Do the potty police have science on their side?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, first we cleared up your little misunderstanding of "how such large bodies of inland waters get designated NDZs without adequate scientific support"... an assertion that is far from proven,...when you apparently just meant "where is the justification for including recreational boats with type 1 or 2 MSDs". You're welcome. With this new understanding we can move forward.

So you finally came up with scientific reasons for the NDZ designations in question? I'm still striking out. Do share please. Or are you just making assumptions without evidence again?

[senormechanico]

Imho, NDZ's were mostly declared to soothe and stroke the sensitivities of voting "snowflakes" and their perceived "eww" factor, nothing more.


Our little l-e and his little boat is a perfect example.


Back at you with the word "little".

[Pelagic]

As an aside, I find it ironic that the majority of the world is focussed on what to put "IN" their stomachs.

We truly are living in different worlds at times.

[john61ct]

What goes out from one goes into others, we are just one part of the cycles

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't think that quote intended to imply that simply banning the discharge from type 1 & 2 NDZs was all that was required. I kind of thought that everyone already knew that they are just a part of larger programs which address ALL sources of contamination. I guess that's not a given...


......

If in your arguement you state a single fact followed by a single result you are implying cause and effect.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

So you finally came up with scientific reasons for the NDZ designations in question? I'm still striking out. Do share please. Or are you just making assumptions without evidence again?

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Imho, NDZ's were mostly declared to soothe and stroke the sensitivities of voting "snowflakes" and their perceived "eww" factor, nothing more.


Our little l-e and his little boat is a perfect example.

Back at you with the word "little".

Sure, fine. It's all BS, a fraud, a gummint conspiracy. That fits. Whatever floats your boat.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Paul L

If in your arguement you state a single fact followed by a single result you are implying cause and effect.

Don't think I did that... but OK, noted.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sure, fine. It's all BS, a fraud, a gummint conspiracy. That fits. Whatever floats your boat.

NDZs are not a gummit conspiracy. They are an easy way for politicians to make it look like they are doing something useful by inconveniencing a small group of voters rather than actually doing something useful that inconveniences a much larger group of voters. It's why leftists are always telling us that the rich need to pay "their fair share", even though aforementioned rich already pay the vast majority of all taxes paid. The math is simple. Few rich people, few votes. Lots of non tax payers, lots of votes.


Now, if you can provide any science that shows a benefit from stopping .01% of discharges rather than preventing the other 99.99%, then NDZs might serve an actual purpose. So far, you haven't done that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Now, if you can provide any science that shows a benefit from stopping .01% of discharges rather than preventing the other 99.99%, then NDZs might serve an actual purpose.

I don't know of any declared NDZ that isn't part of some larger scheme that includes other polluters. In fact I posted one legal article that explained how some states have had to resort to an NDZ to plug a big hole in the CWA that allows cruise ships to dump. I'm pretty sure that for every NDZ you'll also find other initiatives focussed on land-based pollution into the same area.

I get that just targeting recreational boaters, in particular the types 1 and 2 would seem useless, but i don't really believe that that's ALL that's going on, or that those boats are the only targets.

So far, you haven't done that.

Where's the fun in that? It's been more amusing to hear people whip this up into a gummint conspiracy or a purely political move for votes.

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Sorry, are we talking ElectroSans, or any type 1 or 2 system?


Raritan is, to my knowledge, the only maker of Type I devices. The ElectroScan or LectraSan. The technology is essentially unchanged over the years. Minor differences in controls and method of making it happen.

Type II is another issue entirely, and is primarily a commercial vessels. They are not made by Raritan.


If there's a genuine reason for reducing discharge in an area, it should be applied to all boats; that's only fair. Starting from that point, then you can consider grounds for exemption. Complying once with a 40 year old spec isn't a compelling reason, if the area is truly sensitive to discharge.


The problem with the "compelling reason" is that I have never seen any fact based argument for one. A fact based argument is NOT "the water is dirty" or "after an NDZ in this down, coupled with massive other projects, resulted in cleaner water."


A compelling fact based argument would provide:
* Estimated number of boats impacted
* Estimated useage days
* Estimated sewage produced, with mass of nutrients produced
* Estimated cost to execute -- tax dollars, and private dollars

* Comparison with other nutrient sources
* Comparison of cost/benefit with other sources


That's a fact based (even if there are many assumptions involved) approach to the argument. I have never seen any such numbers, even trying to research it myself. Is suspect the reason is that it is too far below the radar.

Comments included in-line above.

[sailingharry]

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has a lot of information on nutrients and sources. Look here
Nitrogen & Phosphorus - Chesapeake Bay Foundation
and especially, expand the pie chart.


You will find that nowhere on that list is boats -- not legal (type I) or illegal (type III) discharge. It doesn't make their list of talking points.

[sailingharry]

Curiously, I just tried some searches, using my good friend Google. The CBF doesn't include the words MSD or NDZ anywhere on their site. So it's not just that it's not a highlight -- it dosen't even seem to be in their vocabulary!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has a lot of information on nutrients and sources. Look here
Nitrogen & Phosphorus - Chesapeake Bay Foundation
and especially, expand the pie chart.

You will find that nowhere on that list is boats -- not legal (type I) or illegal (type III) discharge. It doesn't make their list of talking points.

The subsection you're in is "Agricultural", so that's what they're focussing on I imagine.

I did find this, which clearly indicates that the big offenders ARE in the crosshairs. It's not just recreational marine.

This whitepaper covers the deliberations behind some Chesapeake Bay NDZ initiatives. They acknowledge that the contribution from recreational boats is likely miniscule, and one of the considered approaches is simply an outreach program to type 1 & 2 owners.

It also echoes concerns about the lifetime performance of those MSD systems, and where boat discharge could accumulate and cause problems.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Delfin

NDZs are not a gummit conspiracy. They are an easy way for politicians to make it look like they are doing something useful by inconveniencing a small group of voters rather than actually doing something useful that inconveniences a much larger group of voters. It's why leftists are always telling us that the rich need to pay "their fair share", even though aforementioned rich already pay the vast majority of all taxes paid. The math is simple. Few rich people, few votes. Lots of non tax payers, lots of votes.


Now, if you can provide any science that shows a benefit from stopping .01% of discharges rather than preventing the other 99.99%, then NDZs might serve an actual purpose. So far, you haven't done that.

And if those .01% of discharges are from ElectroScans, 99.95% of the pathogens have been eliminated with electricity.
What's left in the discharge is the equal nitrogen and phosphorous of a few tree leaves.
Those are facts which have been posted before from the tests.
I believe it was Peggie who posted those numbers the last time in this Merry go round.


And for l-e, it's called ElectroScan. "Try to keep up", as you are so fond of saying.


From your posted White Paper (Page 11 under the heading "Nutrients"), under the worst case scenario...
"Researched discharges from Type I and II marine sanitation devices (MSD's). They concluded that discharges from these units equates to 0.0017 per cent of the total nutrient load bay wide."


THEIR BOLDING, not mine.


Then, from the same white paper, there's this gem:


"From a bay-wide perspective, therefore, nutrient overenrichment from boat sewage is a relatively minor concern that has largely been addressed."



My bolding this time !

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The subsection you're in is "Agricultural", so that's what they're focussing on I imagine.

I did find this, which clearly indicates that the big offenders ARE in the crosshairs. It's not just recreational marine.

This whitepaper covers the deliberations behind some Chesapeake Bay NDZ initiatives. They acknowledge that the contribution from recreational boats is likely miniscule, and one of the considered approaches is simply an outreach program to type 1 & 2 owners.

It also echoes concerns about the lifetime performance of those MSD systems, and where boat discharge could accumulate and cause problems.

The "Agricultural" section is actually bit misleading. The page has good info and good navigation, but it's hard to see where you are. The first link below "Agricutural" is "Air Pollution" -- it's sort of all there and all broken up too.


The big guys are in the crosshairs -- sewage and septic -- but it's 100% land based. MSD's don't get a footnote.


Interesting paper. As kid, I had a crush on the second author's sister. And, yes, it's the same one -- I've been in contact with Donna on another NDZ matter. Small world! I like the part of the report that finds a recent study showing that boat sewage (legal and illegal) represents 0.0017 percent of the nutrient loading in the Bay. It's also interesting that the very agency that would shepherd through an NDZ (Maryland Department of the Environment) would write a paper that is so strongly unsupportive of the effort (that's my take -- in the political world, many documents are used to support both sides of an argument! LOL).