drain oil

[Chief Engineer]

Alan,
I expected better from you......or maybe you mis-reacted in your response.......

A few drops of diesel will create an un-Godly slick...does it effect the marine environment? Probably not.......

But there are a lot,of eyes out there

The USCG and DNR (Maryland) dont pay attention to the places that really pollute

Google: Tidewater Yacht Examiner....they use nothing when they Haulout

unlike yards in Annapolis

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Chief Engineer

Alan,
I expected better from you......or maybe you mis-reacted in your response.......

A few drops of diesel will create an un-Godly slick...does it effect the marine environment? Probably not.......

Actually Alan is quite correct. Your belief that it will "probably not" effect the marine environment is commonly called "intuitive toxicology".

I understand your perception but it's premise is based on the whole marine environment rather than the portion of it in which oil is/was discharged, regardless of the amount.
I won't bore you with details but being an environmental engineer for over 30 years managing oil spill response, cleanup and environmental effect studies from Valdez, AL to Nigeria, small spills are better than big spills is about the best one could say.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Actually Alan is quite correct. Your belief that it will "probably not" effect the marine environment is commonly called "intuitive toxicology".

I understand your perception but it's premise is based on the whole marine environment rather than the portion of it in which oil is/was discharged, regardless of the amount.
I won't bore you with details but being an environmental engineer for over 30 years managing oil spill response, cleanup and environmental effect studies from Valdez, AL to Nigeria, small spills are better than big spills is about the best one could say.

Ok, let's discuss. As I stated before, thousands of gallons of oil are naturally released into the Ocean every day. Is this "good" or "bad" or neither?

If I pour 1 gallon of my engine oil 25 miles offshore into the gulf stream, how does it hurt the environment? What plants and animals are affected? Ultimately, we all agree that the Ocean will take care of the oil just as it has for millions of years, but what is the "cost"? I submit hardly anything.

http://www.countyofsb.org/energy/information/seepspaper.asp

No doubt an oil tanker spill in a beautiful bay is much more severe because of the concentration and inability of nature to quickly dillute it. But we are talking open Ocean. Unless my gallon happens to pour directly on a bird, it is hard to see how it would hurt anything. I suspect that my drive to work this morning was much more harmful to the environment. Think of how many bugs I might have ruthlessly killed.

While I am not an environmental engineer, but merely a mechanical engineer, it seems to me that your emotional reaction to the proposition of such a means of disposal of a gallon of oil is almost the definition of "intuitive toxicology."

[S/V Illusion]

okay, if you really want a substantive discussion, I'll be happy to - if you don't have an open mind, please don't waste our collective time -

as one small example which demonstrates the falicy of your argument, suppose I dump 1 gallon of oil in the middle of the Pacific Ocean hundreds of miles from any land. One bird and one fish swim through it and ingest the oil. Each dies, becomes food for other aquatic species and further contaminates them ultimatley killing them also.
Now increase the release of oil 10 fold - the effects increase an order of magnitude.

This ignores the immediate effect on all the microscopic species in the immediate area as well as any coral if in shallow waters.

I can cite a myriad of scenarios proving my argument but it's neither necessary or appropriate on this forum.

You original premise about naturally occurring releases is also a falicy promoted by biased pretrochemical industry so-called experts. Even if it was not, they are referring to crude oil naturally occurring discharges on the sea floor. These realeases, in whatever amount that ACTUALLY occur, are denser than the water column at the temperature of the water at that depth thereby confining a relatively non-toxic (compared with refined products) oil to a low viability portion of the oceans where natural degredation is rapid - not the same condition as if it were a surface release.

Again, I understand your belief and the good marketing the industry does to promote it but that "don't make it so".

Lastly, if you really want to discuss this with some experts, I can refer you to any number of people in the government or scientific community with whom you can pose the same question if I don't count.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

okay, if you really want a substantive discussion, I'll be happy to - if you don't have an open mind, please don't waste our collective time -

as one small example which demonstrates the falicy of your argument, suppose I dump 1 gallon of oil in the middle of the Pacific Ocean hundreds of miles from any land. One bird and one fish swim through it and ingest the oil. Each dies, becomes food for other aquatic species and further contaminates them ultimatley killing them also.
Now increase the release of oil 10 fold - the effects increase an order of magnitude.

This ignores the immediate effect on all the microscopic species in the immediate area as well as any coral if in shallow waters.

I can cite a myriad of scenarios proving my argument but it's neither necessary or appropriate on this forum.

You original premise about naturally occurring releases is also a falicy promoted by biased pretrochemical industry so-called experts. Even if it was not, they are referring to crude oil naturally occurring discharges on the sea floor. These realeases, in whatever amount that ACTUALLY occur, are denser than the water column at the temperature of the water at that depth thereby confining a relatively non-toxic (compared with refined products) oil to a low viability portion of the oceans where natural degredation is rapid - not the same condition as if it were a surface release.

Again, I understand your belief and the good marketing the industry does to promote it but that "don't make it so".

Lastly, if you really want to discuss this with some experts, I can refer you to any number of people in the government or scientific community with whom you can pose the same question if I don't count.

How about some evidence to support your hypothesis? I see none but merely more "intuitive toxicology" and some kind of political rant.

What really would happen to one gallon of waste oil 25 miles in open Ocean in the Gulfstream?

Will adult fish swim through it, die, and cause a chain reaction of death to every other living thing that ingests the fish? Not from the evidence that I read:

Petroleum Oils and Wildlife

"Adult fish are less sensitive and generally can avoid oil; they are exposed only to droplets of oil dispersed into the water column or to dissolved compounds. In shallow waters, adult fish can be exposed to higher concentrations of oil and oil-derived chemicals, and fish kills have occurred in such circumstances. "

We are talking 1 gallon, 25 miles out, in over 2,000 feet of water.

Here is an article that discusses that very thing, but only in a much more constrained area of "millions of gallons:"

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/train/han...california.pdf

"For example, one gallon of used motor oil dumped in a million gallons of water will kill half of all exposed Dungeness crab larvae, among other things."

Millions of gallons equates to a very small harbor, which we aren't talking about. Keep in mind that 1 cubic mile is equal to 1,101,117,147,428 gallons! Nary a drop of this oil will come into contact with a single crab larvae. This oil will disperse and weather.

And let's say that some fish larvae and crab larvae die as a result. Is this a negative effect? Then we should probably not be allowed to walk across a field, as think of the insects we surely kill by stepping on them. Again, how many billions of insects are killed on our windshields each year? These "impacts" are negligable. If I drive a powerboat in the intracoastal waterway 25mph for 1 mile, do I harm any fish eggs? Will any crab larvae be affected? We should probably ban propellers, right?

[S/V Illusion]

I can see this is futile. I can give you an explanation but I can't make you understand. Your cynicism and sarcasm, albeit veiled, are obviously indicative of some bias so I'm done trying.

[jzk]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

I can see this is futile. I can give you an explanation but I can't make you understand. Your cynicism and sarcasm, albeit veiled, are obviously indicative of some bias so I'm done trying.

No facts again.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever looked at our highways and roads? Do you notice the black streak running down the center of each lane? Do you know what that is? Do you know where that goes? It runs off into our lakes and streams and Oceans in a much more concentrated way than 1 gallon in the gulf stream hardly compares. And, with all the boats traveling the intra-coastal, think of how many have oil that drips into the bilge and then is pumped overboard. It surely must be in a concentration way higher than my 1 gallon example.

And, by the way, I love this Earth as much as anyone. I just think we should fully analyze each issue before reacting emotionally.

[svHyLyte]

Regarding pollution, we (yachtsmen) can probably rationalize any behavior on the seas simply based on the fact that our cumulative impact is negligible in comparison with the impacts of society at large or even natural events such as sea-bed seepage. There are simply too few of us to matter much.

Never-the-less, my personal feeling is that one should try to minimize the impacts one has regardless of how small because even small impacts can matter in the long-run. For the sake of comparison, consider the minuscule mineral content in a drop of water:



compared with the stalactites that result:




With the foregoing in mind we make every effort to minimize our own impacts on the sea but regard vituperative declarations in support of our philosophy as detrimental. For example, s/v Illusion's comments on natural sea-bed seepage are specious. The central California coastline is demonstrative of that as anyone that has lived there can attest. (For years the Enviroradicals tried to pin the oil and tar balls that routinely wash up on the beach on Chevron, at least until it was finally conclusively shown by USGS scientists to be seepage from rifts in the off-lying ocean floor periodically exacerbated by seismic activity. In fact, the historical records of the Spanish describe the Chumash and other Indians gathering tar-balls that were used to "water-proof" their boats and other vessels.)

I feel Gunner's proposition has merit as a means of disposing of waste in a responsible and useful manner, if it can be done without harming one's equipment. If not, the waste can be collected and mixed with a medium such as cat-litter and retained until it can be disposed of shore-side. (We carry a couple of bags of Kitty-Litter for that exact purpose. Buried, the waste is rapidly broken down by naturally occurring organisms.)

Cheers,

s/v HyLyte

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by jzk

No facts again.

I just think we should fully analyze each issue before reacting emotionally.

I have.

I hope the rest of the community here excuses me for being so blunt but -
I learned the hard way it's impossible to win an argument with drywall so please direct any further questions to someone who may be so inclined.,

[jzk]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

I have.

I hope the rest of the community here excuses me for being so blunt but -
I learned the hard way it's impossible to win an argument with drywall so please direct any further questions to someone who may be so inclined.,

I see you have moved on from not posting any facts or citations to pure ad hominem attacks. Sounds like you don't have a good argument.

[Alan Wheeler]

That's enough guy's. I can see where this is headed if you are not careful. Each is allowed their own view.

Instead of arguing on a "what feels right" basis, let's try a bit of logic.

Let's assume we have a 200 gallon fuel tank and we are dumping 2 gallons (8 quarts) of used oil into it.

Now, how big is your engine? Let's assume roughly 100 HP, so we'll burn through that 200 gallons in (very roughly) 200 hours. In other words we are burning crankcase oil at a rate of 1 quart every 25 hours. Probably enough to smoke a bit, but not enough to embarass.

If the fuel is well filtered, as it should be crankcase oil or not, particulates shouldn't be an issue. If you are changing your oil at a reasonable interval, it shouldn't be acidic, so that's not a problem.

If I was running my engine hot and hard most of the time I would do it. If I did a lot of idle operation, I might worry a bit about extra carbon buildup.

But I don't have a dramatic answer one way or the other.

Bill

[S/V Illusion]

Bill
I have two unrelated issues with doing this:
The first being a regulatory one. In the U.S., waste oil (in this case, crankcase oil) is both a legal and characteristic hazardous waste. As such, it cannot be burned except in an incinerator designed and designated to accept this material. Neither can be it diluted to the point it no longer meets the regulatory definition any more than PCBs can be diluted below 50ppm to avoid proper handling. Therefore, strictly based on what is legally acceptable, doing this is not.
The second issue is environmental. In addition to what I said previously, there is a practical consideration on which many of the above regulations are based - that being the incomplete combustion poducts of even small concentrations of lube oil. This notwithstanding the trait of human nature that says why sound'nt everyone do it, not just in boats but in cars and any other diesel powered equipment or vehicle. If you recognize the contemporary environmental impact of buring gasoline or diesel fuel and add an albeit small additional fraction of oils resulting in incomplete combustion of the components of lube oil, the resultant effect of even a few is something I would hope none of us advocate.
This isn't the venue to discuss environmental impact of incomplete combustion and I have no dramatic answer except to end by asling if you'd like your kids breathing that air which already isn't that great in many places.

[irwinsailor]

Well I do know one thing for sure... and that is I will never dump my oil over the side as a way to dispose of it. What I think I will do is use land base disposal when I can and when I can not I will dump it in the fuel tank. I have been convinced that there is little risk of damage at the small amounts that I am talking about.

[MidLandOne]

If waste oil is fine mixed into the fuel for small diesels why not just go along to ones local fuel supplier and ask him to tip it into his diesel tanks for sale?

We know what the answer will surely be and I suspect it is probably worth taking note of that if considering dumping it into our own fuel. Seems to me that the very little to be gained is FAR outweighed by the known and unknown risks.