Do the potty police have science on their side?

[Kenomac]

Emotion always trumps science.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Emotion always trumps science.

And serves as an all too obvious indicator that there is no science. Or does the hyper-regulatory EU have the science wrong when they apparently do not even require holding tanks?

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by 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

Annapolis is working on banning compositing heads. So guess it’s not the end.

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by Jammer

Let's be clear. The only difference in what you can and cannot do in an NDZ vs. a similar area that is not an NDZ is this: In an NDZ you cannot use an onboard waste treatment system. Outside an NDZ, you can.


In neither case is it permitted to discharge untreated waste.

Unless you are swimming.............

[Cheechako]

"Treated sewage" doesn't go away. It's just been poisoned to not be a biological hazard. Still not fun to be snorkeling and watching Baby Ruth chunks float by...

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

More regulation & enforcement, whether it's rational or not.

No; simpler regulation and enforcement, which is quite rational. NDZ means no discharge; no having to sit through a cruising skipper's 20 minute rationalization of why he should be permitted to dump in a NDZ when others are prohibited.


In all this twisting and turning, I haven't heard anyone explain why it's such an egregious burden to not dump in a NDZ.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

"Treated sewage" doesn't go away. It's just been poisoned to not be a biological hazard. Still not fun to be snorkeling and watching Baby Ruth chunks float by...

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

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No; simpler regulation and enforcement, which is quite rational. NDZ means no discharge; no having to sit through a cruising skipper's 20 minute rationalization of why he should be permitted to dump in a NDZ when others are prohibited.


In all this twisting and turning, I haven't heard anyone explain why it's such an egregious burden to not dump in a NDZ.

The egregious burden is purchasing expensive gear for your boat in an effort to make it more environmentally compliant, only to be told you can't use it. It encourages people to not take otherwise rational rules & regs seriously. Again, the science issue is whether treated sewage is harmful to the environment or not.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The egregious burden is purchasing expensive gear for your boat in an effort to make it more environmentally compliant, only to be told you can't use it. It encourages people to not take otherwise rational rules & regs seriously. Again, the science issue is whether treated sewage is harmful to the environment or not.

Nobody's been told they "can't use it", just that they can't dump it overboard in a NDZ. Oh, the pain...


Re science - for what definition of harm? In a perfect world, everyone would be considerate about how they treat and where they choose to dump. In this world, idjits would dump anywhere and everywhere if it wasn't for laws governing that with some level of enforcement.

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

"Treated sewage" doesn't go away. It's just been poisoned to not be a biological hazard. Still not fun to be snorkeling and watching Baby Ruth chunks float by...

Sewage that’s been treated in a type 1 msd won’t appear as a “baby Ruth”. The treatment process breaks the Ruths into particles so as to have enough surface area to sterilize.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Nobody's been told they "can't use it", just that they can't dump it overboard in a NDZ. Oh, the pain...


Re science - for what definition of harm? In a perfect world, everyone would be considerate about how they treat and where they choose to dump. In this world, idjits would dump anywhere and everywhere if it wasn't for laws governing that with some level of enforcement.

When we took delivery of our boat in RI in 2007, I recall most if not all of the inland waters were a state-mandated NDZ. Maybe that's changed. As a result, I yanked the Lectra-San out of one of the heads since it seemed useless (and drew a lot of power). It doesn't sound like you're all that informed.

We're not talking about perfect worlds & idiots, but one where conscientious boaters are being penalized and huge sources of pollution are not. Regulating recreational boaters in this fashion plays to people & interests in a way that's unproductive & self-centered. The real problems of toxic run-off and municipal sewage overflow are being addressed in a superficial & idiotic way, i.e. under the guise of doing "something."

Back to the thread topic: Where's the science supporting the NDZ ban on treated sewage discharge? Freshwater areas with lots of boaters? OK. Sensitive coral reefs? Sounds good to me. The overwhelming larger areas of saltwater NDZs? Science please.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Sailmonkey

Sewage that’s been treated in a type 1 msd won’t appear as a “baby Ruth”. The treatment process breaks the Ruths into particles so as to have enough surface area to sterilize.

I bet this isn't actually spelled out in the ballot box when uninformed people pull the lever for a "greener" regulatory scheme.

[Jammer]

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.

So, let's remember what we're talking about here. The question is whether there's any science behind disallowing the use of on-board treatment systems in NDZs. I would like to know whether there is science behind your claim that the discharge from these systems still poses a problem, and if so whether the problem is ecological, public health, aesthetic, etc.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Jammer

So, let's remember what we're talking about here. The question is whether there's any science behind disallowing the use of on-board treatment systems in NDZs. I would like to know whether there is science behind your claim that the discharge from these systems still poses a problem, and if so whether the problem is ecological, public health, aesthetic, etc.

I'm sorry my comments weren't worth reading completely. I've already indicated my agreement that the dumping by cruisers probably has insignificant ecological impact.

But so what? Is the requirement so onerous that cruisers need to be given an exception? Who else wants an exception? Speak up.

The reason it' applies to all boats in those areas is because it's too much of a pain for LEOs to manage the exceptions. Rather than becoming marine sanitation experts, they just need to check a Y valve. Fast, conclusive.

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The reason it' applies to all boats in those areas is because it's too much of a pain for LEOs to manage the exceptions. Rather than becoming marine sanitation experts, they just need to check a Y valve. Fast, conclusive.

Actually several reasons;
Lazy beauracracy.
Science arguements are not understood by beaurocrats.
Bigger beauracracy means higher salaries for the top dogs.
Underdog police love boating at the tax payers expense.
Underdog police love bullying.

Makes the whole department feel important.