What is the carbon footprint for the US MSD program?

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

A rule that was more reasonable (say no discharge within a marina, within 1/4mile of shore or 3 miles of a designated swimming beach), I think the debate would largely go away. But dumping 20gal of sewage 10 miles offshore on Lake Michigan has ZERO negative impact on the environment.

Exactly. Zero negative.

I can't put words in their mouth but I suspect if Valhalla's suggestion was presented to a round table at Mother Earth Jones their comments might be "this is local, this is organic composting AND this is less fossil fuel. We like all three components. Where do we sign to endorse the new EIS?"

[Aaarrgh]

My carbon footprint is about 11 1/2 EE

Aarrrgh!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

That's the point. Per unit costs are orders of magnitude higher for boaters for very negligible improvement(ie: rounding error) in risk and reduced Bio Oxygen Demand (BOD not Chemical Oxygen Demand - COD).

NO, it doesn't add up if you discharge in open waters. The system processes the waste before it can concentrate eliminating the issues. Sewage differs from other pollutants like heavy metals where tiny amounts can concentrate over years till they reach problematic levels. As long as you don't discharge so much in a short time that it overwhelms the system, it will process it with no ill effects.

Large outflows from city sewage systems are really the problem. That's where you overload an area it goes anaerobic and you get fish kills, red tides and the like. You can also get problems from farms, lawns and industrial runoff but again, this is when you are talking about a scale that the boating community is no where close to reaching.

A rule that was more reasonable (say no discharge within a marina, within 1/4mile of shore or 3 miles of a designated swimming beach), I think the debate would largely go away. But dumping 20gal of sewage 10 miles offshore on Lake Michigan has ZERO negative impact on the environment.

Prezactly.

And if someone could articulate this to our politicians and bureaucrats, as well as you have articulated it here, we might actually get some change

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I agree that no one actually cares about the carbon, and what we all care about (or should care about) is not causing harm with bacteria, hormones, etc. in our discharges.

How far out you have to go to cause zero harm is a question for science, isn't it?

I am guessing that small boat discharges one mile out, and even half a mile out affects fecal coliform levels at the shore and near shore water where people might swim 0.000000000%. I am guessing, but I'm strongly convinced.

The RYA study showed that boat discharges don't cause any harm ANYWHERE, except in the immediate vicinity of beaches and swimming areas. But that is UK waters with strong tidal flushing, so we might want to be more conservative.

Just because someone is "tied to the dock" doesn't necessarily mean they have easy access to pump out. They might be tied to an anchorage, too. A mile vs 3 miles can make a big difference for someone heading out especially to dump a tank, so I wouldn't give that up unless there were some science showing that it makes a difference.

Obviously I am not in the UK so it is probably a matter of location. Here we still have a small remaining shrimping industry, Asia hasn't gotten, and an oyster industry. The shrimpers trawl in that area of within a mile or so from the beach. The tides likely would wash the discharges into the oyster beds, and they are a natural filtering system.
I'm all for the boater but boating is so much larger than it was when you pumped directly overboard.
It is probably a drop in the bucket compared to other sources but every little bit helps.

[Lepke]

How much dodo do fish, whales, marine mammals and birds add? The whole marine sewage issue and expense is to placate far left environmentalists that want to recreate the condition of air and water to pre-European settlement. Regardless of the cost to individuals or the economy.
From personal experience I can tell you a dairy cow produces 100 pounds or more per day. Maybe we should give up ice cream and cheese for Al Gore.

[thinwater]

A wise old lobbyist once told me that I was "confusing the facts with the issues." Same here. The science doesn't actually matter.

1. Man on the street. Ask them if it is OK for boaters to have special permission to poop in the harbors and waters they fish and swim in.
2. The health department and EPA may not be able to stop old combined sewers, but they cannot permit a new untreated discharge. Remember that the combined sewers predate modern regulations, and they have not be permitted in new construction for over 40 years.
3. Fish poop does not contain human diseases, such as cholera (cholera is saltwater resistant and can be transmitted through shellfish--as it is, shellfish beds are sometimes closed because of excess fecal coliform and vibro/cholera). Thus, we are comparing apples and hand grenades; they seem similar but differ in important details.

So untreated discharge in the harbor is a non-starter. Discharge in bays and estuaries is a non-starter. Let it go.


Why 3 miles? I suspect it is a convenient distance marked with buoys (the law is older than GPS) and marked on maps. But does the distance really matter? It is very unusual to be stopped any significant distance out. I've been checked at anchor twice, but never underway (only for fishing).

[newhaul]

Actual science to back the 3 mile rule and it actually proves that lots of the pathogens are actually introduced into the near shore by swimmers and not boaters.
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/r...pdf?sequence=1

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Cadence

Obviously I am not in the UK so it is probably a matter of location. Here we still have a small remaining shrimping industry, Asia hasn't gotten, and an oyster industry. The shrimpers trawl in that area of within a mile or so from the beach. The tides likely would wash the discharges into the oyster beds, and they are a natural filtering system.
I'm all for the boater but boating is so much larger than it was when you pumped directly overboard.
It is probably a drop in the bucket compared to other sources but every little bit helps.

Every little bit does not indeed help. This is the wrong approach to policy decision-making. In order to allocate resources -- including effort -- efficiently in solving problems, costs and benefits have to be weighed together. Just spending money and effort on doing something without even knowing how much good it does or even whether it even does any good, is stupid, because it diverts resources away from some activity which actually does some good.

The UK has a fairly large fishing industry, including shellfish. Pleasure boat discharges have zero -- that is, zero point zero zero zero zero -- impact on the healthiness of fish, because waste discharged offshore in deep water is dispersed and breaks down quickly. The sea is a giant waste treatment plant which does the same thing a treatment plant on shore does, only better, because it is so huge.

It is forbidden in the UK to discharge near shellfish beds.


As Mike O'Reilly continues to point out -- the whole issue with sewage discharges is concentration. In open water our microscopic discharges are almost instantaneously dispersed, are quickly broken down, and in effect vanish from the face of the earth. Even in a very small body of water (compared to the Ocean) like Lake Michigan, there are something like 5000 cubic kilometers of water -- that's 5 quadrillion liters. In the absence of concentration -- discharging in bays, coves, close to shore -- even tens of thousands of yachts discharging full time into Lake Michigan could not create any detectable amount of pollution, or any pollution at all, since the waste breaks down.

The best analogy I can think of is farts in the atmosphere. If your girlfriend farts under the blanket -- it's bad! If she farts in the next room, you will probably never smell it. If she farts in the field across the street, it has no effect on you -- not even on the molecular level. You can't detect it even with an atomic spectroscope. That's because of the huge volume of the atmosphere, compared to the volume of her emissions. Same principle applies to sewage discharges from yachts. It is reasonable to prohibit farting under blankets. It is ludicrously stupid to force people to wear fart collection devices while walking in open fields, based on the false logic of "every little bit helps."

[Cottontop]

Originally Posted by thinwater

A wise old lobbyist once told me that I was "confusing the facts with the issues." Same here. The science doesn't actually matter.

1. Man on the street. Ask them if it is OK for boaters to have special permission to poop in the harbors and waters they fish and swim in.
2. The health department and EPA may not be able to stop old combined sewers, but they cannot permit a new untreated discharge. Remember that the combined sewers predate modern regulations, and they have not be permitted in new construction for over 40 years.
3. Fish poop does not contain human diseases, such as cholera (cholera is saltwater resistant and can be transmitted through shellfish--as it is, shellfish beds are sometimes closed because of excess fecal coliform and vibro/cholera). Thus, we are comparing apples and hand grenades; they seem similar but differ in important details.

So untreated discharge in the harbor is a non-starter. Discharge in bays and estuaries is a non-starter. Let it go.


Why 3 miles? I suspect it is a convenient distance marked with buoys (the law is older than GPS) and marked on maps. But does the distance really matter? It is very unusual to be stopped any significant distance out. I've been checked at anchor twice, but never underway (only for fishing).

Thinwater has this right. People don't want to swim in poo. It's an aesthetic thing as much as a science thing, and perhaps irrational. But recreational swimmers, and paddle boarders, and windsurfers, aren't affected by the discharge restrictions.

Are municipal discharges worse? Of course, but that is the weakest sort of argument. And municipal discharges associated with storm overflows are once-in-a-while, and the beaches can be closed. Boats are always around.

Here's a quote from the study above:

"Worldwide, recreational use of coastal waters alone has been implicated in 120 million gastrointestinal infections and 50 million acute respiratory infections each year (Viau et al. 2011)." Is this right? Wrong? Relevant? Doesn't matter.

Expect more regulation, not less.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

Thinwater has this right. People don't want to swim in poo. It's an aesthetic thing as much as a science thing, and perhaps irrational. But recreational swimmers, and paddle boarders, and windsurfers, aren't affected by the discharge restrictions.

Are municipal discharges worse? Of course, but that is the weakest sort of argument. And municipal discharges associated with storm overflows are once-in-a-while, and the beaches can be closed. Boats are always around.

Here's a quote from the study above:

"Worldwide, recreational use of coastal waters alone has been implicated in 120 million gastrointestinal infections and 50 million acute respiratory infections each year (Viau et al. 2011)." Is this right? Wrong? Relevant? Doesn't matter.

Expect more regulation, not less.

Just keep in mind that not a single person on this thread has argued for discharging into coves, anchorages, or swimming beaches. No one wants to swim in poo indeed -- I don't either. I have a holding tank, and use it in such places, and would not think it greatly oppressive to require cruising boats to have holding tanks. What I am arguing for is in defense of my right to discharge in open water away from people.


So that no one gets the wrong idea -- your quote concerning "recreational use of coastal waters" means SWIMMING. Not that 120 million infections etc. are caused by boaters. The infections are caused by all kinds of pollution, primarily municipal sewage systems.

[Jason Flare]

Women don't fart.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actual science to back the 3 mile rule and it actually proves that lots of the pathogens are actually introduced into the near shore by swimmers and not boaters.
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/r...pdf?sequence=1

Very interesting reading.

The correlation to bathers was only one strain. I was also surprised at how many strains do not seem to be killed by seawater. It also pointed out that ship ballast water can transport.

[thinwater]

See below.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It is forbidden in the UK to discharge near shellfish beds.
How is that enforced? Are they marked on maps? It seems that would include all estuaries.

As Mike O'Reilly continues to point out -- the whole issue with sewage discharges is concentration.
Infection does not work that way. On sneazer can infect the whole office. One sick person, disposing of waste nears a well, caused the Great Cholera epidemic in London, killing thousands.

... since the waste breaks down.
Not all bacteria break down. Some thrive.

The best analogy I can think of is farts in the atmosphere.
It is a false analogy, since it is a differ sort of pollution.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Just keep in mind that not a single person on this thread has argued for discharging into coves, anchorages, or swimming beaches. No one wants to swim in poo indeed -- I don't either. I have a holding tank, and use it in such places, and would not think it greatly oppressive to require cruising boats to have holding tanks. What I am arguing for is in defense of my right to discharge in open water away from people.


So that no one gets the wrong idea -- your quote concerning "recreational use of coastal waters" means SWIMMING. Not that 120 million infections etc. are caused by boaters. The infections are caused by all kinds of pollution, primarily municipal sewage systems.

I understand. But in the public eye this is about discharging right in front of the beach or in the harbor. That is the issue. I don't think the facts are going to matter unless they are completely black and white (if all infectious materials were neutralized on contact with seawater, which they are not), which they are not. The fact that boats are a minor part of the problem won't matter either, because they don't have boats. If they have to pay to treat their poop, why shouldn't we? Seems pretty simple to the public.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Lepke

How much dodo do fish, whales, marine mammals and birds add? The whole marine sewage issue and expense is to placate far left environmentalists that want to recreate the condition of air and water to pre-European settlement. Regardless of the cost to individuals or the economy.
From personal experience I can tell you a dairy cow produces 100 pounds or more per day. Maybe we should give up ice cream and cheese for Al Gore.

I lived on a creek that was the drain for a national forest. Where it entered the AICW there was a sign no shell fishing. Since it had some beautiful oyster rakes I call DHEC. The answer was the amount if fecal coliforms produced by the wildlife and washed down. The gentleman told me they test it annually but in his 20 years of doing it, it had never been opened. Somehow I doubt that fecal matter is likely to carry the same contagious items a human fecal matter, nor the drugs ingested and expelled by humans. I don't think three miles is a burden for boaters. JMHO