happy Sailing!!!

Glass the holes over. It’s a matter of seconds to pop fittings in again.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

As others have said, bag it and dump it in the normal trash system. It’s an old trope at this point that it’s bad or wrong to do so. If anyone is honestly concerned about the small amount of desiccated poop from composting heads, then they must be livid at the massive volumes coming in from used diapers, senior’s versions, and feminine hygiene products.
Don’t be an idiot or a jerk about where you dump.

Originally Posted by Bill Seal

Meanwhile, a malfunctioning sewage plant dumped another million gallons of raw, untreated sewage into LA/Long beach harbor. Third or fourth time this year.

These arguments contain common logical fallacies.
The "not as bad as" fallacy [fallacies of: ‘relative privation’, or ‘moral equivalence’] asserts that:
If something [diapers, sewerage spills] is worse than the problem currently being discussed [cruiser poop], then the problem, currently being discussed, isn't that important, at all.
In other words: nothing matters, if it's not, literally, the worst thing happening.

Arguing that expressing concern, about a [relatively] small problem, means that the person doesn't care, about any larger problems, can also be thought of as a combination of: ‘False Dichotomy’, ‘Strawman’, ‘Red Herring’, ‘Whataboutism’, and/or the ‘Perfect Solution’ Fallacy.

BTW: Thanks to those that clarified the exceptions to the 'no dumping' rules. I'm, now, better informed.

[mvweebles]

Originally Posted by GordMay

These arguments contain common logical fallacies.
The "not as bad as" fallacy [fallacies of: ‘relative privation’, or ‘moral equivalence’] asserts that:
If something [diapers, sewerage spills] is worse than the problem currently being discussed [cruiser poop], then the problem, currently being discussed, isn't that important, at all.
In other words: nothing matters, if it's not, literally, the worst thing happening.

Arguing that expressing concern, about a [relatively] small problem, means that the person doesn't care, about any larger problems, can also be thought of as a combination of: ‘False Dichotomy’, ‘Strawman’, ‘Red Herring’, ‘Whataboutism’, and/or the ‘Perfect Solution’ Fallacy.

BTW: Thanks to those that clarified the exceptions to the 'no dumping' rules. I'm, now, better informed.

Premise of these arguments might be what-about-ism, but also may be just dumb, arcane laws that have near zero relevance. Now, you might argue that politicians would never pass dumb laws, but don't try it on a full stomach. And let's not forget that there are rarely any laws prohibiting depositing bagged head detritus in a garbage can so relative-severity doesn't really apply.

List of dumb laws HERE. I guess you Canadians have a law that you if a payment is more than 25-cents, it cannot be in pennies alone. And Illinois forbids you from giving your pup a lighted cigar no matter how much he wants one. In Missouri, you cannot, under any circumstances, drive with an uncaged bear in your car. In Florida, you cannot fish from a moving car on a bridge.

[Chotu]

I feel like Massachusetts has some of the best ones because it’s such an old state.


Goatees are illegal unless you obtain and pay for a license to wear your goatee in public.

Defacing a milk carton is punishable by a $10 fine in Massachusetts.

You may not detonate a nuclear device in the city of Marlboro.

Also in Marlboro, squirt guns are illegal to be bought, sold, or owned by anyone.

Children may smoke, but it is illegal for children to purchase their own cigarettes.

Newton: All families must be given a hog from the town’s mayor.

In Boston, it is illegal to bathe unless your doctor gives you a prescription. BUT, it’s also illegal not to bathe before going to bed in Boston.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by mvweebles

... I guess you Canadians have a law that you if a payment is more than 25-cents, it cannot be in pennies alone ...

Indeed; the Canadian Currency Act states: "A payment in coins … is a legal tender for no more than … 25 cents if the denomination is one cent."

The Canadian penny was a part of our monetary system, for more than 160 years, before they stopped being made, on Feb. 4, 2013.

They were still making about 500 million pennies per year, in 2012; but it was costing them two and a half cents to make a penny, so it was just uneconomical to continue.
The penny is still legal tender in Canada, and goods and services continue to be priced in one-cent increments. Only cash transactions require rounding [up/down to nearest nickel]. Any other form of payment – cheque, credit and debit card, and electronic transactions – do not.

Other countries have also stopped using their low-value coins.
Some examples:
Australia removed its one-cent and two-cent coins from circulation in 1992.
Brazil discontinued the production of one-centavo coins in 2005.
Finland has not issued one-cent or two-cent euro coins since the euro was introduced in 2002.
Israel stopped issuing the one-agora coin in 1991 and the five-agorot coin in 2008.
Netherlands stopped issuing one-cent and two-cent euro coins in 2004.
New Zealand removed its one-cent and two-cent coins from circulation in 1989 and its five-cent coin in 2006.
Norway removed its one-ore and two-ore coins in 1972; by 1991, it had also removed its five-, 10- and 25-ore coins.
Sweden removed its one-ore and two-ore coins in 1971; by 1992, it had also removed its five-, 10- and 25-ore coins. In 2009, it removed the 50-ore coins from circulation.
Switzerland officially withdrew its one-centime coin from circulation in 2006, while the two-centime coin lost its legal tender status in 1978.
Britain removed the legal tender status of the half-penny in 1984.

Backgrounder: Withdrawing the Penny from Circulation [Budget 2012]
➥ https://www.budget.canada.ca/2012/th...-info-eng.html

[dlj]

Originally Posted by GordMay

These arguments contain common logical fallacies.
The "not as bad as" fallacy [fallacies of: ‘relative privation’, or ‘moral equivalence’] asserts that:
If something [diapers, sewerage spills] is worse than the problem currently being discussed [cruiser poop], then the problem, currently being discussed, isn't that important, at all.
In other words: nothing matters, if it's not, literally, the worst thing happening.

Arguing that expressing concern, about a [relatively] small problem, means that the person doesn't care, about any larger problems, can also be thought of as a combination of: ‘False Dichotomy’, ‘Strawman’, ‘Red Herring’, ‘Whataboutism’, and/or the ‘Perfect Solution’ Fallacy.

BTW: Thanks to those that clarified the exceptions to the 'no dumping' rules. I'm, now, better informed.

An interesting logic - but in this case not one that directly applies here. From what I've observed, the proponents of composting toilets are open to all levels of concern and scrutiny towards them. What is not part of the discussion, is the same level of critical scrutiny when it comes to "traditional" marine toilets. Because traditional marine toilets are "grandfathered in", no one is looking at the same level of criticality towards what deficiencies or risks they have.

From a macro point of view, I believe that the modern mouldering (composting) toilets on boats have less impact on the environment than traditional marine toilets. Said another way - the modern composting toilets are a step in the right direction for our environment taking all considerations into the evaluation. What has been happening is the verbal logic you are pointing out, which in pure logic is correct, but that in fact what statement should be presented is that modern composters provide a better solution to what is currently being done with our human wastes, here are examples of how the traditional systems fail. Composters are cleaner, with less impact from a macro view than the currently endorsed traditional marine system. Our cultural perspective simply is not yet ready to handle the realities of how they work. The culture is currently in a "push a bottom and make it all go away"....

Now, there is a new system in Europe that is quite interesting where the waste is treated on the boat and discharged as clean effluent. I've not studied that system enough yet so can't give an opinion if that may be the next step, or one of the steps of betterment as the composters are.

Nothing is perfect. But we need to move in the direction of improvements, that is how we advance.

dj

[dlj]

Originally Posted by alanfw

Thankyou everyone for the comments. They've been MOST helpful - to the point where I'm ready to lay down the cash for an OGO! Next question I have to decide is... When I haul out in a couple of weeks, do I replace the seacocks and skin fittings (in case I go back to the old toilet) or do I bite the bullet and glass the holes over!

Happy Sailing!!!

I glassed over the holes when I upgraded. I agree with Jedi - very easy to put new holes in if ever you wanted to either return or put in a new system that needed thru hulls.

Besides, by the time that may happen, wouldn't you want to change that old thru hull anyway?

dj

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

These arguments contain common logical fallacies.
The "not as bad as" fallacy [fallacies of: ‘relative privation’, or ‘moral equivalence’] asserts that:
If something [diapers, sewerage spills] is worse than the problem currently being discussed [cruiser poop], then the problem, currently being discussed, isn't that important, at all.
In other words: nothing matters, if it's not, literally, the worst thing happening.

Arguing that expressing concern, about a [relatively] small problem, means that the person doesn't care, about any larger problems, can also be thought of as a combination of: ‘False Dichotomy’, ‘Strawman’, ‘Red Herring’, ‘Whataboutism’, and/or the ‘Perfect Solution’ Fallacy.

BTW: Thanks to those that clarified the exceptions to the 'no dumping' rules. I'm, now, better informed.

Gord, you’re argument is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The point is that the landfill systems have been designed to accept similar, but much worse, waste. No one can rationally get bent out of shape about putting a tiny amount of desiccated waste into the system.

[s/v Jedi]

All the goodie two shoes with compost toilets dump their pee overboard, like nitrogen pollution doesn’t exist.
https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/issue