Do the potty police have science on their side?

[senormechanico]

....(tapping foot)....Still waiting for the "5 times the pathogens" proof....(tap... tap... tap).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

....(tapping foot)....Still waiting for the "5 times the pathogens" proof....(tap... tap... tap).

Gotta do the reading, senor. I directed you to it back here.

[senormechanico]

Nice try.

"back here" was a dead end. I went back and back and back.
No documentation, just more blather.


Here's a bit I found myself from Raritan Engineering on the (older model) LectraSan:


3. Description
The Lectra/San MC is designed to dependably treat sewage on-board boats. The process is simple, safe and pleasant to accomplish. It exceeds USCG Type I requirements and was granted Type I label certification. Certification followed extensive testing by a recognized laboratory in accordance with United States Coast Guard requirements. The evaluation involved rigorous electrical, mechanical and sewage processing tests. The Lectra San exceeded EPA requirements for effluent quality and eliminates coliform bacteria better than most municipal treatment plants. The independent lab test results required for certification documented coliform reduction in the sewage treatment process to less than 20 per 100 ml.


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


The ElectroScan (newer, more efficient and electronically smart model) reduces electrical load by up to 36%.


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

Boat Waste-Treatment Technology

By Tom Neale
Developments in onboard waste-treatment technology have created a more effective MSD.
Onboard treatment technology has developed significantly over the past two decades, far from the era of marine-sanitation devices (MSDs) with performance and fail-safe protection issues, and systems that used chemicals. But starting in the 1990s, as pumpout stations began to proliferate, and additional No Discharge Zones (NDZs) were permanently established (where it is illegal to use MSD treatment systems), funding for MSD research and development dried up.
One American-owned company, Raritan Engineering based in Milleville, New Jersey, continued to develop and improve their Lectra/San MSD, a treatment system based on technology first developed in the 1970s. New test results on their latest MSD, called Electro-Scan, have been released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


In Raritan's patented new system, sewage is pumped, on a flush-by-flush basis, into the first of two treatment chambers, and macerated into fine particles. Electricity (from rare-earth titanium electrodes with a proprietary coating) is introduced into the salt water, which separates the sodium from the chloride, creating free-standing chlorine ions, which neutralizes and disinfects the waste. At the end of the electric charge, the sodium and chloride recombine naturally within the unit so no chemicals are discharged. The particles then move into the second chamber during the next flush where the process is repeated. When discharged, the effluent particulate can best be described as light dust and, in extensive testing, the fecal coliform (FCU) content was found to be only 2.43FCU/100mL; by comparison, 14FCU/100mL is the shell-fishing-approved standard. (The current standard for Type I MSDs is less than 1000FCU/100mL.)

These new results were established in extensive testing conducted by the EPA in 2007, and announced in 2010. The EPA Executive Summary of that test determined: "... The Electro Scan device removed almost all pathogen indicators (99.99% or greater)."

my bolding (Senormechanico)


This is the first time an independent and thoroughly conducted test, sponsored by the EPA, has validated the results of this technology. Raritan, too, has had the product independently tested periodically for recertification, but the EPA-sponsored test was the most thorough. To see a table of results, and the EPA Executive Summary, visit www.BoatUS.com/Magazine.


Boat Waste-Treatment Technology - BoatUS Magazine




If I can post actual data, why can't you regarding the FIVE TIMES baloney?

[Lake-Effect]

Excellent. You can do research!

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Nice try.

"back here" was a dead end. I went back and back and back.
....
If I can post actual data, why can't you regarding the FIVE TIMES baloney?

Well, you're getting so good, you could probably answer the question yourself. Here's a hint - what are the EPA specs for coliform in the effluent output of municipal systems? Find that, and all that's left is a simple math problem.

But since you seem sincere, here's the link again.

From your posted info:

The independent lab test results required for certification documented coliform reduction in the sewage treatment process to less than 20 per 100 ml.

From the linked doc:

In 2010, the EPA did an analysis of two of the Coast Guard approved Type I MSDs. Performance tests were done on the Electro Scan device and the Thermopure - 2 device on their effectiveness at treating bacteria, and reducing total suspended solids (TSS), nutrients, and BOD . The Electro Scan device uses chlorine generated from salt water to disinfect the wastewater. When tested , fecal coliform bacteria levels of treated effluent ranged between non - detect and over 1,600 with an average of 82 as the Most Probable Number (MPN) per 100 milliliters of water.

And finding the applicable municipal standards was tougher than I thought. The best I found in a few minutes is a Canadian doc (but it is from the Wet Coast). Look for Table 3, for the spec for a Class A treatment plant:

fecal coliform (MPN / 100 mL) median: 2.2 any sample: 14

Perhaps you'll have better luck finding the equivalent EPA doc.

You're welcome.

[senormechanico]

Ah yes. I remember reading that testing, but did you ever read the test where they listed ALL the test results?
Probably NOT !


I suspect someone forgot to press the right button or something like that during that one test.

Possibly paid by some mysterious person to "miss" the button?
Several tests other than that one in the same lab on the same product produced everything from "non detect" to (I forget) numbers in the low double digits which were well within the maximum allowed.
They apparently needed to pollute (pun intended) the results for someone for some reason.
Throw out that one "test" and you will get the average well within the maximum allowed, therefore it PASSES the test.

Why else would many tests all come out well within the limits except one at 1600 just to kill the overall average for the final result and therefore kill the product ??
From a scientific viewpoint, it boggles the mind to think there is not something seriously amiss here.
It smacks of conspiracy by other interests "solutions" to marine pollution.


Here is the link to that test. NOT FOUND. Interesting...
The requested URL "/nrmrl/pubs/600r10008/600r10008.pdf" was not found on this server.







The Environmental Protection Agency had two on-board treatment devices tested by an independent research facility and the findings were reported Sept. 18, 2008. The report found that the Electro Scan Model EST 12, even though forced to process sewage far in excess of that applicable to private pleasure boats, produced an effluent with almost no pathogen content, including fecal coliform bacteria. (It found that another system worked less satisfactorily, and the manufacturer of that system presented information to the effect that the test results as to its product were flawed.)


Despite the fact that various areas were considering applying for NDZ designations, the EPA failed to release the report until March 12, 2010. In response to my query, an EPA official stated March 5 that the report is "working its way through the final approval phase." You can see the full report at www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10008/600r10008.pdf.
Nutrients
The report did conclude that the effluent from the Electro Scan contains some "nutrient," although it also found (and seemingly overlooked the finding) that a significant amount of nutrient was removed by the device. Nutrient has become the fallback position for those advocating the pumpout-only solution. They know science doesn't support them as to bad bugs, so they now stress a "nutrient" argument.
Nutrients, in this context, are nothing more than biodegradable organic materials added to the water. As they degrade, they cause an increase in the biological oxygen demand in the water. Excessive amounts of nutrients indeed can be harmful, but every blade of grass, every leaf from every tree, every droplet of waste from fish and fowl and animal that falls into the water, every drop of beer, every old scrap of food is a nutrient that causes an increase in biological oxygen demand. The amount of nutrients introduced into the water by an on-board treatment device such as the Electro Scan has been estimated to be equivalent to, at most, a few leaves.



https://www.soundingsonline.com/boat...g-waters-clean

[DumnMad]

The potty police are so desparate to hold onto their jobs they imply all discharged nutrients are bad.
Its just not true, the fish love our poo. Especially if it is fresh flush and chemical free.

Google dissolved nutrients in seawater:

"Probably the most important property of seawater in terms of its effect on life in the oceans is the concentration of dissolved nutrients. The most critical of these nutrients are nitrogen and phosphorus because they play a major role in stimulating primary production by plankton in the oceans. These elements are known as limiting because plants cannot grow without them. "

[Exile]

Thank you Señor! I had no idea the old LectraSan had been updated so extensively in what is now the Electro San. Now there's no rationale whatsoever to support NDZs when it comes to our private recreational vessels. In fact, since the Chesapeake Bay is not an NDZ I'm looking forward to doing my part to help the oysters with nutrients by installing an Electro San as soon as I return to my boat. No more nasty holding tank or dockside pumpouts for my boat!

[sailingharry]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

1) 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.

That is a very "busy" photograph and hard to pull out details. I also have little experience with small runabouts, the type of which seem to be the bulk of the boats there. However, I suspect that most of them are exempt from the Clean Water Act (the Act here in the US, ca. 1975, that bans discharge of untreated sewage and defines Type 1, 2, and 3 MSD's). The bulk of those boats probably do not have a head, and the majority do not even carry a porta-potti (and if they do, they go to great lengths to ensure it never gets used). How they deal with an unmanageable urge to take a dump, I don't know (and most just hold it). But, both men and women, I'll wager over 90% go while they are standing in the water.


Not a good argument for the case against LectraSans, which I would be willing to place a small wager are not present on even 1 boat in that picture.

[sailingharry]

As I've made clear repeatedly, I love my Lectra San, I love not motoring an hour each way to the nearest pumpout station, and I believe the impact of the trivially small number of Type I MSD's makes the NDZ effort more about "optics politics" and less about actually cleaning up the environment.


However, I do tire of hearing old studies, with what I suspect are carefully picked sentences, about the quality of the discharge. Back in the mid-90's I was the project manager for the construction of a sewage treatment plant on the upper eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay. My questionable memory tells me that the output met drinking water standards, but I won't swear to that. However, I will say that I was dismayed by the output. It was visually cleaner than pool water, and since the last treatment phase was a UV disinfectant, I have to believe it had very low microbe life as well. It was certainly far cleaner than the Bay water it was being discharged to. There is no way that the discharge of a LectraSan, which starts with Bay water, could ever come even close to matching the discharge of that sewer plant.


Misrepresenting facts, or repeating outdated mantra, does not help anyone's cause.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

I'll wager over 90% go while they are standing in the water.

Maybe peeing, but poo?

Among adults, in any country I've lived in, that would be a crazy high overestimate.

Would usually be treated as a public safety emergency.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Ah yes. I remember reading that testing, but did you ever read the test where they listed ALL the test results?
Probably NOT !

I suspect someone forgot to press the right button or something like that during that one test.

Possibly paid by some mysterious person to "miss" the button?

Someone posts some data, you go "conspiracy!". Feel the science...

Here is the link to that test. NOT FOUND. Interesting...
The requested URL "/nrmrl/pubs/600r10008/600r10008.pdf" was not found on this server.

Three guesses as to WHO has ordered the removal of data from EPA servers...

The report did conclude that the effluent from the Electro Scan contains some "nutrient," although it also found (and seemingly overlooked the finding) that a significant amount of nutrient was removed by the device.

Someone will have to tell me how those devices remove nutrient. Conservation of mass, and all that. Magic?



Tom Neale's rant is now more than 8 years old. Anyone got something more recent? All his valid points are buried under hype, though, and gems like this:

The public is misled into thinking that NDZ proposals add to environmental protection rather than diminish it.

Prove it.

[sailormed]

Post 1 on 13/09
Post 401 on 29/10
That is 400 posts on this subject in 46 days.
Roughly 10 a day and growing!


Must be a passionate subject.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailingharry

That is a very "busy" photograph and hard to pull out details. ...The bulk of those boats probably do not have a head, and the majority do not even carry a porta-potti (and if they do, they go to great lengths to ensure it never gets used)...

Not a good argument for the case against LectraSans, which I would be willing to place a small wager are not present on even 1 boat in that picture.

You're right about the photo, but I'm certain that other shots would show many boats large enough to have heads. it is Florida... The point there being: what if every NSD equipped boat was discharging after every flush in that concentrated space; would you be happy about that? In this thread, there seem to be several who would be...

Originally Posted by sailingharry

As I've made clear repeatedly, I love my Lectra San, I love not motoring an hour each way to the nearest pumpout station, and I believe the impact of the trivially small number of Type I MSD's makes the NDZ effort more about "optics politics" and less about actually cleaning up the environment.

However, I do tire of hearing old studies, with what I suspect are carefully picked sentences, about the quality of the discharge. Back in the mid-90's I was the project manager for the construction of a sewage treatment plant on the upper eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay. My questionable memory tells me that the output met drinking water standards, but I won't swear to that. However, I will say that I was dismayed by the output. It was visually cleaner than pool water, and since the last treatment phase was a UV disinfectant, I have to believe it had very low microbe life as well. It was certainly far cleaner than the Bay water it was being discharged to. There is no way that the discharge of a LectraSan, which starts with Bay water, could ever come even close to matching the discharge of that sewer plant.

Misrepresenting facts, or repeating outdated mantra, does not help anyone's cause.

^^^ This, Senor.

btw, the newest ElectroScan (2014+) seems to be significantly advanced. It would be great to see retests using that device.

I suspect that market pressure could convince Electro-Scan and others to incorporate some sort of mini holding tank arrangement in there so that they could go a day or two without discharging til they are back in open (non-NDZ) water. Win-win.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sailormed

Post 1 on 13/09
Post 401 on 29/10
That is 400 posts on this subject in 46 days.
Roughly 10 a day and growing!

Must be a passionate subject.

It's day-care for bored cruisers, especially now that winter's approaching.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

btw, the newest ElectroScan (2014+) seems to be significantly advanced. It would be great to see retests using that device.

I suspect that market pressure could convince Electro-Scan and others to incorporate some sort of mini holding tank arrangement in there so that they could go a day or two without discharging til they are back in open (non-NDZ) water. Win-win.

Try to keep up, l-e.


If you did your research, you would find there is such a thing.

It's called Hold'n Treat. Made by Raritan.