Do the potty police have science on their side?

[wingssail]

Of course the cruising boaters cannot really affect overall water quality with their discharges, there aren't enough of us (in the marina basin, we can).

But this is not an argument which can be won with facts and logic, it is an emotional argument, basically against liveaboards, and it is easy to get on the wrong side of it: "Boaters claim their poo doesn't matter".

So, be part of the solution, make sure you are legal, and avoid saying that our discharges don't matter, that just feeds the frenzy.

[Kenomac]

I hate to be the barer of bad news to all the germophobes and poopophobes out there, but current science and personal experience in the medical field seems to prove the germ avoidance theory wrong. As a registered nurse, some of the most germ infested environments where I’ve worked seem to also harbor the most folks living to be in their 90’s to over 100 years. These people have epic and well-exercised immune systems, as well as do the people working in the field. Avoidance of the bugs only seems to guaranty that someday you’ll contract one heck of an infection.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I hate to be the bearer of bad news to all the germophobes and poophobics out there, but current science and personal experience in the medical field seems to prove the germ avoidance theory wrong. As a registered nurse, some of the most germ infested environments where I’ve worked seem to also harbor the most folks living to be in their 90’s to over 100 years. These people have epic and well-exercised immune systems, as well as do the people working in the field. Avoidance of the bugs only seems to guaranty that someday you’ll contract one heck of an infection.

This reality provides a reasonable working hypothesis for why so many kids today suffer from immune related ailments.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I hate to be the bearer of bad news to all the germophobes and poopophobes out there, but current science and personal experience in the medical field seems to prove the germ avoidance theory wrong. As a registered nurse, some of the most germ infested environments where I’ve worked seem to also harbor the most folks living to be in their 90’s to over 100 years. These people have epic and well-exercised immune systems, as well as do the people working in the field. Avoidance of the bugs only seems to guaranty that someday you’ll contract one heck of an infection.

I bet you fart in crowded elevators, too.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by dreuge

….
The real sources of fecal water pollution are municipal sewage systems and agricultural runoff...Allowing boat toilets to be painted as contributors to water pollution only deflects attention from the real problems. Overboard discharge may be a crime against the state, but it is not a crime against nature...

Yeah, this might be true, but the optics of boaters defending their toilet discharges is really not great.

This is an emotional issue, not a science issue, and science evidence does not work to convince non-boaters that our poo is OK, it just makes us look bad.

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I hate to be the bearer of bad news to all the germophobes and poophobics out there, but current science and personal experience in the medical field seems to prove the germ avoidance theory wrong. As a registered nurse, some of the most germ infested environments where I’ve worked seem to also harbor the most folks living to be in their 90’s to over 100 years. These people have epic and well-exercised immune systems, as well as do the people working in the field. Avoidance of the bugs only seems to guaranty that someday you’ll contract one heck of an infection.

I have seen this science, and it appeared quite sound. I still don't want to swim amongst your turds...

It's true, though, that -- mostly -- cruisers are unable to affect the quality of the world's oceans. Tin (or aluminum) cans, glass bottles and jars, and raw sewage -- this is all natural to the the sea. (Plastic, though, is real pollution in all cases.)

We are indeed animals, as noted above. However, we are social animals, and in a harbor or marina, there can be enough of us to cause a real environmental problem. The cans and bottles can pile up over decades and create shoaling! The poop? Well, aside from being unsavory to swim in, sewage puts nutrients into the water. A lot of boats in a small area can lead to nutrient overload, choking the harbor or marina. Almost literally choking, as the water becomes oxygen deprived. No one boat is a problem, but a harbor or marina full of them can be. Thus holding tanks can and do help.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Buc210

I am alarmed at how some posters feel that politicians cater to the non-boating public.

And I am shocked, shocked to find gambling in this establishment.

Yes, politicians are well known for their courage for never suggesting pointless laws that have no effect on the majority of voters, but inconvenience or punish small voting groups the majority may be envious of, or who provide a convenient scapegoat to blame a problem on they don't want, or can't fix without inconveniencing the majority.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The recreational no-discharge regulations are not so much directed at cruisers, they are more for the other 90% of boaters who are more likely through ignorance or inexperience to discharge inappropriately.

AFAIK the regs apply across the board. No such thing as "recreational" regs that apply only to certain categories of boaters.

I find it unlikely that many of this "ignorant or inexperienced 90%" you speak of have Type III devices onboard, so for them there are no exceptions to the federal (US) ban on dumping inside the 3-mile limit. Additional state-imposed "no discharge zones" cannot then create any confusion for your claimed 90% since they are merely redundant. It is only the more experienced boaters/cruisers who are conscientious enough to install treatment devices who are therefore discouraged from doing so.

I don't think this is the result you nor anyone else intended, unless the motivation is emotional rather than rational. The policy issue comes down to whether we want to encourage boaters of all stripes to treat their sewage before dumping it overboard, whether they do so lawfully or not.

[sparrowhawk1]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

This thread and comments on it remind me of the other thread on Cf where the guy wants to put a stop to the “red tide.”

Good luck.

Actually after years of pressure Big Sugar agreed to sell large plots of the Everglades(big filter)back to Florida. Florida's main revenue is from tourism, it would be money well spent. Florida really dropped the ball on this one.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I bet you fart in crowded elevators, too.

Only in the interest of public health.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Of course the cruising boaters cannot really affect overall water quality with their discharges, there aren't enough of us (in the marina basin, we can).

But this is not an argument which can be won with facts and logic, it is an emotional argument, basically against liveaboards, and it is easy to get on the wrong side of it: "Boaters claim their poo doesn't matter".

So, be part of the solution, make sure you are legal, and avoid saying that our discharges don't matter, that just feeds the frenzy.

A good start towards educating the public (and therefore deterring myths & emotions) is to explain why the USCG and the EPA approve onboard treatment devices for overboard discharge within the 3-mile limit.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Caribbeachbum

I have seen this science, and it appeared quite sound. I still don't want to swim amongst your turds...

Seems to be the gist of the argument presented thus far.

We are indeed animals, as noted above. However, we are social animals, and in a harbor or marina, there can be enough of us to cause a real environmental problem. The cans and bottles can pile up over decades and create shoaling! The poop? Well, aside from being unsavory to swim in, sewage puts nutrients into the water. A lot of boats in a small area can lead to nutrient overload, choking the harbor or marina. Almost literally choking, as the water becomes oxygen deprived. No one boat is a problem, but a harbor or marina full of them can be. Thus holding tanks can and do help.

Certainly plausible, although the amount of tidal current and fresh vs. saltwater can make all the difference. But assuming you're correct, then perhaps the more effective remedy is to have the locality or even the marina regulate & enforce a no-discharge regulation, primarily by providing adequate & sufficient pump-out facilities.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

AFAIK the regs apply across the board. No such thing as "recreational" regs that apply only to certain categories of boaters.

Well, exactly - a simple-to-enforce regulation that's applied broadly. That's the point.

I find it unlikely that many of this "ignorant or inexperienced 90%" you speak of have Type III devices onboard, so for them there are no exceptions to the federal (US) ban on dumping inside the 3-mile limit. Additional state-imposed "no discharge zones" cannot then create any confusion for your claimed 90% since they are merely redundant. It is only the more experienced boaters/cruisers who are conscientious enough to install treatment devices who are therefore discouraged from doing so.

I don't think this is the result you nor anyone else intended, unless the motivation is emotional rather than rational. The policy issue comes down to whether we want to encourage boaters of all stripes to treat their sewage before dumping it overboard, whether they do so lawfully or not.

Outside of this thread... naw, I don't think very many cruisers lie awake at nights pondering the cruel injustice of having to use their holding tanks once in a while. Nor do I think many cruisers chose to install type-III systems for the express purpose of wanting to discharge within a designated NDZ.

So you would like the law to be more complex by adding an exception for boats with type-III systems. Which means that LEOs have to be expert enough in marine sanitation to determine that there is indeed a properly-functioning type-III system present, or you need a post-installation inspection and certification regime to provide the owner and LEOs with proof of that. So... more government, more red tape... seems somewhat ... excessive?... to cater to a small percentage (type-III owners) of a small group (cruisers and liveaboards).

Or we tell everyone not to discharge inside an NDZ. Which is simpler to implement, small injustices notwithstanding?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Delfin

This reality provides a reasonable working hypothesis for why so many kids today suffer from immune related ailments.

Much more likely about the current state of diagnosis, reporting, and record keeping

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I hate to be the barer of bad news to all the germophobes and poopophobes out there, but current science and personal experience in the medical field seems to prove the germ avoidance theory wrong. As a registered nurse, some of the most germ infested environments where I’ve worked seem to also harbor the most folks living to be in their 90’s to over 100 years. These people have epic and well-exercised immune systems, as well as do the people working in the field. Avoidance of the bugs only seems to guaranty that someday you’ll contract one heck of an infection.

Originally Posted by Delfin

This reality provides a reasonable working hypothesis for why so many kids today suffer from immune related ailments.

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Much more likely about the current state of diagnosis, reporting, and record keeping

A healthy, well-exercised immune system always reminds me of this famous movie scene of Robert Duval landing on the beach in “Apocalypse Now,” where chaos surrounds him as he walks confidently into battle. Nothing seems to phase him.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EmErYWQ5noc