Do the potty police have science on their side?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

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

Except that's not current & longstanding US law. There's a USCG/EPA approved exception for an entire category of marine sanitation devices. Why do you think that is?

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.

You're probably right. It's more likely people who sail primarily in large sounds & bays, for e.g. Puget Sound, where the blanket 3-mile rule is ridiculous & unworkable, but they wish to conscientiously abide by the law in any event. Or maybe they don't have the space or whatever for a holding tank. Only to find out that they cannot legally discharge on account of state NDZ's created by constituents who's only justification is "not wanting to swim amongst your turds."

So you would like the law to be more complex by adding an exception for boats with type-III systems.

Already long-established US law. Nothing complicated about it, except when individual states counteract federal law with NDZ's.

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).

The LEO argument is a red herring, at least along the US e. coast. As already pointed out, enforcement is scant and only present in sensitive areas (like the Dry Tortugas). I can add to the chorus of posters who have been stopped or boarded by the USCG for safety checks and were never asked about the heads. Compliance is therefore almost entirely voluntary, which means that the regs need to be rational in order to encourage responsible behavior.

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

It shouldn't be a question of "injustice" or whatever other "indignities" people "feel" slighted about, but whether encouraging the installation and use of onboard treatment devices helps or hurts the claimed "problem" of discharging within the 3-mile limit. Given the unfeasibility of effective enforcement & the inadequacy of pump-out facilities in many areas, we shouldn't have policies which approve the use of Type 3 devices by one part of our govt that another part of the govt effectively renders illegal.

Other than your various red herrings and personal dislike of the thought of "swimming with turds," do you have any viable science that contradicts the EPA & CG's long-established approval of these devices?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

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.

In other words . . . (maybe) . . . never sweat the small stuff and turds are small stuff??

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Exile

In other words . . . (maybe) . . . never sweat the small stuff and turds are small stuff??

To be very honest, in over eight years of cruising, I’ve never ever seen an actual turd anywhere in the water, be it in an anchorage or crowded marina within a harbor. So, I really don’t know where some of these people spend their time cruising or why they spend so much time and effort worrying about something so trivial.

[john61ct]

Mommy was too heavy-handed with the potty training

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

To be very honest, in over eight years of cruising, I’ve never ever seen an actual turd anywhere in the water, be it in an anchorage or crowded marina within a harbor. So, I really don’t know where some of these people spend their time cruising or why they spend so much time and effort worrying about something so trivial.

I've never seen actual turds either. Or even TP. My VacuFlush heads must macerate it all even though there's no actual macerator in the system. As for other boats it's not something I concern myself much with, let alone monitor.

There seems to be a lot of sanctimony & emotions in these discussions but not much science.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

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

If you read the nutricianal science discoveries instead of listening to pharma adverts. - you'll live longer

[Alberg30Shill]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

You need to watch more Star Trek movies:
"Mister Spock, if you wanted logic, you've come to the wrong planet." [James T. Kirk, Captain.]

Nice one :-D

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Other than your various red herrings and personal dislike of the thought of "swimming with turds," do you have any viable science that contradicts the EPA & CG's long-established approval of these devices?

You don't need a scientific study to conclude that swimming in/around boats discharging sewage is less than preferential. Of course, if that's your thing... knock yourself out.

btw, I was saying type III when I meant type II, sorry bout dat.

So, I've gone looking a bit. A US state cannot declare a body of water to be a NDZ unless it meets criteria set by the EPA and there's sufficient pumpout facilities to make no-discharge feasible and not burdensome.


As everyone's mentioned, enforcement has been sparse. Can anyone actually point to a boater arrested or charged for dumping in a NDZ? So this seems to be a law intended to guide behaviour and actual compliance will pretty much be up to the individual boater. Not exactly a hill to die on, is it?

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You don't need a scientific study to conclude that swimming in/around boats discharging sewage is less than preferential. Of course, if that's your thing... knock yourself out.

Quite right. But, based on this standard of health safety you don't need a scientific study to conclude that eating chicken is less preferable than not eating chicken.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You don't need a scientific study to conclude that swimming in/around boats discharging sewage is less than preferential. Of course, if that's your thing... knock yourself out. :roll eyes:

As I thought, you have no science. But it's a safe bet that swimming around boats discharging treated sewage is more preferential than boats discharging untreated sewage. Isn't that the main point of this thread topic & discussion?

* * *

So, I've gone looking a bit. A US state cannot declare a body of water to be a NDZ unless it meets criteria set by the EPA and there's sufficient pumpout facilities to make no-discharge feasible and not burdensome.

Based on some of the responses here, you might hazard a guess how that regulation is working out.

As everyone's mentioned, enforcement has been sparse. Can anyone actually point to a boater arrested or charged for dumping in a NDZ? So this seems to be a law intended to guide behaviour and actual compliance will pretty much be up to the individual boater. Not exactly a hill to die on, is it?

I think you're starting to catch on. Haven't you just made the case for laws & regulations which encourage boaters to install onboard treatment devices? Hey, I bet that was the primary reason the USCG & EPA approved them to begin with!

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

To be very honest, in over eight years of cruising, I’ve never ever seen an actual turd anywhere in the water, be it in an anchorage or crowded marina within a harbor. So, I really don’t know where some of these people spend their time cruising or why they spend so much time and effort worrying about something so trivial.

Lol Ken, either you are very vision impaired, or the perfect optomist! [emoji85]
Granted, most of the brown slurry that I see from the porthole at quiet anchorages are my own, so ownership is never in doubt especially if I've eaten corn.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

As I thought, you have no science. But it's a safe bet that swimming around boats discharging treated sewage is more preferential than boats discharging untreated sewage. Isn't that the main point of this thread topic & discussion?

Yes it is. And despite the cruiser-centric viewpoints expressed here, the NDZ laws address all boaters with MSDs, not just cruisers/liveaboards.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

you don't need a scientific study to conclude that eating chicken is less preferable than not eating chicken.

Beg pardon? It's less preferable to the chicken, assuming it's been given a choice.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

To be very honest, in over eight years of cruising, I’ve never ever seen an actual turd anywhere in the water, be it in an anchorage or crowded marina within a harbor. So, I really don’t know where some of these people spend their time cruising or why they spend so much time and effort worrying about something so trivial.

I recall seeing two...on a gondola ride in Venice...I seriously doubt they were from cruising boats though.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Beg pardon? It's less preferable to the chicken, assuming it's been given a choice.

Unless you are very close to the visible discharge cloud, I doubt swimming in seawater in the vicinity of mascerated discharge is as dangerous as eating chicken.

"YONKERS, NY – Microbiological tests of store-bought chickens, published in the March issue of Consumer Reports magazine, found Campylobacter, a rod-shaped bacterium and the leading cause of food poisoning nationwide, in 63 percent of the chickens tested, while Salmonella was found in 16 percent of the chickens. Those numbers include eight percent of the total number tested that had both Campylobacter and Salmonella. Only 29 percent were free from both. The testing is the most comprehensive of its kind ever published in the US, and uses a sample size of almost 1000 fresh chickens purchased at retail stores in 36 cities.

Public health officials estimate that the annual cost of illnesses caused by Campylobacter is up to $5.6 billion and salmonella is up to $3.5 billion. Campylobacter is responsible for 1.1 to 7 million food-borne infections and 110 to 1000 deaths each year. And Salmonella sickens some 700,000 to 4 million people, though it’s deadlier, killing up to 2000."