Do the potty police have science on their side?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's an operating choice; one doesn't have to discharge overboard from a type I or II after every flush.



The fixtures have a sticker, but no, we don't (yet) have to have a post-install inspection. Anyway, the practicalities of enforcement is also a definite factor; if someone claims they are properly discharging treated waste, what do the LEOs do - take a sample?

No first-hand experience, but I've heard of jurisdictions in the US who will enforce by coming onboard to determine whether you have a padlock affixed to your y-valve (or some other way of preventing overboard discharge), and that only the capn or master has access to the key. In the Dry Tortugas (a US National Park), I have been told that officers will board to both check that the y-valve is locked and to flush dye through your head so that any overboard discharge can be detected from outside the boat. It is not without justification as there are sensitive coral formations in the vicinity of Ft. Jefferson, and you're only allowed to tie to established mooring balls (no anchoring) for similar reasons.

When I had to replace my two heads a number of years back, I installed a system whereby all waste goes into holding tanks with no option to discharge directly overboard. When it comes time to empty the holding tanks at sea, I have to open seacocks, turn on circuit breakers, and use a key to activate the electric overboard pumps. So no chance of inadvertent discharges. I can also, of course, discharge through deck outlets where there are pump-out facilities. The system has worked well, and is certainly in compliance. Notwithstanding, I still believe much of this regulatory scheme is yet another contrived problem searching for solutions, especially the thread topic of NDZs being discussed here.

[thruska]

All this talk both ways and back n forth n upside down only enforces my belief in compost toilets. End of discussion ?
Well of course not ....bang your head lol

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

No first-hand experience, but I've heard of jurisdictions in the US who will enforce by coming onboard to determine whether you have a padlock affixed to your y-valve (or some other way of preventing overboard discharge), and that only the capn or master has access to the key. In the Dry Tortugas (a US National Park), I have been told that officers will board to both check that the y-valve is locked and to flush dye through your head so that any overboard discharge can be detected from outside the boat. It is not without justification as there are sensitive coral formations in the vicinity of Ft. Jefferson, and you're only allowed to tie to established mooring balls (no anchoring) for similar reasons.

For zones where any discharge is absolutely prohibited (eg inland lakes) thats what I've heard too. A nylon tie (tywrap) apparently also qualifies. From an enforcement point of view, it's much simpler to check the Y valve setting than to play 20 questions with the skipper about whether there's a properly-functioning treatment system.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by eyschulman

We are making the issue too complicated. The EPA people have jobs and would like to stop all pollution and they find their position either politically unpopular or blocked by powerful interest groups. So they have to do something to justify their use of our tax dollars. Boaters are one of the easy targets based on #s and political factors. There are plenty of other polluting targets to go after but many are hard targets with lots of political clout and corrupt influence. The result large NDZ that are not specific to the science. Some NDZ in smaller enclosed areas or related to specific biologic needs are justified such as practiced in Canada. The net result of the EPA folly will be encouragement of none compliance.

Gee, ya think?

[Exile]

Yup, and apart from the relatively small areas of effective enforcement discussed, the fact remains that the regulatory regimen is almost all based on voluntary compliance. That means that boaters have to be swayed that their compliance is rational & worthwhile, which gets us right back to the topic of the thread.

Don't the onboard treatment devices being discussed have some sort of governmental approval? Presumably by the USCG in the US? If so, then NDZ's are only discouraging their use and the $$ it takes for private boat owners to install them. Or maybe that's the goal??

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by thinwater

Since all US sewage (and EU) treatment standards are based on this, yes, it has been exhaustively reviewed by all sides. Google your heart out.

The studies are in relation to municipal waste treatment plants dumping thousands upon thousands of gallons of waste into the water ways 24/7/365.

That's wildly different from a boat dumping 20gal 10miles offshore once in a while.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by MarkSF

The funny thing is, during all the years I've been berthed in, and have sailed in, San Francisco bay, the following thought has never occurred to me :

"I love the clean waters and thriving ecosystem, but you know what really sucks? Not being able to dump my sewage into it"

So where do you think your household sewage goes?

Again, playing the emotion over science card.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

From Wikipedia;
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated roughly 1.7 million hospital-associated infections, from all types of microorganisms, including bacteria and fungi combined, cause or contribute to 99,000 deaths each year.[2] In Europe, where hospital surveys have been conducted, the category of gram-negative infections are estimated to account for two-thirds of the 25,000 deaths each year.

I take it your family are not allowed to visit hospitals

An interesting and telling perspective. It should put some perspective on the argument, but i doubt if it will overcome the social stigma of poop.

Jim

[Lake-Effect]

There are relatively few cruisers. If every cruising boat tossed one "venti" sized coffee cup into the water every day, it wouldn't really amount to a lot of pollution, compared to the millions of cups tossed by landlubbers that end up in the water. And cruisers don't have that many takeout coffees anyway.

Ergo, every cruiser should be allowed to toss their disposable coffee cups overboard.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There are relatively few cruisers. If every cruising boat tossed one "venti" sized coffee cup into the water every day, it wouldn't really amount to a lot of pollution, compared to the millions of cups tossed by landlubbers that end up in the water. And cruisers don't have that many takeout coffees anyway.

Ergo, every cruiser should be allowed to toss their disposable coffee cups overboard.

Ah yes, the old "false equivalency" logical fallacy. Oldie, but a goodie.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There are relatively few cruisers. If every cruising boat tossed one "venti" sized coffee cup into the water every day, it wouldn't really amount to a lot of pollution, compared to the millions of cups tossed by landlubbers that end up in the water. And cruisers don't have that many takeout coffees anyway.

Ergo, every cruiser should be allowed to toss their disposable coffee cups overboard.

Let's try to stick to the science. Sewage and coffee cups are not equivalent. Coffee cups do not biodegrade. There is no threshold below which coffee cups in the water have no impact. There are steps that any cruisers can and do take to reduce the amount of trash they create on board as well as the volume of that trash. Though it is a nuisance, trash does not pose the handling problem that sewage does because it does not require installed tankage.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Ah yes, the old "false equivalency" logical fallacy. Oldie, but a goodie.

Originally Posted by Jammer

Let's try to stick to the science. Sewage and coffee cups are not equivalent. Coffee cups do not biodegrade. There is no threshold below which coffee cups in the water have no impact. There are steps that any cruisers can and do take to reduce the amount of trash they create on board as well as the volume of that trash. Though it is a nuisance, trash does not pose the handling problem that sewage does because it does not require installed tankage.

I think the comparison is bang-on. You are trying to justify a behaviour which, if everyone (eg all marine traffic) did likewise, there would be significant harm. Just because the discharge from cruisers only would likely be insignificant doesn't justify the increased complexity of enforcement or the bad precedent that an exception might set.



First-world problems, indeed.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I think the comparison is bang-on. You are trying to justify a behaviour which, if everyone (eg all marine traffic) did likewise, there would be significant harm. Just because the discharge from cruisers only would likely be insignificant doesn't justify the increased complexity of enforcement or the bad precedent that an exception might set.



First-world problems, indeed.

There would be no harm... says my dolphin friends. The real problem are those whales, seals and walruses. How do we get them to comply?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

There would be no harm... says my dolphin friends. The real problem are those whales, seals and walruses. How do we get them to comply?

More regulation & enforcement, whether it's rational or not. So much easier than just having rational rules & regs in the first place that people will be encouraged to comply with voluntarily. But then there wouldn't be any made up "problems" to distract from finding solutions to more serious ones that aren't made up. Ahhh, but it "feels" so good to be an eco-warrior. Who really cares about unintended consequences.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You are trying to justify a behaviour which, if everyone (eg all marine traffic) did likewise, there would be significant harm.

Already pointed out, but the behavior in question is discharge of poop that's already been treated onboard. The OP is asking whether there's science to support NDZs which prohibit the discharge of treated waste. Got any science?