Do the potty police have science on their side?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Sure am aware. I'm a Civil Engineer and took all the classes back in school. Fully aware of the implications and differences.

You do realize treated municipal sewage doesn't qualify per the NDZ rules if it comes out of a boat...and yes, it all goes into the nearest waterway once treated.

Well, I've yet to see a boat MSD that discharges an almost clear liquid, and the sludge is separately dried then trucked away Composting heads, maybe.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Well, I've yet to see a boat MSD that discharges an almost clear liquid, and the sludge is separately dried then trucked away Composting heads, maybe.

Yep, NDZ's take no consideration of the science. They don't care what treatment has been done.

On a per gallon basis, municipal treated sewage isn't as bad but when you consider it's many thousands of gallons per day constantly discharged at a single point, it's far worse.

Of course, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Yes, some of the solids are removed but not all of the BOD or COD components. I sure wouldn't want to swim around a municipal outflow site.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Yep, NDZ's take no consideration of the science. They don't care what treatment has been done.

On a per gallon basis, municipal treated sewage isn't as bad but when you consider it's many thousands of gallons per day constantly discharged at a single point, it's far worse.

Of course, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Yes, some of the solids are removed but not all of the BOD or COD components. I sure wouldn't want to swim around a municipal outflow site.

If policymakers fail to understand or opt to ignore the science regarding dilution, then they'll also fail to achieve otherwise worthy environmental goals. We're not talking about, for e.g., PCB's here which hang around indefinitely.

The reality is that, outside some of the ecologically sensitive areas discussed, enforcement is nil and the regs are almost wholly dependent on voluntary compliance. For the more extremist positions represented here, the irony is that it would be more effective to eliminate NDZ's entirely and then mandate that every vessel have an onboard treatment system. This, of course, would be wildly unpopular with boaters due to costs, and also to the more absolutist "environmentalists" who believe that discharging treated human waste within 3 miles is actually a hazard.

So in other words, it won't happen and we're back to a largely symbolic set of regs which make uninformed voters feel like they're doing "something."

Here's a couple of links to designated NDZs in the US, and also some forum chat explaining what NDZs are:

https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-...-ndzs-state#ri

BoaterEd - Just what the h*ll is a No Discharge Zone (NDZ)?

[Delfin]

Passing a law that says that boaters can't flush treated waste into Puget Sound as a NDZ is a whole lot easier than actually doing something meaningful. Like not dumping millions of gallons of raw sewage into that body of water from "treatment plants."

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...rely-affected/

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...und-heres-why/

https://q13fox.com/2017/02/15/seattl...o-puget-sound/

[senormechanico]

The line describing the Western limit of the Puget Sound NDZ is between The Discovery Island and the New Dungeness lighthouses.
That line is only 5 miles East of the Clover Point Untreated Sewage Outfall for Victoria.





If you don't believe me, draw it out on Google Earth.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

The line describing the Western limit of the Puget Sound NDZ is between The Discovery Island and the New Dungeness lighthouses.
That line is only 5 miles East of the Clover Point Untreated Sewage Outfall for Victoria.





If you don't believe me, draw it out on Google Earth.

They've done numerous tests of salmon off Race Rock about 10 feet from the sewage outflow of a city of about 100,000 and never found the slightest contamination. Victoria is only caving to the demands to stop dumping raw sewage off Race Rock because of whining from the U.S. I guess it doesn't look good to call for, and implement a NDZ in Puget Sound when the boundary of the NDZ is a sewage outflow pipe that shows no harm.

This is all about political theatrics.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

They've done numerous tests of salmon off Race Rock about 10 feet from the sewage outflow of a city of about 100,000 and never found the slightest contamination. Victoria is only caving to the demands to stop dumping raw sewage off Race Rock because of whining from the U.S. I guess it doesn't look good to call for, and implement a NDZ in Puget Sound when the boundary of the NDZ is a sewage outflow pipe that shows no harm.

This is all about political theatrics.

Oh yeah. Theatrics.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...cals-1.4537222

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...oria-1.3762234

I grant that the widely dispersed sewage outflow from Victoria, into very dynamic tidewater, has been reasonably effective, with minimal impact. But it's not zero impact. Victoria is still growing, there's more and wierder stuff making it into todays sewers... there's no excuse for a wealthy city not to properly treat their sewage.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh yeah. Theatrics.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...cals-1.4537222

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...oria-1.3762234

I grant that the widely dispersed sewage outflow from Victoria, into very dynamic tidewater, has been reasonably effective, with minimal impact. But it's not zero impact. Victoria is still growing, there's more and wierder stuff making it into todays sewers... there's no excuse for a wealthy city not to properly treat their sewage.

Given that Seattle is "treating their sewage" and still manage to dump millions of gallons of untreated sewage into the Sound, apparently with little to no impact, you think this justifies the establishment of an NDZ to reduce discharges by a fraction of 1%?

Regarding zero impacts, nothing has zero impacts. This goes to the heart of so many environmental laws - preventing human impacts totally means preventing humans.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh yeah. Theatrics.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...cals-1.4537222

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...oria-1.3762234

I grant that the widely dispersed sewage outflow from Victoria, into very dynamic tidewater, has been reasonably effective, with minimal impact. But it's not zero impact. Victoria is still growing, there's more and wierder stuff making it into todays sewers... there's no excuse for a wealthy city not to properly treat their sewage.

Why do you think Clover Point area resident's "big stink" got the sewage treatment plant's plans killed dead?
It's because it's a high falootin' GOLF COURSE !

I still am amazed at how "important" treated sewage is according to the political power rating of the people doing the argument.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Jammer

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?

sewage is worth a lot. You should be paid for it at a pump out station.

Typical pumpout stations are bad for the environment. It is excessive energy used to pump, transport and treat human waste, in the end not making efficient use of the end product. The one here is built on a dock using arsenic piles as well, which is clearly bad. It's arguably better to just dump it in the water.

MSD treatment is some kind of fake solution though I guess it can prevent diseases but not much else.

The most environmentally friendly way is to row your dingy and carry it to an appropriate location and bury it on land where it can fertilize trees for years to come. You may need to walk (a few miles) uphill and dig a deep hole.

If you cannot reach an appropriate location (or are too lazy), the next best option would be a composting toilet.

The last option (wasteful but far better than pump-out) is to use a solar furnace and incinerate it.

[PirateBarnabus]

Does this not present a case for an increase in the use of simple composting toilets?
Plans to build your own exist online and the urine discharged manually is sterile anyway isn't it?

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I have to wonder if maceration has any real effect.
I have a macerating head and it’s also how I empty the tank, with another macerator.
However the trauma if you will of waste going through a regular pump and joker valve of a regular head macerates it pretty good I’d think?

However to a great extent in things like this, the solution to pollution, is dilution.
Things that break down and degrade, not things like nuclear waste, although God knows how much nuclear material exists from the testing, I don’t.

I have a vacuflush and replaced my macerator pump used to empty my holding tank with a Whale Gusher diaphragm pump and by the time the waste goes over the side it all appears to be liquid with no particles big enough to see with the naked eye from just a few feet away. So I think you're right that the trauma of the initial suction "whoosh" of the vacuflush followed by being pummeled by 2 diaphragm pumps as it's pumped into the holding tank and then out of it is enough to effectively mix the solids and liquids so they appear as a liquid.

[Sea Q]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Here's my take on the "science" thing:

The Med is jammed with pleasure boats of many sorts. These, according to folks who sail there, do not use holding tanks or on board treatment. Rather, they dump directly, in crowded harbours, near beaches thronged with tourists, and wherever they may be. So, LOTS of direct discharge in highly populated areas.

It seems to me that if this long term practice was in fact harmful to human health, there would be overwhelming epidemiological evidence to support that idea. The science for making such determinations is in hand, and in fact I believe that many studies of various health factors are routinely done for other reasons.

I am not aware that this area suffers from unusual health issues of the sort trumpeted by the anti-dumping crowd, as surely there would be if the hazard is real. If I'm wrong about this, some citations would be nice to see.

And on the side: there have been some mention of diseases that can be spread by fecal contamination, things like hepatitis and cholera and other bad actors. I don't want to come across in the "my poop don't stink" group, but if I am not infected with these diseases, I don't think my feces can infect others. And I doubt that many active sailors are infected, either. If live bacteria or viruses are found in seawater, would a more likely source not be land based hospitals... places where sick folks congregate, and whose effluent may not be effectively treated before discharge?

This unsavory subject is always treated emotionally in the sailing fora, and it takes a sorta brave soul to argue against current laws, but some thoughtful examination of reality isn't a bad thing. I think that "science" isn't on the side of the poo police.

Jim

i'm not sure of your Med comment about dumping
I'm the manufacture of Noflex digestor and we are finding boaters and barge charter company's in Europe having the same problem with holding tanks
Yes in the past it was dumped but i think it is changing.
The laws are put into place to give a base line or a start point.
So if someone blatantly does something so bad they can nail the persons butt.
Cruise ships on the PWC go outside the 3 mile limit in one area on the trip up and down the coast where they can dump .
Now what is better dumping it all in one spot or over a couple hundred miles of ocean. This kind of pollution does better with dilution

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Actually, it does just “go away.” And quicker than you’d imagine. Biology 101.

Also, for anyone who's chartered in the Caribbean, a majority of the boats in the charter fleets down there pump directly overboard, and before the waste can be "broken down" biologically, the local fish population gobbles up a good portion of it. I know that sounds pretty disgusting but if you look over the side into that crystal clear ocean while someone else is flushing you'll see what's going on. Yummm! Untreated human waste may well be harmful to coral but all those colorful fish seem to be thriving after many years of being so "fed" by charter boats.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by PirateBarnabus

Does this not present a case for an increase in the use of simple composting toilets?
Plans to build your own exist online and the urine discharged manually is sterile anyway isn't it?

The problem with so called composting heads is that if you're onboard full time with a couple of people, they can fill up well before true composting takes place, so have to be emptied and the solid waste carried ashore and left someplace. Trash cans and dumpsters don't seem to be the place for this type of waste, and I can't imagine always having to find a public bathroom where I could carry the waste to flush a couple of weeks worth of solid waste from at least a few people down their toilets. Even if I could do it without gagging, I can't imagine the other folks waiting to use the facilities would be very appreciative. Composting heads are a good solution on land where a flush toilet isn't practical, and they probably even have a place on some boats what aren't used very frequently so the waste has time to truly compost before it is removed. But for a full time cruising couple, I don't think they are the best solution.