Do the potty police have science on their side?

[a64pilot]

For whatever it’s worth, straws are not the #1 problem
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-ocean-n903661

[Exile]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

For whatever it’s worth, straws are not the #1 problem
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-ocean-n903661

I find this to be the most alarming & shocking statistic (if true):

"The waste often disintegrates into microplastics easily consumed by wildlife. Researchers have found the detritus in some 70 percent of seabirds and 30 percent of sea turtles."

Back to recreational boaters & NDZ's . . . .

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

There was a time when this was largely true, but modern test technology is much more specific and can tell the difference between human and other sources of E. coli.

Technologically possible but not commonly done. They close regardless of source and I've yet to see any credible evidence of a closure related to boats discharging.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by thinwater

S
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.

No it's more a question of why is the govt implementing rules that don't do any good but create a big hassle?

A municipal waste treatment plant may process millions of gallons per day and if allowed to enter waterways untreated, there is clear scientifically supported evidence that it causes problems.

Boats...you won't be able to document an environmental issue that can be tied back to the boats.

Sure non-boaters may see it the way you do but that's only because it's been framed in an emotional manner not a scientific manner.

Actually, bears, fish, birds...in terms of water quality, it's all the same. The tests and resultant issues (algae blooms, red tides, etc....) all could care less what the source animal is.

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by Jammer

So, is there any science behind the widespread use of no-discharge zones, that is, where properly treated sewage can't be discharged?

In light of the fact that there is inherently some spillage of wholly untreated sewage during pumpout and disposal, is pumpout still an environmentally "greener" approach than treating sewage onboard?

One question....
Would you want to swim in it?
Would you want your children to swim in it?

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

One question....
Would you want to swim in it?
Would you want your children to swim in it?

If you are talking close to a swimming beach, you have a point.

20 miles out in Lake Michigan...how many people are likely to be swimming within 5 miles? The question is a red herring.

That's the point though...there is no scientific (or even logical) approach to designating NDZ's. It's throw out the emotional "would you swim in poo" comment to try and cut off any logical discussion.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

One question....
Would you want to swim in it?
Would you want your children to swim in it?

A large body of tidal saltwater periodically exposed to agricultural run-off, untreated municipal sewage, and untreated & treated discharge from recreational vessels? Probably yes.

The Mediterranean, Bahamas, & Caribbean that have no limits on treated or untreated overboard discharge? Probably yes.

A NDZ where treated overboard discharge is (unlawfully) being dumped by recreational vessels? Definitely yes.

A body of freshwater with no tidal current that's exposed to untreated overboard discharge from large nos. of recreational vessels? Maybe not.

I think there's an assumption that human waste is more of a hazard than all the other toxic wastes our bodies of water are routinely exposed to. That may be true in certain circumstances, but as already pointed out it's more about concentration than source. Certainly seems to be the case in saltwater anyway.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

That's the point though...there is no scientific (or even logical) approach to designating NDZ's. It's throw out the emotional "would you swim in poo" comment to try and cut off any logical discussion.

Next, they will call anyone who doesn't believe in their NDZ attacks as

"Poop Deniers".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Next, they will call anyone who doesn't believe in their NDZ attacks as

"Poop Deniers".

For the record, I'm merely a "skeptic." At least about the science. The political, personal & emotional motivations? Without question a cynic.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

One question....
Would you want to swim in it?
Would you want your children to swim in it?

My strategy is to keep my immunity up through constant exposure to new pathogens. I swim and canoe and scuba dive in all kinds of freshwater mud puddles of doubtful purity. So do my kids.


I don't care about the fecal coliform. It's the atrazine that I worry about.

[eyschulman]

We are making the issue too complicated. The EPA people have jobs and would like to stop all pollution and they find their position either politically unpopular or blocked by powerful interest groups. So they have to do something to justify their use of our tax dollars. Boaters are one of the easy targets based on #s and political factors. There are plenty of other polluting targets to go after but many are hard targets with lots of political clout and corrupt influence. The result large NDZ that are not specific to the science. Some NDZ in smaller enclosed areas or related to specific biologic needs are justified such as practiced in Canada. The net result of the EPA folly will be encouragement of none compliance.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Exile

I find this to be the most alarming & shocking statistic (if true):



"The waste often disintegrates into microplastics easily consumed by wildlife. Researchers have found the detritus in some 70 percent of seabirds and 30 percent of sea turtles."



Back to recreational boaters & NDZ's . . . .

I’m sure it is true.
What I am not sure of is how significant is this finding?
For example I am certain that every single living organism on the planet has detectable amounts of radiation that the source was the nuclear testing done years ago.
However I have no idea if it’s a significant level or not?

And that gets directly to the “poo” issue here. Your not getting a disease from one single bacterium or virus, there is a min amount that it takes to get you sick and it’s not one.
Same I’m sure for poo, there is an acceptable amount, just as there is for rat hairs in candy bars.
That last is probably an Urban legend, but you see what I mean.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Exile

A large body of tidal saltwater periodically exposed to agricultural run-off, untreated municipal sewage, and untreated & treated discharge from recreational vessels? Probably yes.

The Mediterranean, Bahamas, & Caribbean that have no limits on treated or untreated overboard discharge? Probably yes.

A NDZ where treated overboard discharge is (unlawfully) being dumped by recreational vessels? Definitely yes.

A body of freshwater with no tidal current that's exposed to untreated overboard discharge from large nos. of recreational vessels? Maybe not.

I think there's an assumption that human waste is more of a hazard than all the other toxic wastes our bodies of water are routinely exposed to. That may be true in certain circumstances, but as already pointed out it's more about concentration than source. Certainly seems to be the case in saltwater anyway.

Actually in the Bahamas it is illegal to dump overboard, the problem is there are no pump outs, so what is one to do. I personally take my boat out of the anchorages a couple of miles before dumping, but many (most?) don't. Before the boat sunk in a hurricane there was a pump out boat in Georgetown that most people used, until they decided to double their price the year before it sunk. At $40 a pump out a day offshore "fishing" became quite attractive.

[Lake-Effect]

One thing that seldom gets mentioned in the NDZ thread: it's not strictly aimed at cruisers, who are so few, and who probably know more about the care and management of human waste than anyone would want to. And who, for the most part, are usually thoughtful and considerate boaters.

NDZ is mainly because of all the boating daytrippers, fishers and weekenders, who probably outnumber experienced cruisers by 20:1 or more, and who almost never venture more than a few miles off the coast. Their trips are almost always within the mandated NDZ, so there's really no reason for those boats to even have a direct discharge, let alone use it. A more lenient NDZ would have more of these users having and flipping the Y-valve, which means more Y-valves not flipped back to storage when they congregate at their weekend anchorage, beach or raft-up, which means... yecch.

So, yeah, I think the potty police do have science on their side: human behaviour and statistics.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

A more lenient NDZ would have more of these users having and flipping the Y-valve, which means more Y-valves not flipped back to storage when they congregate at their weekend anchorage, beach or raft-up, which means... yecch.

So, yeah, I think the potty police do have science on their side: human behaviour and statistics.

Let's be clear. The only difference in what you can and cannot do in an NDZ vs. a similar area that is not an NDZ is this: In an NDZ you cannot use an onboard waste treatment system. Outside an NDZ, you can.


In neither case is it permitted to discharge untreated waste.