Do the potty police have science on their side?

[markpierce]

My strategy is to avoid being in a river, lake, ocean, bay, slough, pool, hot tub, whatever. I'll stay with a shower using safe, treated, water: the same I'd brush my teeth with.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by thinwater

I believe the Chesapeake Bay is not because it is considered inland waters and untreated discharge is not allowed anywhere in the Bay; there was no need to trigger NDZ to control cruise ships ETC. There are several small NDZs.

The problem with the PS is that it is no inland waters and a cruise ship can discharge in the center. The Chesapeake is larger, but the regulatory status is different.

And you're not wrong about politics.


The military exemption is baked into the underlying regulation. I also doubt there is a city with a large military presence that wants to challenge that.

I wonder if the regulatory issue you point out also explains other large sounds & bays which have also been designated NDZs, for e.g. in RI & MA. It never would have occurred to me that a body of water such as Puget Sound wouldn't be considered "inland" under any definition. Except legal that is! In any event, thanks for pointing this out.

[Exile]

Well, so much for upping the level of discourse around here. You have no science, so I understand the frustration. But your frequent pattern of mischaracterizing what others have written is downright unfriendly and really not very "nice." A few corrections:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We've pretty much agreed upthread that the percentage of boaters who have type 1 or 2 MSDs without a holding tank as well is rather low.

No we haven't. You asked for a head count. I think I was the only one who responded that my boat had an Lectrasan with no holding tank when I bought it. I also pointed out that this "could" be more the norm because, like on my boat, they are frequently marketed & installed as a substitute for a holding tank. Someone else chimed in about the difficulty of attaching a holding tank to one. In other words, you have no idea how many boaters with Type 1 & 2 systems have or don't have holding tanks. But if you think this is relevant to some point you're trying to make, maybe with a little research you can find out. Hey, it beats just making stuff up.

We know that these MSD systems reduce the amount of harmful bacteria, but not nearly as well as municipal treatment,

"Not nearly as well?" Based on what thinwater & others have written, it seems more like we know onboard systems don't disinfect to the same standard but I haven't read anyone making a case that municipal system overflows don't pollute the water much more due to sheer volume. Maybe this is in fact why the EPA has higher standards for municipal systems. You still seem confused about the quantity/concentration/dilution thing.

and that these systems DO NOT reduce the amount of sewage dumped.

Ya think?? NOR does overflow sewage coming out of municipal systems, or out the ass of a bull porpoise. What's your point here, that treated sewage rendered largely inert when it leaves a private vessel (and in saltwater becoming completely inert shortly thereafter) amounts to harmful pollution? The only harm being caused seems to be to your personal sensibilities. Or is it the small amount of nitrates that are released that has you jammed up? Do you also believe that poop in such low concentrations is the cause of algae blooms? If that's the case then someone really should have a serious talk with that porpoise!

We have heard from several here who claim that the total output from cruisers is pretty low overall compared to other things: runoff, the occasional raw dump from municipalities, etc.

"Pretty" low?? We've all heard about millions of gallons from municipal systems. What's the average private vessel's holding tank capacity? 12 gals. maybe? 20? How long does it take to fill with say 4 people onboard? How do you think the first 5 mins. of an avg. rainstorm impacts the amount of run-off? Do we need scientific estimates for you to get the picture or can we get past this one now too? Or are you trying to make a case for "every little bit counts?" Also a stretch but a bit more credible than comparing private vessel poop discharge to municipal overflow & run-off.

Yet you and Exile maintain that the NDZ would discourage the installation of types 1 or 2 MSDs which would cause Serious Ecological Harm.

Riiiight.

No, wroooong. Few on this thread appear to believe that, in the NDZ scenarios being mostly discussed, any sewage from private vessels causes "Serious Ecological Harm," so few would similarly conclude that fewer numbers of Type 1 & 2 systems would make much if any difference. The issue is not what may cause "Serious Ecological Harm," but whether we want public policy to encourage people to make less of an impact. As far as I know, treated sewage makes less of an impact than untreated, so we shouldn't have rules & regs that discourage the use of onboard treatment systems that meet EPA standards, whether boaters discharge their waste legally or not.

And of course NDZs discourage installation of onboard treatment systems. If all of your primary cruising area is an NDZ then why would you spend the extra money? And why attach a holding tank to your Lectrasan if you're only allowed to pump out at the dock or beyond the 3-mile limit? This is exactly why I pulled the Lectrasan out of my boat after purchasing it. Reflexive, unquestioning adherence to laws adopted under the banner of environmentalism doesn't always result in actually helping the environment.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

No you can't if you're primarily sailing in an NDZ and wish to follow the law. You're stuck with . . .

. . . the most common alternative ... a holding tank.

Indeed. So it sounds like you prefer to do away with onboard treatment systems altogether, and simply stick with dock pumpouts & the 3-mile rule. I get it and that's fine, but I think you can make that case without all the ridiculous accusations of environmental insensitivity.

...except that a dock queen without a holding tank and lazy occupants (or uninstructed guests/partiers) would be discharging right at their slip, or anchorage...

And short of a way of ever being able to completely prevent that, what would you prefer to see? That same dock queen with lazy occupants discharging treated OR untreated sewage? How about past the 3-mile limit? Wouldn't it be preferable to dump treated sewage offshore too? Or are you now the one trying to have it both ways?

Thanks to the corn lobby, not environmentalists.

Ethanol was supposed to come from agricultural waste - stalks, chaff, rejects, spoils, etc - stuff with zero value and otherwise going into landfill - not foodstock. The corn lobby climbed aboard the ethanol bus and grabbed the wheel, and now it's a mostly GOP boondoggle in the corn belt.

Of course it is. And not only is this personal for you, it's apparently also political. What a great way to sway people over to your side. Of course, it doesn't quite explain why Iowa is the first primary for the Dems too (caucuses actually), why Ted Cruz (R) was the only presidential candidate in 2016 to call for an end to all energy subsidies incl. ethanol, or why H. Clinton (D) published an op-ed in 2015 calling for the U.S. to “invest in rural clean energy” including ethanol and other biofuels. https://www.agweb.com/article/every-...aa-ben-potter/ Are you really so sure the political boondoggle is limited to only one side, and it had nothing to do with an environmental platform? After all, we wouldn't want to assume that your assertions are merely superficial partisanship or anything.

10% Ethanol (E-90) in vehicle fuel is not a problem; it gets used fast enough.

Again, for YOU, personally. But it's a huge problem for everything from the price of food staples, to the fossil fuel energy required to process it, to the destruction it causes to all manner of internal combustion engines.

In small motors or other uses where the gas can sit for months, it is.

Yup, including causing fuel spills when it erodes fuel tanks on marine engines. You know, the type of fuel spills which can wind up causing serious water pollution.

Given the number of people in the thread who think that discharging macerated sewage ANYWHERE is no big whoop... I don't think the environment is front and center with many of them.

And there it is. The thought processes which substitute personalization, emotion & stereotyping in place of cogent analysis & respectful discussion. It does explain, however, all the misinformed & illogical posts. And at least we finally now know why some of these nonsensical laws & regs ever get passed. Thanks for at least informing us about that one L-E!

[senormechanico]

It was a few years ago and I don't have a link, but I DO remember reading that it takes a bit over one gallon of diesel overall to produce a gallon of biofuel.


No wonder our food prices went up and the price of fuel did NOT go down.

[Exile]

Here's a brief explanation (and sales pitch) from Raritan who manufactures the Lectrasan. They manufacture many other types of MSDs as well, mostly systems with conventional holding tanks.

https://raritaneng.com/on-board-wast...-lectrasan-mc/

It's a Type I approved for boats under 65'. It claims it was independently tested & exceeds EPA/USCG standards. It also claims it "eliminates coliform bacteria better than most municipal treatment plants." But, like I said, it's also a marketing document from the company so that statement should be evaluated accordingly.

The document reads like the system is designed to be used without a holding tank, maybe in part because it already requires the use of a small, two-chambered tank to accomplish the maceration and disinfection processes. It uses no outside chemicals, but produces chlorine from saltwater electrolysis (or something like that). Since it's not designed for use with holding tanks, and many boaters install it because they don't have sufficient space for a larger holding tank, it may be reasonable to conclude that most of these systems do not have holding tanks. IMHO, this makes NDZs nonsensical, at least as directed towards small private vessels with such systems in place (can't really opine about large commercial cruise ships, etc.).

And one for our friend L-E: "The fundamental advantages of treating waste properly on-board compared to filling up and pumping out holding tanks or dumping raw sewage overboard are obvious to boaters and informed environmentalists."

Well . . . apparently not all environmentalists are sufficiently informed, and apparently such benefits are not obvious to all boaters. Too bad.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

And one for our friend L-E: "The fundamental advantages of treating waste properly on-board compared to filling up and pumping out holding tanks or dumping raw sewage overboard are obvious to boaters and informed environmentalists."

Well . . . apparently not all environmentalists are sufficiently informed, and apparently such benefits are not obvious to all boaters. Too bad.

The test of any such prescription is how well it scales. If you think that all boaters should replace their holding tanks with treatment systems that immediately discharge after every flush, which most often happens at anchor, or near a beach or popular spot, or in a marina or club... well, it's a free world.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The test of any such prescription is how well it scales. If you think that all boaters should replace their holding tanks with treatment systems that immediately discharge after every flush, which most often happens at anchor, or near a beach or popular spot, or in a marina or club... well, it's a free world.

What’s your issue regarding harmless treated waste being flushed in small amounts? ‘Seems like this would normally be the goal of a sensible and rational environmentalist.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

What’s your issue regarding harmless treated waste being flushed in small amounts? ‘Seems like this would normally be the goal of a sensible and rational environmentalist.

1) "harmless"? yes it's somewhat treated - coliform and other pathogens have largely been killed. To only, roughly speaking, 5 times the pathogen levels of the discharge from municipal treatment.

2) that's it; beyond the maceration there's no other treatment to the waste.

But yes... a few boats in a large body of water... not a problem. Harmless.

So, if it's such a great idea, it should scale, no? Ok, let's imagine this seaside scenario (the Landing sandbar in Fort Walton Beach), and every MSD-equipped boat present directly discharges (mostly) disinfected, macerated waste after every flush.



Now, we know you've rationalized it away, and everybody pees when swiming right? Nonetheless... I think a bunch of mothers would have qualms about letting their kids wade and swim in it. kapeesh? as the great Exile might say.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

1) "harmless"? yes it's somewhat treated - coliform and other pathogens have largely been killed. To only, roughly speaking, 5 times the pathogen levels of the discharge from municipal treatment.

2) that's it; beyond the maceration there's no other treatment to the waste.

But yes... a few boats in a large body of water... not a problem. Harmless.

So, if it's such a great idea, it should scale, no? Ok, let's imagine this seaside scenario (the Landing sandbar in Fort Walton Beach), and every MSD-equipped boat present directly discharges (mostly).....

Most cruisers aren’t ever in as congested anchorage as the one in your picture, not even close.

Even if the treatment device yields 5 times the pathogen concentration of a municipal treatment plant, it’s such a minuscule amount being flushed that you couldn’t even measure its impact. As soon as effluent exits the treatment device think about how many thousands of gallons it immediately starts mixing with. In my harbor (about 1/2 mile x 1/4 mile) with a 10’ tide that’s over 33 million gallons twice a day worth of flushing action in addition to the approximately 100 million gallons left in the harbor at low tide. Do you REALLY think that even 100 approximately 1 gallon discharges from an onboard treatment device over the course of a day is going to have any discernible impact as it mixes with over 100 million gallons and as the tide recedes is swept out of the harbor to mix with billions of more gallons just outside the harbor where no boats anchor? I swim in the harbor (I don’t even know anyone in harbor with a Lectrasan) on hot days and so do many others and I’ve never even heard of any ill effects at all. Let’s not be making mountains out of molehills.

[john61ct]

Again, overly harsh potty training cause unwarranted and irrational disgust-reactions about poo.

[DumnMad]

Great picture L-E. Doesn't it prove that boat discharges are harmless ? Or were the local hospitals flooded with sick swimmers ?

Your "science" is painfully deficient.

[DumnMad]

Do environmentalists think that fuel used to motor out beyond the NDZ to release putrified dump-load from the holding tankis much more environment friendly than direct discharge of macerated fresh stuff ?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Most cruisers aren’t ever in as congested anchorage as the one in your picture, not even close.
... I swim in the harbor (I don’t even know anyone in harbor with a Lectrasan) on hot days and so do many others and I’ve never even heard of any ill effects at all. Let’s not be making mountains out of molehills.

The point is, if what you are campaigning for, was done by every boater with a head, what would the result be?

Great picture L-E. Doesn't it prove that boat discharges are harmless ?

I suspect most of those boats have holding tanks of some sort. Answer the question - what if all those boats with a head were releasing macerated waste immediately, after every flush? Would it make you more, or less likely to attend, or to let your kids attend?

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Do environmentalists think that fuel used to motor out beyond the NDZ to release putrified dump-load from the holding tankis much more environment friendly than direct discharge of macerated fresh stuff ?

... it might be appreciated by those around you. But what's wrong with a pumpout once in a while?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The point is, if what you are campaigning for, was done by every boater with a head, what would the result be?
I suspect most of those boats have holding tanks of some sort. Answer the question - what if all those boats with a head were releasing macerated waste immediately, after every flush? Would it make you more, or less likely to attend, or to let your kids attend?

... it might be appreciated by those around you. But what's wrong with a pumpout once in a while?

When logic and facts fail, one can always try the old straw man approach.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

1) "harmless"? yes it's somewhat treated - coliform and other pathogens have largely been killed. To only, roughly speaking, 5 times the pathogen levels of the discharge from municipal treatment.

2) that's it; beyond the maceration there's no other treatment to the waste.

But yes... a few boats in a large body of water... not a problem. Harmless.

So, if it's such a great idea, it should scale, no? Ok, let's imagine this seaside scenario (the Landing sandbar in Fort Walton Beach), and every MSD-equipped boat present directly discharges (mostly) disinfected, macerated waste after every flush.

Now, we know you've rationalized it away, and everybody pees when swiming right? Nonetheless... I think a bunch of mothers would have qualms about letting their kids wade and swim in it. kapeesh? as the great Exile might say.

It’s highly likely that your computer keyboard, tablet device, cell phone, doorknob to the room you’re in, stair railing, car steering wheel and shopping carriage handle at the store all have a much higher fecal matter count than the water in a crowded anchorage.

Your fear of human feces is irrational.