# Pump out, or dump out?



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Many times we hear that we must not dump sewage into the water.
For the third time this year St Augustine has dumped sewage into the water in the same river I am in.








This sign is getting a lot of use....
16,800 gallons this time, over 60,000 last time. If every boat in town, dumped every day, we would not be caught up with the town....
It is time for the truth to be out that boats dumping black water does not harm anything.


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

You as a private citizen dont have sovereign immunity. 
Imagine for a moment where all the that material from 'pump outs' is (or is not) processed before being 'released'. 
Its good to be the 'king'.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

UnionPacific said:


> It is time for the truth to be out that boats dumping black water does not harm anything.


Really? Have you ever been in a marina or anchorage where some chucklehead has surreptitiously pumped his holding tanks overboard during the night? You find that pleasant and harmless?

Multiply that by lots of boats.

Yes. It harms "anything" in inland waters. The 3-mile law is good law. That's the truth...municipal screw-ups notwithstanding.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Guess I have always anchored and docks in tidal areas. In fact I have.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

What does that have to do with it?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

yeah, everyone likes to watch the turds float by, lets not regulate that :hothead


----------



## sailvayu (Feb 3, 2013)

As long as you are out of cannon range it is all good

The three mile limit | Sailing Vayu


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

smackdaddy said:


> What does that have to do with it?


That may be why I have never smelled the poop on the water. 
Also the joker valve breaks up the poo, and if they are pumping from a holding tank, the macerator does it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

UnionPacific said:


> That may be why I have never smelled the poop on the water.
> Also the joker valve breaks up the poo, and if they are pumping from a holding tank, the macerator does it.


Breaking up the solids is not really the issue. It appears you're advocating this. Do you pump overboard while anchored or docked? I'm not sure I see the point of your argument with this thread.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

smackdaddy said:


> Breaking up the solid sewage is not really the issue. It appears you're advocating this. Do you pump overboard while anchored or docked? I'm not sure I see the point of your argument with this thread.


I think it is overblown. If I didn't have a 50 gallon poo tank I may, but as it is it takes about 3 months to fill it once, and about 10 min to have it pumped out. They even come to me! So I do not have a good reason. 
On a smaller boat I would have if needed.
I also know that most liveaboards here in town do not get pumped out.
I do not hold this against them.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

UnionPacific said:


> If I didn't have a 50 gallon poo tank I may, but as it is it takes about 3 months to fill it once,


wow, either you are really backed up or you pee in the sink :eek


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Don0190 said:


> wow, either you are really backed up or you pee in the sink :eek


We work a lot right now while we prepare to leave.
Probably gets used once per day at most.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

We are a nation of laws because otherwise the a**holes would screw it up for everybody. As a wannabe hull cleaner, I would think the OP would have a strong opinion about this. But maybe he doesn't mind swimming in sh*t.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

do these a*holes obey laws?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

The solution to pollution is dilution. No doubt about it. So in a sense, the OP is correct; at a certain concentration the local ecosystem can manage whatever we dump in it. The problem lies in the fact that at some point the natural systems get overwhelmed and damage ensues.

Each locality will be different. Dumping in areas that are not confined, and where there is lots of flow, is likely fine. Dumping in contained anchorages that get minimal flow, not so much. Dumping in a marina just sounds selfish and bad.

BTW, I've never been persuaded by the argument that goes: My little contribution makes no difference b/c everyone else is so much worse than me. This may be true, but it is the kind of thinking that leads to collective disaster. I can only control my actions. Just b/c someone else is acting poorly does not mean I should.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

UnionPacific said:


> do these a*holes obey laws?


That's not the question. The question is; are you going to be one of them?


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

Why do I keep hearing someone in the background whispering about the tragedy of the commons? 'Ah Mom, Billy does it why can't I?' We should not be having this discussion about sailboats it should be about why St Augustine and other municipalities find it more politically expedient to pollute than to improve the quality/capacity of their sewage systems.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

Lots of people litter, just drive down the highway and you can see that.

Furthermore I know full well that paper eventually breaks down.

So now every morning when I'm done with my newspaper I just chuck it out the kitchen window and let the wind carry it through my neighbors' yards.


----------



## Stu Jackson (Jul 28, 2001)

killarney_sailor said:


> We should not be having this discussion about sailboats it should be about why St Augustine and other municipalities find it more politically expedient to pollute than to improve the quality/capacity of their sewage systems.


Oh, yes.

Thanks for that.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Why have only one of you taken a mildly scientific approach to this.
Just because something is "nasty" does not make it harmful.
You may allow a paper to blow into his yard, it makes it harmful because it is seen in his yard.

I would present that dumping a small amount of untreated sewage from a boat every day does no harm.
This will stand until I see something proving otherwise. As it is now, this year, sewage is being dumped by the city into the water. I see no harmful effects. I see seaturtles eating bottom growth, I see manatees swimming by, I see dolphins every day. In this year of St Augustine woopsies I have not seen a single negative effect.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

UnionPacific said:


> Many times we hear that we must not dump sewage into the water.
> For the third time this year St Augustine has dumped sewage into the water in the same river I am in.
> 
> 16,800 gallons this time, over 60,000 last time. If every boat in town, dumped every day, we would not be caught up with the town....
> It is time for the truth to be out that boats dumping black water does not harm anything.


I think it would be best for everyone if you didn't even try to use logic in the future. You just don't have the hang of it.

I'm not trying to be snarky. It is just that your information is in no way linked to your conclusion. It's just like lying.

"I would present that dumping a small amount of untreated sewage from a boat every day does no harm."

a. Apparently you were not around before the Clean Water Act.
b. If every boat discharged, it would not be a small mount in some areas.
c. This is one of those incremental arguments. I'm pretty sure that if everyone considered themselves to be "that one guy that won't actually make any real difference," including all of the land dwellers, you could walk across the harbor.

Running a POTW is not easy. 24/7/365 nothing can go wrong. Another way to look at this would be what percentage of the total volume does that represent (16,000 gallons was about 0.4% of that single day's flow). I don't know how many spills they have had, but it is pretty clear that spillage represents less than 1 part per thousand of the in flow. Do you want the other 999 parts? That is not just yucky, that would be an irrefutable health hazard.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I wonder if the plant discharge was during a storm event. STA is a pretty old city and may have
a lot of combined sewers (if you don't understand what that means stay out of the word battle).

Meanwhile there are lots of first world places where boat discharge is legal. At the same time there are lots of first world cities where I wouldn't want to fall into the bay.

It really matters not, you ever follow the law or you don't. If you don't just say so and don't try to justify it (better to just stay silent).


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

UnionPacific said:


> I would present that dumping a small amount of untreated sewage from a boat every day does no harm.
> This will stand until I see something proving otherwise. As it is now, this year, sewage is being dumped by the city into the water. I see no harmful effects. I see seaturtles eating bottom growth, I see manatees swimming by, I see dolphins every day. In this year of St Augustine woopsies I have not seen a single negative effect.


Yes ... one boat dumping a small amount of sewage likely does no harm. What about 10, 100, 1000, 10,000??? How many boats are in your area? If everyone dumped "a small amount" it would no longer be a small amount. That's the point I was trying to make. Just b/c one person (or municipality) does it, doesn't mean you or I should.

BTW, unless you're a marine biologist, I'd be skeptical of your assessment as to the possible impacts on wildlife. Just b/c you can see no ill effects doesn't mean there are none.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

MikeOReilly said:


> BTW, unless you're a marine biologist, I'd be skeptical of your assessment as to the possible impacts on wildlife. Just b/c you can see no ill effects doesn't mean there are none.


You are correct. However I can see the top of the food chain, and they are healthy looking.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

UnionPacific said:


> You are correct. However I can see the top of the food chain, and they are healthy looking.


Yeah, and algae is fish food, so more algae is always better, right?

I'm not sure I would eat those "heathy looking" fish in some areas.
uke


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

capta said:


> polluting?


pol·lute
pəˈlo͞ot/
verb
gerund or present participle: polluting

contaminate (water, air, or a place) with harmful or poisonous substances.

How is poop harmful or poisonous?

Also...
Where do you get that I am dumping anything?


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

TakeFive said:


> Yeah, and algae is fish food, so more algae is always better, right?
> 
> I'm not sure I would eat those "heathy looking" fish in some areas.
> uke


Fish was ruined inland in most area before I was born.
PCB's were legal to dump, and I am not sure about mercury, but its there too.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

UnionPacific said:


> ...How is poop harmful or poisonous?


Really?

Really?

REALLY?

Do you really want to even try to make this argument?


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

UnionPacific said:


> .
> How is poop harmful or poisonous?


Oh brother....


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

I think we now know what UP really stands for.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

TakeFive said:


> I think we now know what UP really stands for.


Disabled hotlinks? When will I learn.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

TakeFive said:


> Really?
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


So what you are saying is you never dump your poop offshore?
Because if it is harmful inshore, it is harmful offshore.


----------



## Stu Jackson (Jul 28, 2001)

UnionPacific said:


> Why have only one of you taken a mildly scientific approach to this.
> Just because something is "nasty" does not make it harmful.
> You may allow a paper to blow into his yard, it makes it harmful because it is seen in his yard.
> 
> ...


Delusional.

UP started out that way.

Years later and many miles under his keel, he still is.

Scoobert, it's called SCIENCE.

Too much sh*t all in one place is BAD.

Manatees don't know science from shinolah.

You, on the other hand, should.

Manatees may be swimming around in it, but how will they feel tomorrow?

Take two aspirins, call me in the morning.

Some people....


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

I've met people who thought their crap didn't stink before, but this is a new low.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Its funny I am being attacked for asking a question, stating an opinion. 
Says a lot about the people responding. 
Dodging the issue, ignoring the fact that their is no real science why we can only dump shortly offshore.....
I think those manatees poop in the water too. I doubt they get pumped out.


----------



## RichF28 (Jun 17, 2015)

UnionPacific said:


> Dodging the issue, ignoring the fact that their is no real science why we can only dump shortly offshore.....


Right again UP, as long as none of your marina neighbors touch the water in any way, or eat anything that swims in it.........
Click this link,

Ambient: Background


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

UnionPacific said:


> Its funny I am being attacked for asking a question, stating an opinion.
> Says a lot about the people responding.
> Dodging the issue, ignoring the fact that their is no real science why we can only dump shortly offshore.....
> I think those manatees poop in the water too. I doubt they get pumped out.


Ok, so there IS real science. I'm sure you've heard of cholera. And norovirus. And multiple other fecally borne illnesses. It's why you should wash your hands before you eat. It's why the dude at Subway is REQUIRED to do so. The point is that, deep at sea, your chances of contaminating shore water where people live is low, and the concentration of your crap is diluted much faster. So, yes it's good to be a good neighbor, nice to ask good questions, but this one is one that Google and a minimum understanding of basic science could have answered for you rather quickly.


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

You need scientific proof that feces in water is harmful ? 3 miles offshore your effluent isn't feeding your shellfish dinner. 


> Bacterial diseases associated with polluted recreational waters and shellfish have been documented for over 100 years. Typhoid, for example, was first documented in association with recreational waters as early as 1888 (Craun 1986). Transmission of viral disease via recreational exposure to sewage contaminated waters was first documented as early as the 1950s, and is now well established (Stevenson 1953, Balarajan et al. 1991, Alexander et al. 1992, Fewtrell et al. 1992). Transmission of typhoid and cholera associated with the consumption of contaminated seafood has long been recognized, and by 1956 the risk of viral diseases, specifically hepatitis, was documented (Roos 1956). Disease occurs through two pathways of exposure: swimming in contaminated waters or eating contaminated fish or shellfish. Bathing in contaminated water can result in accidental swallowing or aspiration of infective pathogens. Ingestion of contaminated seafood can cause infection by pathogens or toxicity from toxins elaborated by microorganisms or algae. The effects of microbial infections can range from infection without overt disease to acute, self-limited respiratory, skin, gastrointestinal, and ear infections to extreme gastrointestinal and liver disorders and even to death.
> 
> MICROBIOLOGIC AGENTS ASSOCIATED WITH WASTEWATER
> 
> Over 100 different enteric pathogens may be found in sewage. These includes viruses, parasites, and bacteria, all of which may be associated with waterborne disease.


Reading: Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas | The National Academies Press


----------



## Stu Jackson (Jul 28, 2001)

UnionPacific said:


> ignoring the fact that their is no real science why we can only dump shortly offshore.....
> I think those manatees poop in the water too. I doubt they get pumped out.


Two major issues:

CONCENTRATION

and

DILUTION


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

This is laughable at best and yet we have an ongoing thread about cleaning your hulls with all this crap about? Really? I bet everyone here has polluted in one way or another at one time in their boat ownership... Does Fastbtms get out of his wet suit each time he wants to pee or does he silently do it without anyone knowing 6 feet under... Bunch of baloney attacking UP for just a thread he posted without facts he's polluting. Get a grip people!


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

UnionPacific said:


> Its funny I am being attacked for asking a question, stating an opinion.
> Says a lot about the people responding.
> Dodging the issue, ignoring the fact that their is no real science why we can only dump shortly offshore.....
> I think those manatees poop in the water too. I doubt they get pumped out.


Interesting sh*tstorm you started.

You did more than ask a question, you posited that:
_"It is time for the truth to be out that boats dumping black water does not harm anything."_

You then went on further to say:
_"On a smaller boat I would have _(direct discharge)_ if needed._

So you got some reaction because your first statement is simply ignorant of the available science and because you would gladly violate the prohibitions if it was inconvenient for you to abide by them. If anything, I am surprised that the reaction was as subdued as it has been.

First, fecal matter discharge can cause problems in a couple of ways that I know of, and I am not an environmental scientist. First, there are fecal born diseases that put humans at risk who come into contact with them. That is the reason for the closed beach sign that you initially posted. It isn't about a "yuk" factor it is about public health.

Secondly, depending on the area, added nutrients to the water can cause increase in algae growth which can have a negative affect in two ways, it robs the water of O2 needed by other organisms to thrive such as fish and shellfish, and some algae can be very toxic. Algae blooms have shut down a number of shell fish beds in my area. Human fecal waste is a nutrient in this case.

One of the problems is that I am actually very sympathetic to your initial point, in that boaters are sometimes being made an environmental whipping boy for environmental problems even though our contribution to them is relatively small compared to municipal sewage spills, fertilizer run off etc...

Case in point, Victoria BC harbor is an area where you can't direct discharge. However, even now the City of Vitoria is dumping its raw sewage outside the harbor in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Plenty of municipal sewage treatment plants in the Puget Sound have raw sewage spills during periods of heavy rainfall.

WA state has banned direct discharge in Puget Sound for year, however it has only been in the past 5 years that boaters could reliable find operational pump out stations. Yes, about 8 years ago I directly discharged my holding tank in the middle of Puget Sound because I couldn't find a working pump out within a couple hours of my harbor. Fortunately, I have never had to do that again.

Recently, there has been a move in the WA state legislature to make all of Puget a No Discharge area. This would mean that even those with Saniflush systems would not be able to discharge. One might ask why the legislature is bothering to consider something that would have such a minuscule effect (the percentage of boaters with these systems is very small) while ignoring the larger problems such as run off and municipal discharge.

So, you might want to stick to your original point instead of spoiling your argument with uninformed statements.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

dhays said:


> So, you might want to stick to your original point instead of spoiling your argument with stupid* statements.


Hey! Some of us enjoy stupid/uninformed* statements!


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

guitarguy56 said:


> Does Fastbtms get out of his wet suit each time he wants to pee or does he silently do it without anyone knowing 6 feet under...


As a matter of fact, I do get out of my wetsuit to pee. But pee isn't the issue here, genius.


----------



## LexiQU (Sep 18, 2015)

yes.


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Fstbttms said:


> As a matter of fact, I do get out of my wetsuit to pee. But pee isn't the issue here, genius.


Sure you do... I also have a bridge in New York to sell you! You are not much different than anyone here at least DHays admitted his wrong doing... others just lie!


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

guitarguy56 said:


> Sure you do... I also have a bridge in New York to sell you! You are not much different than anyone here at least DHays admitted his wrong doing... others just lie!


I'm guessing you haven't cleaned many full wet suits? The pee will still be there when you crawl out.

No, I don't dump out where not permitted. In fact, it has been several years since I needed to pumpout, even off shore (not off-shore enough consecutive days to need to). It is something I try to avoid. The argument that "fish do it" has several gaping holes in it (fish don't have human diseases, fish have no choice, man has already overloaded many waters from shore based activities).

Yes, I mostly obey laws, not because I'll get caught, but because the majority of my neighbors believe in laws. That is what makes a society. We don't have to agree with all of the laws.

It is true that poop, in and of itself, is not some horrible toxic soup beyond redemption. It composts well. But where, when, and how much matters, and harbors are a poor place.


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

pdqaltair said:


> I'm guessing you haven't cleaned many full wet suits? The pee will still be there when you crawl out.
> 
> No, I don't dump out where not permitted. In fact, it has been several years since I needed to pumpout, even off shore (not off-shore enough consecutive days to need to). It is something I try to avoid. The argument that "fish do it" has several gaping holes in it (fish don't have human diseases, fish have no choice, man has already overloaded many waters from shore based activities).
> 
> ...


My reply was a general statement and not directed at anyone here... as a former semi-pro amatuer surfer I can tell you I know wetsuits and know I 'pee'd' in them from time to time and we all know we've done that at one time or another... not sure about those that dump their wastes at the marina in the dead of night but YOU know who you are!


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

guitarguy56 said:


> My reply was a general statement and not directed at anyone here...


Bullsh*t. You publicly called me a liar. At least be man enough to own it.


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

UnionPacific said:


> It is time for the truth to be out that boats dumping black water does not harm anything.


False logic. Just because a city dumping sewage does a lot of damage, that does NOT mean that a bunch of boats dumping sewage "does not harm anything."


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Fstbttms said:


> Bullsh*t. You publicly called me a liar. At least be man enough to own it.


The 'liar' statement was directed at those that pollute in one way or another but don't admit it... but I'm MAN enough to say you have some propensity for getting angry quick... it's evident in your replies here and on the 'antifoul paints' thread (but I digress)... Dude you need to lay off the helium bubbles... take a breather!


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

Let the great pissing match begin!


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

guitarguy56 said:


> The 'liar' statement was directed at those that pollute in one way or another but don't admit it... but I'm MAN enough to say you have some propensity for getting angry quick... it's evident in your replies here and on the 'antifoul paints' thread (but I digress)... Dude you need to lay off the helium bubbles... take a breather!


You call it quick to anger, I call it not suffering fools gladly.


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

aeventyr60 said:


> Let the great pissing match begin!


Popcorn and beer at the door....

What a 'crappy' thread...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

This gets me fired up....

Here's a few excerpts from a Portland Press Herald article on our water district...



Quote Press Herald said:


> Every time a steady rain falls on Maine, *millions of gallons of untreated sewage* and storm water overflow collection pipes and spill into streams and coastal waters. More than half of that pollution pours out of pipes scattered around the city of Portland. Overflows in the city last year totaled about 1.8 BILLION gallons - about 30 million gallons for every inch of rain. *Portland was supposed to begin a three-phase, 15-year cleanup plan in 1993. But as of the end of 2006, two years before the original deadline, the city had eliminated just six of 33 targeted overflows, according to the state.*"


BTW we have been _paying_ for these upgrades since 1993 yet essentially nothing has been done.

We have had record setting rains a number of times since that article was written. One storm we saw 6" of rain how many millions of gallons of raw, untreated sewage exactly is that. How many millions of gallons of poop is that when you spread it out over a year? All I know is you can physically smell it all the way to Falmouth when it happens big..

Where is the outrage over millions of gallons of RAW sewage? Casco Bay is now a NDZ yet every citizen in Portland, and the surrounding communities, is essentially allowed to dump their poop DIRECTLY into the bay with no fines, or risk of it?



Press Herald said:


> "*When we have (overflows), we're getting human waste, we're getting storm water and we're getting industrial effluent.* It does have an effect on the ecosystem," said Joseph Payne, bay keeper for the nonprofit Friends of Casco Bay". "*Why haven't they made progress when 36 other cities have?*" said Sen. John Nutting, D-Leeds."


Progress? They have literally confiscated our money, under the guise of to paying for this, and done essentially NOTHING.. Extremely frustrating....

The same bay, the above article was referencing, is the one made an NDZ (No Discharge Zone) while our State Government decided to look the other way on MILLIONS of gallons of raw sewage. Why make it an NDZ for boaters but not for the CITIZENS of Portland?????

When will the feel good attacks on boaters, and other small segment groups stop, and real legislation be accomplished?

Maine is also the state where the US Green party was founded. Where is the green party when MILLIONS of gallons is fed direct into Casco Bay and supposedly "_environmentally friendly_" Maine has done nothing except to go after a few boaters who already complied with the laws far better than our own State adn biggest city?

With Maine being the one of the highest taxed states in the country you'd think we would have the funds to fix our sewer systems but as usual there is no _real action_ and only a bunch of empty talk and attacks on the "low hanging fruit" or the "easy targets" like boaters to make our elected officials look as if they actually work for a living.

Politicians love to attack these small segments of the population, like us "evil boaters", because it's easy, and it looks good in campaigns and 30 second sound bites. Making themselves look good is priority #1 and it's usually done at the cost of the environment and often in a _class warfare_ style. This is very frustrating for anyone with even half a brain. After all we boaters are rich and we can all afford to rip our Lectrasan units out, which were cleaner than what the state allows dumped into the bay, right? Of course the boaters are the "problem". Are we?

We have VERY, VERY, VERY few working pump outs in Maine, despite our NDZ designation. Our local pump out was broken four or five times this summer alone, with over 1100 boats in the anchorage, and along most of the coast pump outs simply don't exist or it is impossible to get into the "working dock" where the pump out is..

Perhaps Augusta could take back some our our Portland Water District "fees" that were to pay for clean water, but were not really used for that, and actually fund some pump outs..???

For the last 15 plus years we have been paying dearly for this supposed "clean up" of the Portland, ME raw sewage issue in increased sewer charges but essentially none of that money has been spent on it. Our water bill was $22.00 per month and today it is running close to $120.00 per month due to the _sewer fees_. Two years ago they announced 50% percent increases in our sewer bills over the next 6 years to supposedly "pay" for this. Ummmm we've been charged for it since 1993 but now they can't find the money??????

Entirely bogus.....

Sorry for the rant..


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Fstbttms said:


> You call it quick to anger, I call it not suffering fools gladly.


Glad we agree... back to the crappiness of this thread...


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

Maine Sail, no need to apologize for the rant. I agree with you. Also thanks for mentioning the Lectrosan, I got the name wrong in my post.

It sound like your situation is like it was here 10 years ago. The requirement to use pump-out stations but no pump-out stations to be had. Fortunately, that is much different now. There are two reliable public pump-outs in my own harbor now. Hopefully, Maine will start to provide the facilities necessary to comply with the law.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

guitarguy56 said:


> Sure you do... I also have a bridge in New York to sell you! You are not much different than anyone here at least DHays admitted his wrong doing... others just lie!


He genius, weren't you the one going all Ghandi just a few posts ago?



guitarguy56 said:


> *Bunch of baloney attacking* UP for just a thread he posted *without facts he's polluting*. *Get a grip people!*


Grip much?

Anyway, you're not a real man until you've crapped in your wetsuit...a few times.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Fstbttms said:


> I call it not suffering fools gladly.





guitarguy56 said:


> Glad we agree...


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

I work for an environmental lab. Sewage testing is our bread and butter (yum!). We also collect river samples in many locations. Untreated municipal sewage spills are relatively rare in our area. They usually happen when a lift station pumps go dead or plug up, causing gravity fed sewage to back up and spill on the surface, eventually finding it's way into a nearby creek. Lift stations are located in low lying areas, which is where water (creeks) flows as well. So a malfunction at the lift station almost always leads to a sewage spill. US water and sewer infrastructure is severely under invested and often outdated. We just don't like to pay for this stuff. In our state agriculture is a big polluter, and after a larger rainfall a lot of animal fecal matter ends up in the creeks. Still, it is largely unregulated in that regard.
Just how bad is our poo in water? Very bad. Lots of serious pathogens, causing disease in people and animals, including water invertebrates. If you don't like the pump-out hassle, get a composting toilet, and deposit your 'compost' on land.


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

smackdaddy said:


> He genius, weren't you the one going all Ghandi just a few posts ago?
> 
> Grip much?
> 
> Anyway, you're not a real man until you've crapped in your wetsuit...a few times.


Hey... Let's get more childish and now attack me since the thread is no longer about dumping crap! If you've got a magnifying glass you're free to inspect my wetsuits for brown spots...


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Fstbttms said:


>


I see you've found a great statue of me!


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I'm not sure why this is such a difficult subject. Pump out (or compost) when you are in enclosed waters or when there are other boats around. Dump out when you are in high-flow areas when you are away from others, like offshore or places which get good flushing. And don't break the law, especially if you are a visitor.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

krisscross said:


> I work for an environmental lab. Sewage testing is our bread and butter (yum!).


You may not know the answer, but you are the closest thing to an expert we have then....

How much of a problem is urine in marine water? Most of the major concern is fecal matter since it is what can spread disease, but does urine create a large nitrogen load? ie if Faster did pee in the water, is that much of an issue?


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

dhays said:


> ie if Faster did pee in the water, is that much of an issue?


Depends on whether he had asparagus for dinner.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

dhays said:


> How much of a problem is urine in marine water? Most of the major concern is fecal matter since it is what can spread disease, but does urine create a large nitrogen load? ie if Faster did pee in the water, is that much of an issue?


Yes, urine does carry quite a bit of nitrogen load, mostly in the form of ammonia (90 to 150 ppm) and uric acid/urea (250-750 ppm). For the most part urine from healthy people does not carry pathogens, but often when people are sick it does, including HIV and other viruses. So it sure can be a problem. Adding some bleach to your pee jug prior to dumping would solve the pathogen problem (when you suspect they may be present).


----------



## gbennett (Nov 9, 2001)

Well for me it is the hypocrisy of the dump vs. pump discussion. I live down river from the fair city of Washington, DC - a city that is comfortable dumping 1.3 BILLION gallons of diluted sewage into the river that run behind my house an average year. However, if I were to even think about dumping my 15 gallon holding tank four times a year into the river or the bay the finger wagging, name calling, and insults would fly&#8230;.

https://www.dcwater.com/education/green.cfm

At 60 gallons a year of diluted sewage it will take me 21.7 MILLION years to equal a good year of sewage sharing by my home town alone - I am just not sure I have that many good years left.

Let the finger wagging begin&#8230;.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Those storm events that result in "untreated sewage" may or may not be resulting in as much raw sewage bypassing the treatment plant as some believe. It all depends on how the combined flow is handled and whether the initial first flush down the system goes to a storage basin. After that most of the flow isn't really raw sewage it is just rain water run off.

None of which means it is OK to pump your turds into the anchor/marina/mooring field.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

gbennett said:


> Well for me it is the hypocrisy of the dump vs. pump discussion. I live down river from the fair city of Washington, DC - a city that is comfortable dumping 1.3 BILLION gallons of diluted sewage into the river that run behind my house an average year. However, if I were to even think about dumping my 15 gallon holding tank four times a year into the river or the bay the finger wagging, name calling, and insults would fly&#8230;.
> 
> https://www.dcwater.com/education/green.cfm
> 
> ...


"Whaaaaa! The city gets to dump sewage but I can't!"

Man, what a tired old argument. How 'bout you try being part of the solution, rather than being part of the problem.


----------



## gbennett (Nov 9, 2001)

Oh you misunderstand – my point is, your anger and energy is misplaced targeting a few thousand boaters who’s contribution to the problem is dwarfed by your cities and communities. 

PS – At my age it is not that big of deal for me not to poop for few days so I am only asking to let me pee in the Bay, Sir, thank you Sir.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

Fstbttms said:


> "Whaaaaa! The city gets to dump sewage but I can't!"
> 
> Man, what a tired old argument. How 'bout you try being part of the solution, rather than being part of the problem.


yeah, definitely not what he was trying to say.

I think that for me, Maine Sail, gbennett and others it isn't that we don't want to do our part to help preserve the health and welfare of our environment, but we resent being made a scapegoat for communities who can't seem to clean up their own sh*t, so to speak...

So far, there hasn't been much pressure to have boaters hold their gray water. I am afraid it is just a matter of time however. Not sure where, or even if I could create a gray water tank on my boat.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

You can always dump the grey water into the black tank.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Don0190 said:


> Those storm events that result in "untreated sewage" may or may not be resulting in as much raw sewage bypassing the treatment plant as some believe. It all depends on how the combined flow is handled and whether the initial first flush down the system goes to a storage basin. After that most of the flow isn't really raw sewage it is just rain water run off.
> 
> None of which means it is OK to pump your turds into the anchor/marina/mooring field.


I think they should make all the people who live on land not flush during a storm. Then no storm overflow


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

gbennett said:


> Oh you misunderstand - my point is, your anger and energy is misplaced targeting a few thousand boaters who's contribution to the problem is dwarfed by your cities and communities.
> 
> PS - At my age it is not that big of deal for me not to poop for few days so I am only asking to let me pee in the Bay, Sir, thank you Sir.


Perhaps if you earned your living in marinas, under boats as I do, you'd understand where my anger and energy comes from.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

You guys do know that under the Clean Water Act, the EPA is empowered to do both civil and criminal prosecutions for municipalities and responsible individuals. States (like California) also impose additional monetary penalties. The State of California is fond of fining in $500,000 increments for spills. The downside of one level of government fining another is the taxpayer winds up footing the bill. If you feel that the EPA isn't "sticking it" to your local sanitation district, complain to your congress person. Just don't become part of the problem. And if you want to dump, STAY IN YOUR LOCAL AREA! I don't need you polluting my portion of this watery planet!


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

My yacht is 48' long, and 6' deep.
If you are working under my boat you are floating in calm water in about 25,000 gallons roughly.
If I pee into the water directly next to my boat, 20oz, then the dilution is 1:160,000 
Thats just the volume under my boat. You may be a germaphobe.



GeorgeB said:


> I don't need you polluting my portion of this watery planet!


Chances are its already polluted by worse pollution then feces.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

dhays said:


> we resent being made a scapegoat for communities who can't seem to clean up their own sh*t, so to speak...


Do you have any links to news articles expressing outrage at boaters, or making boaters the scapegoat?

In this thread I've seen several links to stories about horrible spills and there seems to be a lot of outrage about that. I haven't seen any news articles claiming all the pollution is the fault of boaters.

Anyway, it's a well studied and documented phenomenon, the tragedy of the commons.

No, it absolutely would not matter if your one boat dumped overboard. But it absolutely would be terrible if everybody living on the east coast dumped straight into the nearest body of water. And you say "But they aren't, I just want to be able to." And I ask what makes you so special? Why not the waterfront landowner, surely it would be cheaper to run a 50' straight pipe out into the water than to construct and maintain a septic system or connect to a municipal system?

(By the way, really gross to read about all the spills out there, makes me happy I live in Minnesota. No combined sewers here, now we're even working on filtering the storm sewers before they flow to the river.)


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

UnionPacific said:


> My yacht is 48' long, and 6' deep.
> If you are working under my boat you are floating in calm water in about 25,000 gallons roughly.
> If I pee into the water directly next to my boat, 20oz, then the dilution is 1:160,000
> Thats just the volume under my boat. You may be a germaphobe.
> ...


If you were to pee (or anything else) into the water at a boat where I was working, I guarantee you'd have the opportunity to check the dilution ratio up close and personal.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

UP, then it's agreed - You Stay in Florida. (enjoy swimming in your local cesspool)


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

As I have stated before, I do not do requests.
However I swim in the sewage every 3 months.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

I heard stories about people like you, and until now, I thought that they were just urban legends. Thank you for setting the record straight. :eek


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

GeorgeB said:


> I heard stories about people like you, and until now, I thought that they were just urban legends. Thank you for setting the record straight. :eek


Don't worry, I have seen plenty of people like you.
Your actually quite stereotypical. NIMBY, do as I say not as I do, attack from a distance.. ECT.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

I am quite sure you have seen plenty of people like me. We are what you would call "normal". :wink


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

GeorgeB said:


> I am quite sure you have seen plenty of people like me. We are what you would call "normal". :wink


Starting to look that way. Too bad intelligence has become increasingly rare.


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

GeorgeB said:


> I heard stories about people like you, and until now, I thought that they were just urban legends. Thank you for setting the record straight. :eek


This thread has been an eye-opener. I always suspected scofflaws in no discharge zones, but didn't realize that there are some who have rationalized illegal behavior and seem proud to do so on the basis of "logic".

Here in CT shellfishing is not allowed near mooring fields and anchorages. If memory serves, the state requires something like a million gallons of water volume per moored/anchored boat before shellfishing is allowed. This has constrained the bounds of shellfishing areas in our harbor. 
I was not comfortable with the state's default assumption that boaters cheat in NDZs, but thanks to UP and others in this thread I have a better understanding of the state's logic.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

I doubt it has anything to do with the mooring field. In Cape cod all of ptown cannot be shellfished.


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

UnionPacific said:


> I doubt it has anything to do with the mooring field. In Cape cod all of ptown cannot be shellfished.


You are entitled to your opinion, however ill-informed.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Then Then would ask if there is a free pump out boat that will visit the boats? If the problem is that serious they should have one, like they do here.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

Wait, so if it's not free, it's not a 'real' problem?


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

Correct. Because the number of people who will take a free service is far higher then those who will pay for one they do not think they need.
If its a big deal they will do it.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

UnionPacific said:


> Your actually quite stereotypical. NIMBY...


Cool, so you're the opposite. I guess that means you're cool with me taking a dump on your foredeck. You know, TADOMF!

I had a mean curry for dinner. To quote you "It's time for the truth to come out!" Heh-heh.


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

> I also know that most liveaboards here in town do not get pumped out.
> I do not hold this against them





> Then Then would ask if there is a free pump out boat that will visit the boats? If the problem is that serious they should have one, like they do here


So why don't the liveaboards near you use the free service ? Because they also believe their **** benefits the environment ?
Must be a Nice place to live.


----------



## goat (Feb 23, 2014)

smackdaddy said:


> Cool, so you're the opposite. I guess that means you're cool with me taking a dump on your foredeck. You know, TADOMF!
> 
> I had a mean curry for dinner. To quote you "It's time for the truth to come out!" Heh-heh.


Shouldn't be a problem once you calculate the volume of space around said turd, it would appear to be quite diluted.

goat


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

UnionPacific said:


> Then Then would ask if there is a free pump out boat that will visit the boats? If the problem is that serious they should have one, like they do here.


In addition to the marina pump outs, we have free pump out boats that will come to your boat, whether it is in a marina or at a mooring or at anchor. You can hail the pump out boats on VHF or schedule this service online and they will come to your boat whether or not you are there at the appointed time.

I understand the majority of visits by pump out boats are at marinas that have their own pump stations. We can't make it any easier than this, yet, with the attitudes expressed by some on this post, I doubt that we have 100% compliance with our NDZ.

It isn't just our harbor that provides free pump out boats. They are also available in nearby CT harbors (such as Groton, Stonington, New London), as well as nearby RI (such as Watch Hill/Napatree, Block Island), and nearby NY (such as 3 Mile Harbor) where I have personally witnessed their repeated patrols. The hardest part of this process is figuring out the channel monitored by the local pump out boats.


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

The answer is for me simple if more than 10 miles out it goes out if less than ten miles offshore it goes in the tank.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

capttb said:


> So why don't the liveaboards near you use the free service ? Because they also believe their **** benefits the environment ?
> Must be a Nice place to live.


Because there are a lot of liveaboards here who are just homeless people who sleep on a boat. They throw trash in the river, dump the black tank, do not take care of their boats, and fill anchorages with nasty boats. They are most times mentally ill, so how can I fault them?


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

I think you would have liked Europe in the Middle Ages.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

seaner97 said:


> I think you would have liked Europe in the Middle Ages.


I was thinking perhaps a bit earlier..:wink:wink:devil


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

newhaul said:


> The answer is for me simple if more than 10 miles out it goes out if less than ten miles offshore it goes in the tank.


The whole state of Rhode Island is a no discharge zone out to 3 miles. Beyond that it is legal to dump your holding tank or directly discharge from your head.


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Maine Sail said:


> I was thinking perhaps a bit earlier..:wink:wink:devil


Of course we 'modern man' are doing a hell of a job keeping our oceans and need I say lands from pollution and destruction?

Our deep sea garbage dump: 18,000 hours of footage shows Pacific seafloor heaped in man-made trash | Daily Mail Online

WAR AND THE ENVIRONMENT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/PageFiles/25797/odhistory.pdf

Serious the picture anecdotes shows your level of education! Unfortunately I was wrong about some of you on this forum... Why UP continues to bother with posting is beyond me...


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

^Darn, I thought that was Smackdaddy...


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

guitarguy56 said:


> Of course we 'modern man' are doing a hell of a job keeping our oceans and need I say lands from pollution and destruction?
> 
> Our deep sea garbage dump: 18,000 hours of footage shows Pacific seafloor heaped in man-made trash | Daily Mail Online
> 
> ...


Someone clearly missed the _nature_ of that post...


----------



## RichH (Jul 10, 2000)

seaner97 said:


> I think you would have liked Europe in the Middle Ages.


I dont think one has to go back to the middle ages to decide on the differences. Just go back to the beginning of the "Age of the Sanitarians" at around the early 1900s which whose efforts in the prevention of human caused diseases found in water was curtailed through the advocacy of strict sewage treatment, the prohibition of pooping and pizzing on the streets, protection of potable water, etc and the promotion of legislation of reasonable laws that prevented such .... and which led to the drastic rise in the average lifespan from approx. 45-50 yrs. to over 70 years. With the containment, isolation and treatment of just sewage, parasitic and sewage borne diseases in 'the west' virtually disappeared .... and the 'routine' cholera, typhoid, etc. epidemics virtually disappeared.

And then look at the EPA, various Health Department, etc. documentation for water quality downstream of those 'municipals' which ignore such sewage etc. statutes (because they have 'sovereign immunity') and find a high titre / concentration of quite vibrant nasties such as mycobacteria (tuberculosis related), vibrio (cholera related), innumerable just as pathologic virus species, etc. etc. etc. in their effluent sewage waste effluent water, especially when these municipal sewage plants become routinely 'over-topped' during even mild rain storms. .... and especially these scofflaw cities and towns have been 'getting away' with this $#iT since at least the 1920s. Baltimore is a prime example, and thats why its ultimately foolish to swim in the Chesapeake because Baltimore and surrounding municipals still have 'sovereign immunity' with regard to raw sewage discharge. There's no difference if a city/town or boater is contaminating the water with 'pathologics' .... and then recognize the fact that the dumping boater is an easier target or more opportunistic low hanging fruit, even by those municipals who ignore the sanitary LAWS and who will in turn will issue citation to boaters who do 'dump'.

The axiom is 'dont crap in your own nest', for very good reason.


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Maine Sail said:


> Someone clearly missed the _nature_ of that post...


Oh... I got it alright... just like the other photo anecdotes others have posted?

The wonderful job the moderators are doing is just... WOW!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Maine Sail said:


> I was thinking perhaps a bit earlier..:wink:wink:devil


Hey, no reason to bring Jerry Garcia into this crappy thread.



guitarguy56 said:


> Why UP continues to bother with posting is beyond me...


That makes two of us. The whole thing is pretty stupid.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

guitarguy56 said:


> Oh... I got it alright... just like the other photo anecdotes others have posted?
> 
> The wonderful job the moderators are doing is just... WOW!





guitarguy56 said:


> *My reply was a general statement and not directed at anyone here... *


Bingo...???:wink



guitarguy56 said:


> *Dude you need to lay off the helium bubbles... take a breather!*


I agree...


----------



## Zil (Jul 7, 2015)

Wow. But I want to give all a hope. Here in South Jersey the waters are much cleaner and getting better. The creation of regional sewer collection under MUAs has made a big improvement. If it makes someone wealthy, it can happen. Now, the problem of independent sailors.....


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

UnionPacific said:


> You can always dump the grey water into the black tank.


Oh yeah... Lol, it is often the most obvious solutions that escape me. That would be relatively easy as I have two holding tanks currently. Unfortunately, they would fill up fast.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

Minnesail said:


> Do you have any links to news articles expressing outrage at boaters, or making boaters the scapegoat?
> 
> In this thread I've seen several links to stories about horrible spills and there seems to be a lot of outrage about that. I haven't seen any news articles claiming all the pollution is the fault of boaters.


There really isn't much in the way of news articles as you surmised. However, that doesn't keep our state legislature from continuing to consider increased restrictions on boaters. Primarily, this is in the form of NDZs that prohibit any gray water discharge and the prohibition of units such as the Lestrosan.

Again, I have no problem with the requirement to hold and then pump black water. I support the idea completely.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

I think this thread is not at all stupid. It does show that some sailors are rather cavalier about keeping their act clean. But karma is a biatch... one day they might get seriously sick from fecal matter microbes (like brain eating amoeba) or choke on a turd when coming up for air after diving to clean their hull. You get what you deserve, eventually.


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

krisscross said:


> You get what you deserve, eventually.


Oh, would that this were true.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Kris
May wish to fact check your science. Believe the ameba you reference is a still
pond fresh water inhabitant.
Would note some of the rational about distance to shore is based on survivability of pathogen in salt water and sunlight. In short, many will die in the time it takes for them to reach shore. Dilution is not the only factor as innoculum of just a few of the virulent bugs suffices. 
Pee is generally sterile. If not you are already sick so probably not on a sailboat. Other than getting busted for indecent exposure in some places it's legal to pee over the rail but not in the head with an open through hull.
Majority of male drowning victims are said to have their flies down.
When in R.I. We walk up to land based toilet after morning coffee. Would note nearly impossible to go anywhere without being outside 3m limit.
Put three or four guys on a 10-14 d passage with a composting head better hope for calm 
seas.
Dumping grey water is already illegal in some parts of the world.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Have the urge so will add another deposit.
Poo adds nutrients to the water and usually can be expected to increase biologic load of the local area. Many shrimp, fish and much microscopic life are fine with this. We are not as the water is dis colored,smelly and unhealthy to us but not to them in most cases.
In order to get inflected by anything you need to be exposed to a certain number of a specific pathogen. This number varies widely from a few copies to hundreds or even thousands.
You need to be a suitable host.
The pathogen needs to be in an infectious form suitable to the nature of exposure.
The waters of Nanny Cay and Village Cay Marina are some of the nastiest I have ever smelt.
Hundreds of boats get they bottoms cleaned by divers in trunks and a t shirt. Talked to one ( friendly South African ). He said no one gets sick in absence of open wounds.
Law is good as it stands with three mile limit.
Outlawing grey water dumping seems stupid.
Outlawing non degradable detergents may not be unreseasonable if science supports. Of course no medicines, hormones, toxins etc. should go in your holding tanks let alone dumped.


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

So Outbound, you're saying it's good for your immune system? JK


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Don't understand how you got that from my posts?????? Cholera was a major killer. Even killing more soldiers than bullets or shells in many wars. My place of birth had a long history of death from fecal contamination of food and water. Read history of NYC beyond just Typhoid Mary. Have no interest in being a vector of illness.

We are compulsive enough to pour beach through the system before opening it when necessary to work on it. Of course then flush it and recharge with good bacteria we buy from an RV site.

BTW you should be aware beyond your gut being filthy so is your skin and mouth. Having good flora is criterial to your health ( e.g. No c. Dif). Many infections occur because you as host have changed not because new bacteria or fungi are present. Similarly, exposure to new strains of existing resident flora can produce illness e.g. Some forms of travelers diarrhea.


----------



## Aaron42 (Jun 20, 2014)

"How is poop harmful or poisonous?"

You've got to be @#$%ing me. I'm really amazed that it's 2015 and there are people who have to be told that poo is dangerous. There are a number of very unpleasant diseases and infections you can get from exposure to poo. There is a reason we have a massive infrastructure built out to handle human waste. A major cause of death in 3rd world countries comes from flies landing on poo, then landing on food, then people eating the contaminated food.


----------



## krisscross (Feb 22, 2013)

outbound said:


> Kris
> May wish to fact check your science. Believe the ameba you reference is a still
> pond fresh water inhabitant.


True. But I was merely referring to 'agents of karma' out there in water, ready to smite crap dumping sailors in the act of cosmic vengeance.


----------



## Minnesail (Feb 19, 2013)

outbound said:


> Having good flora is criterial to your health ( e.g. No c. Dif). Many infections occur because you as host have changed not because new bacteria or fungi are present. Similarly, exposure to new strains of existing resident flora can produce illness e.g. Some forms of travelers diarrhea.


That's also why some antibiotics can cause terrible diarrhea, they kill off the beneficial bacteria and let the bad stuff in.

In news of the gross, here at the University of Minnesota they've been experimenting with fecal transplants. Yes, that's right. Taking poop from healthy people and putting it up the butt of people with bowel disorders. It's all about the good flora, and apparently it's quite promising.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

outbound said:


> Hundreds of boats get they bottoms cleaned by divers in trunks and a t shirt.


Hull cleaners tend not to be the sharpest tools in the shed.


----------



## guitarguy56 (Oct 10, 2012)

Here in Savannah we are fortunate to live with estuaries that with the coming and going tides feed a multitude of fish, invertebrates, and flora... all this while marinas and long deck docks line the estuaries. Many live boards do and often dump their wastes into the estuaries and rivers here. The estuaries and waterways seem as healthy as anywhere where it would be pristine wilderness or coastal waterways free from human habitation. We have hatching grounds for shrimp, crabs, fishes including sharks (caught from line) and at night it is just wild with small minnows and other juvenile fish thrashing about... We also have the typical dolphins, coastal birds, and prey birds all doing their natural rhythm without regards to the wastes being dumped since natural dilution of these wastes poses no problem.

The real problem stems from sewage leakage and rain runoff from roads, farms, etc... this along with the local industries which seem to have cleaned up their dumping as they realize the potential harm to the shrimp industry here. I still do not eat any fish caught from the boat here unless I'm miles out but perhaps it may be safe, I'm just not ready to load my body with strains of bacteria and protozoa that may be in these fishes and crabs/shellfish.

Outbound is correct with his observations and the scientific community would agree.

SkIO: Estuarine-Ocean Exchange


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

Outbound, I was just playing with your comment "Hundreds of boats get they bottoms cleaned by divers in trunks and a t shirt. Talked to one ( friendly South African ). He said no one gets sick in absence of open wounds."

I'm with you on the issues of dumping raw sewage in inhabitated areas. Carry on.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

RichH said:


> ..."Age of the Sanitarians" at around the early 1900s which whose efforts in the prevention of human caused diseases found in water was curtailed through the advocacy of strict sewage treatment, the prohibition of pooping and pizzing on the streets, protection of potable water, etc and the promotion of legislation of reasonable laws that prevented such .... and which led to the drastic rise in the average lifespan from approx. 45-50 yrs. to over 70 years...


But the greatest contribution to clearing the streets of ****e was the rapid rise of transportation by internal combustion engine in cars which replaced the thousands of horses that pulled carriages and wagons on the streets of cities.

Don't ****e in the water in harbor.

The only acceptable reason for discharging raw solid waste in harbor is onset of diarrhea while swimming.

The real reason for most solid discharges in populated harbor is that people are f-ing lazy. If you are in such a harbor and alongside in a marina, use the shoreside head. If you are on a moor or at anchor, row in to use the head, or absent time, collect it and take it with you next time you go. If you are in a remote anchorage, hold it aboard until you are off shore or ashore and can discard it.

I wouldn't like to be moored or anchored or tied up with my own poop floating nearby, let alone someone else's.


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

Fstbttms said:


> Hull cleaners tend not to be the sharpest tools in the shed.


You resemble that remark quite well :laugh:devil


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

newhaul said:


> You resemble that remark quite well :laugh:devil


Yeah- don't quit your day job, chief. Comedy is not your strong suit.


----------



## gptyk (Mar 20, 2013)

Geez, what a crap thread. 

Don't crap in a harbor. Sounds obvious to me. I don't - head only goes to the tank, no way to directly discharge overboard - I removed the Y valve that the P.O. had plumbed in backwards. 
Outside of 3 miles, I happily flip the macerator breaker and it all goes out into the briny pacific. It's legal, and it's environmentally sound.
On a semi-related note, every time it rains around here, millions of gallons of raw sewage get dumped into the ocean.

Two wrongs don't make a right. But two wrights made an airplane.  Really, the fact that a muni sewage facility can dump more sewage than my entire marina can is not an excuse for me to dump. It's a hypocritical annoyance.

Just because San Clemente, San Elijo, et. al, can't get their act together and not dump crap in the ocean doesn't mean I should. Eighteen billion asswipes throw trash out the windows of moving cars, but I don't. (isn't that the old "if everybody was standing naked on the streetcorner" argument)

BUT (as Mainesail's post points out) there are literally dozens of law enforcement officers that are paid to check my sht. They come aboard in Avalon and dump dye in my tank. They inspect my nonexistent Y-valve at every boarding. They want my through hull zip-tied closed - which is not actually possible, so I just have a zip-tie around the handle which seems to work. It appears from my perspective that my crap must be radioactive or something. Would love that same amount of effort spent on the MILLIONS of galllons of crap that get dumped on the beach every month when there's a leak/rain/whatever. 

So, don't dump your crap in a harbor/anchorage. Dump it out to sea. Or have a pumpout station pump it into a sewage treatment facility that will dump it into the ocean for you


----------



## newhaul (Feb 19, 2010)

Fstbttms said:


> Yeah- don't quit your day job, chief. Comedy is not your strong suit.


Actually did quit my day job( not by choice) now ya just shot me down on my career change
BTW I was never a chief best I did was. Ht1


----------



## dreamdoer (Mar 7, 2013)

*Professional opinion*

Morning everyone:

I am the superintendent of a municipal sewer department and chief operator of the wastewater treatment plant. Last month we received 53,610 pounds of pollutants and discharged 60 pounds, achieving 99% removal of all measured pollutants, and this is standard. We are heavily regulated, test daily and are regularly audited. Some of our standards are stricter than drinking water standards (to protect sensitive marine life). Yes accidental discharges can happen in older systems despite best efforts, and no one in this industry is happy about that. Billions of dollars are spent yearly to replace old infrastructure that used to convey ALL UNTREATED wastewater to the nearest waterway. This was the standard in days (gladly) gone by when there were fewer people. To do these improvements in heavily congested old and historic sea ports is incredibly complicated and expensive. Believe me I know this from experience of 30 years. Modern wastewater treatment is very expensive and very good. I hope this helps to inform and comfort.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Dream
As a physician I know all the medical advances of history to date have done less to increase life expectancy than having clean water, aseptic food prep and aseptic childbirth. Thank you for your work.
I also know from seeing the dramatic increase in sargasso off shore and change of biosphere inshore that until we decrease the nutrient loading of the ocean even with all biologic contaminants removed we will continue to change the nature of the biosphere. Some species will,flourish and some will be suppressed.
This and climate change is our legacy. To deny this is outrageous .


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

*Re: Professional opinion*



dreamdoer said:


> Morning everyone:
> 
> I am the superintendent of a municipal sewer department and chief operator of the wastewater treatment plant. Last month we received 53,610 pounds of pollutants and discharged 60 pounds, achieving 99% removal of all measured pollutants, and this is standard. We are heavily regulated, test daily and are regularly audited. Some of our standards are stricter than drinking water standards (to protect sensitive marine life). Yes accidental discharges can happen in older systems despite best efforts, and no one in this industry is happy about that. Billions of dollars are spent yearly to replace old infrastructure that used to convey ALL UNTREATED wastewater to the nearest waterway. This was the standard in days (gladly) gone by when there were fewer people. To do these improvements in heavily congested old and historic sea ports is incredibly complicated and expensive. Believe me I know this from experience of 30 years. Modern wastewater treatment is very expensive and very good. I hope this helps to inform and comfort.


I have complained about the spills and will continue to. However, that doesn't mean that I don't recognize all the improvements that have been made in water quality over the course of my lifetime.

My point, is that you can do your job perfectly, but you have imperfect tools with which to work. That is not your fault but the fault of our communities who don't wish to provide the necessary funding. Or in some cases, where the communities have provided the funding, but the municipalities have not made use of it.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

There is simple logic that one doesn't sh*t in their own bed. Dumping into a confined, low water exchange harbor is ridiculous. 

However, there is zero scientific basis for three miles being the safe distance. It's simply the limit of the individual State's right to regulate offshore waters. Do the math on the amount of water volume between the shore and 1 mile out. 

No one who argues concern over "turds floating by" has ever sailed in the Caribbean. Pump outs are quite uncommon, there are none in the BVI. It wasn't an intentional discovery, but I witnessed a brown dump in the crystal clear water of a mooring field. It was indistinguishable before it reached their transom. 

There needs to be study to determine the right thing to do here, not intuition. Every molecule of waste, from every animal on earth, goes into the environment somewhere. We're simply trying to determine the best place. As usual, the rational are in the minority, surrounded by extremes on each side.


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> There is simple logic that one doesn't sh*t in their own bed. Dumping into a confined, low water exchange harbor is ridiculous.
> 
> However, there is zero scientific basis for three miles being the safe distance. It's simply the limit of the individual State's right to regulate offshore waters. Do the math on the amount of water volume between the shore and 1 mile out.
> 
> ...


Agree that applying the 3 mile limit as the boundary of the RI no discharge zone is not based on science, but RI decided to make the boudaries easy to understand: the 3 mile limit is clearly indicated on your charts. Shouldn't be any confusion there, but Minne has a point about all the water (and flushing, I'll add) off the RI coast inside the 3 mile limit. Still and all, enforcement in open water has to be impractical, so the 3 mile limit will likely only be respected by law-abiders.

Having chartered in the Caribbean since 1998, I have always resented the total lack of controls on heads in the BVI (in particular). There you can have a lot of boats in a harbor like the Bight at Norman Island, with folks swimming off their boats and snorkeling along the edges. Yes, there is a lot of water there, but the thought of swimming in dilluted poop is still not appetizing.

A number of years ago, Island Yachts decided to instruct charterers to keep their heads closed in mooring fields and anchorages and subsequently empty the holding tank in more open waters.

The Island Yachts policy is quite reasonable because it at least addresses the aesthetics--if not the science--in keeping harbors friendly for swimming. Minne's observation that the brown plume dissipated visually in very short order doesn not obviate the fact that bacteria has been introduced where people swim. What you can't see can hurt you, however low the probability.

The only problem with having charterers self-pump their holding tanks, IMHO, is that too many are likely to forget the instructions or be confused. Given the density of boats in the BVI and the money they spend there, there ought to be consideration of pump out boats in areas like the Bight, North Sound, Trellis Bay, etc.


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

fallard said:


> Given the density of boats in the BVI and the money they spend there, there ought to be consideration of pump out boats in areas like the Bight, North Sound, Trellis Bay, etc.


I agree with your post but the part I quoted here still leaves a major issue. What will you have a pump out boat do after it has pumped out a boat? Would you suggest they then go 3-miles offshore, which is not part of BVI regulations, to dump? Who would pay for the service? Who could use it? Would you rather have the BVI install a municipal waste water treatment plant for each Island or have a pump out boat with no treatment plant to take it to?

I also don't like the idea of swimming in the Bight on a busy day or Trellis Bay!


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

fallard said:


> g..... the thought of swimming in dilluted poop is still not appetizing......


Good post above. Interesting that the BVI doesn't have a reputation for spreading bacterial infections to bareboaters, but it doesn't, AFAIK. Makes one wonder where this would be a notable problem (ie. not just a single example), if not there.

As for swimming in diluted poop, you must mean human poop. There are more animals pooping in the ocean, by far, then there are humans that walk the earth, let alone boaters.

I'm going to take a picture of my dock next spring, after the seagulls layer every inch with poop. It's just sprayed into the water, which of course, is where it every other inch of it went that didn't hit the dock.

As I appreciate you agreeing, our conclusions should be based on science, not gross factor.


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

FarCry said:


> I agree with your post but the part I quoted here still leaves a major issue. What will you have a pump out boat do after it has pumped out a boat? Would you suggest they then go 3-miles offshore, which is not part of BVI regulations, to dump? Who would pay for the service? Who could use it? Would you rather have the BVI install a municipal waste water treatment plant for each Island or have a pump out boat with no treatment plant to take it to?
> 
> I also don't like the idea of swimming in the Bight on a busy day or Trellis Bay!


The BVI has had 2 treatment plants: at Road Town and Cane Garden Bay, but there seem to be some questions about their performance. For decades, the BVI has had plans to provide sewage services to much of the territory, including most of Tortala, Anegada, North Sound and several other areas, but doesn't seem to have the will to fund these plans, despite a rosy economic picture created by the the boom in the financial sector for many years.

So, if you charter there, you know what you are dealing with. Maybe the sailing community should put pressure on the BVI--not just for pump outs, but for not polluting the surrounding waters with raw sewage from land sources.


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> Good post above. Interesting that the BVI doesn't have a reputation for spreading bacterial infections to bareboaters, but it doesn't, AFAIK. Makes one wonder where this would be a notable problem (ie. not just a single example), if not there.
> 
> As for swimming in diluted poop, you must mean human poop. There are more animals pooping in the ocean, by far, then there are humans that walk the earth, let alone boaters.
> 
> ...


Not having a reputation for bacterial infections does not mean there is no problem. I doubt there is an effective means for identifying such problems in the BVI or Caribbean in general. I'd rather stick with public health standards than assume there is no problem.

Regarding poop, it is human poop that is the problem, especially with e coli. Seagull and fish poop are not the problem.

I agree that we are otherwise in general agreement.


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Don0190 said:


> It really matters not, you ever follow the law or you don't. If you don't just say so and don't try to justify it *(better to just stay silent).*


Exactly...

Especially, considering he's posting from a place like St Augustine, one of the Florida communities at the forefront of grappling with the issue of permanent anchor-outs, and the anchoring rights of transient/visiting boaters...

When Florida waterfront homeowners can become obsessive enough to fill Sunset Lake with anchored Lasers in an effort to prevent visitation by cruisers, it doesn't at all seem far-fetched that some might be scouring online boating forums in search of 'ammunition' against boters to be presented at the next Anchoring Rights Workshop being convened prior to the next legislative session, and the inevitable round of new anchoring restrictions targeting cruisers...

Here's part of the 'Liveaboard Community' anchored a few miles south of St Augustine, seems rather unlikely they are paying regular visits to the pump out dock in town... I'm guessing they have an attitude similar to the OP's, which can only wind up somehow affecting those of us who cruise Florida waters in the long run...


----------



## goat (Feb 23, 2014)

One thing UP hasn't learned is that when you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging. By the way Jon, for where you sail, you have an apt last name.

goat


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

JonEisberg said:


> ...When Florida waterfront homeowners can become obsessive enough to fill Sunset Lake with anchored Lasers in an effort to prevent visitation by cruisers...[/IMG]


Anyone who has seen recent pictures of those boats totally coated with seagull droppings will immediately recognize the irony that that guy filled up his backyard with DERELICT BOATS in order to prevent legitimate cruisers from exercising their rights to use the waters. I guess it would be heresy to suggest that he should be prosecuted for leaving derelict boats around there.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

fallard said:


> Not having a reputation for bacterial infections does not mean there is no problem. I doubt there is an effective means for identifying such problems in the BVI or Caribbean in general. I'd rather stick with public health standards than assume there is no problem.


While I'm neither suggesting there is or is not a problem, the lack of evidence of a problem is interesting, which is all I said. I believe sailors are generally an environmentally friendly lot, with some clear exceptions. Bareboaters in the BVI are wealthy by world standards too. With every single boat dumping all day long, one could expect a wealthy, environmentally friendly group, to put one and one together, if they were regularly getting sick from feces borne diseases. Should be studied. Could be that there are very few low water exchange harbors and you are often just anchored off an island beach. But you're never three miles offshore, even when transiting. Interesting.



> Regarding poop, it is human poop that is the problem, especially with e coli. Seagull and fish poop are not the problem.


Science man, let's have the science.

ICAAC: Seagull Feces Harbor Drug-Resistant E. Coli | Medpage Today


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

Minnewaska said:


> While I'm neither suggesting there is or is not a problem, the lack of evidence of a problem is interesting, which is all I said. I believe sailors are generally an environmentally friendly lot, with some clear exceptions. Bareboaters in the BVI are wealthy by world standards too. With every single boat dumping all day long, one could expect a wealthy, environmentally friendly group, to put one and one together, if they were regularly getting sick from feces borne diseases. Should be studied. Could be that there are very few low water exchange harbors and you are often just anchored off an island beach. But you're never three miles offshore, even when transiting. Interesting.
> 
> Science man, let's have the science.
> 
> ICAAC: Seagull Feces Harbor Drug-Resistant E. Coli | Medpage Today


I am basically in agreement with all you are saying. Ironically, your cited reference states the the transmission of enterobacteria between seagulls and humans remains theoretical. That said, the transmission of e coli between humans is clearly established and incorporated in health regulations.

The only thing we might argue is where to draw the line on waterborne transmission--and I'll agree that the "red lines"--such as RI's 3 mile NDZ boundary-- are fully founded on science.

CT has most of the Mystic Harbor off limits for taking shellfish for direct consumption (with allowances for depuration) mostly as a consequence of the large number of boats. The state has declared the whole harbor "swimmable", so we can infer that that swimming in dilluted human poop is not as dangerous as shellfishing in these waters (with a much more effective pump out infrastructure that the BVI.) I don't know how much science was employed in their setting these limitations, but there is a clear link between tainted shellfish and human illness. I don't think it is unscientific to assume swimming in human poop-tainted water does carry some--however small--risk of illness.

That said, I swim off the charter boat at moorings in St. John as well as the BVI (e.g., The Bight). I just don't like to think of the microscopic critters I'm sharing the water with. At some level, I bellieve the "yuk" factor is an evolutionary self protection mechanism.


----------



## flandria (Jul 31, 2012)

There was a time sewage systems did not exist, also a time when on sailing ships the head was little more than squatting over the bow! The issue is that still too many municipalities have facilities that cannot handle "above average" conditions such as a heavy rainfall. St. Augustine is far from alone in that. Somehow politicians are not held accountable for under investing in such infrastructure... it is more fruitful for them to keep libraries and swimming pools open for the public, give grants, buy the votes. It is not likely to see more senior governments impose stricter rules, for much the same reasons.

I would never argue that this issue would give anyone permission to dump raw sewage near any shore. Yes, the geese on my dock foul every night more than I accumulate on board in one month, so what?


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

flandria said:


> Yes, the geese on my dock foul every night more than I accumulate on board in one month, so what?


Reminds me of the local California environmental office dictum in the '90s prohibiting washing sea gull poop off Navy ships into San Diego harbor.

Surface area of ships in San Diego harbor was probably one ten thousandth of total area bombed by the gulls.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

fryewe said:


> Reminds me of the local California environmental office dictum in the '90s prohibiting washing sea gull poop off Navy ships into San Diego harbor.
> 
> Surface area of ships in San Diego harbor was probably one ten thousandth of total area bombed by the gulls.


...not to mention the obvious question: Where would the poop have landed if the ships weren't there to stop its fall?


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

flandria said:


> I would never argue that this issue would give anyone permission to dump raw sewage near any shore. Yes, the geese on my dock foul every night more than I accumulate on board in one month, so what?


So What? 60 years ago, Loch Raven Reservoir, which is the principal water supply for the city of Baltimore, was crystal clear. You could see bottom with a snorkel and face mask 30 feet below the surface. The water had a slight blueish tint to it, fishing was fantastic, and the only boating access was via small rental boats that were powered with oars. During the late 1960s, electric trolling motors became available for the rental boats, and the boats went from wooden to aluminum.

Sometime about 2000, massive flocks of non-migratory Canada geese arrived on the scene. Most took up residence where they could not be hunted, municipal reservoirs, golf course lakes, even local water fountains in small parks and monuments. They multiplied like flies, they had no natural predators and the population at Loch Raven alone averaged about 5,000 to 7,000 geese, all of which pooped in the reservoir. After interviewing a waterfowl biologist at Maryland's Department Of Natural Resources, I discovered that the non-migratory birds, which are much larger than the migratory stocks, poop an average of 3 pounds a day per bird. That translates to 15,000 pounds of raw sewage being dumped into the reservoir every day. It only took six months before the water turned green, underwater visibility went to nearly zero and massive algae blooms were seen in most coves. The once pristine water quality turned to crap - goose crap! This translated to increased volumes of cholorine to treat the municipal water supply, and water that tasted musty, which was never the case in Baltimore.

The solution to this problem would be easy - allow hunting. However, because the reservoir, which is located in Baltimore County, is owned by Baltimore City, and hunting is not permitted in Baltimore City under current law - no exceptions. Fortunately, the adjacent golf course was also have a problem with the geese, their turds destroying the greens. The golf course brought in limited numbers of local hunters, which lowered the goose population to about 1,500 birds in a few years of hunting, which is the level it remains today. The water is now a bit clearer, but still green from the nutrient overload by the geese.

That's so what!

All the best,

Gary


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Gary - Good, informative post.

But you're taking flandria's "so what" comment out of context and assigning false intentions to it. He was not suggesting that wildlife poop is insignificant. He was saying that the small volume of any one boat's poop does not justify dumping near shore.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

OK, I agree that any poop is too much poop. And, keep in mind that animal poop is what triggered the pfiesteria outbreaks in the lower reaches of Chesapeake Bay and the Neuse River in NC. I often wonder why someone came up with the not so brilliant idea to dump poop into any body of water, as if it would just go away.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

travlineasy said:


> ...I often wonder why someone came up with the not so brilliant idea to dump poop into any body of water, as if it would just go away.


The $64,000 question is, "Where else would you dump it?" It's easy to criticize the current method of treating and disposing, but you've got to come up with something better. I am not sure what that would be, but I suspect there are hundreds of scientists and engineers who have worked on this, and if they were to come up with a superior and affordable alternative, I suspect that municipalities would be begging for it.


----------



## jephotog (Feb 25, 2002)

I was sailing with a friend that cruised in Croatia I think and you had a pump out card and it kept track of how many times you used it. When you were done with the cruise you were fined if you did not use it enough.

We were at Catalina at the time and they drop a dye packet in your head. If they catch a green streak drifting from your boat you will be fined and banned from harbor. I am no fan of the nanny state but it would be nice to be comfortable swimming in a harbor as it is I do not trust the water where many boats are congregated.


----------



## UnionPacific (Dec 31, 2013)

JonEisberg said:


> Exactly...
> 
> Especially, considering he's posting from a place like St Augustine, one of the Florida communities at the forefront of grappling with the issue of permanent anchor-outs, and the anchoring rights of transient/visiting boaters...


We have many mentally ill people in town who have gotten free boats. If mental health treatment was better these folks would be living in a group home....



> The $64,000 question is, "Where else would you dump it?" It's easy to criticize the current method of treating and disposing, but you've got to come up with something better. I am not sure what that would be, but I suspect there are hundreds of scientists and engineers who have worked on this, and if they were to come up with a superior and affordable alternative, I suspect that municipalities would be begging for it.


Is It Safe To Use Compost Made From Treated Human Waste? : The Salt : NPR


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

travlineasy said:


> So What? 60 years ago, Loch Raven Reservoir, which is the principal water supply for the city of Baltimore, was crystal clear. You could see bottom with a snorkel and face mask 30 feet below the surface. The water had a slight blueish tint to it, fishing was fantastic, and the only boating access was via small rental boats that were powered with oars. During the late 1960s, electric trolling motors became available for the rental boats, and the boats went from wooden to aluminum.
> 
> Sometime about 2000, massive flocks of non-migratory Canada geese arrived on the scene. Most took up residence where they could not be hunted, municipal reservoirs, golf course lakes, even local water fountains in small parks and monuments. They multiplied like flies, they had no natural predators and the population at Loch Raven alone averaged about 5,000 to 7,000 geese, all of which pooped in the reservoir. After interviewing a waterfowl biologist at Maryland's Department Of Natural Resources, I discovered that the non-migratory birds, which are much larger than the migratory stocks, poop an average of 3 pounds a day per bird. That translates to 15,000 pounds of raw sewage being dumped into the reservoir every day. It only took six months before the water turned green, underwater visibility went to nearly zero and massive algae blooms were seen in most coves. The once pristine water quality turned to crap - goose crap! This translated to increased volumes of cholorine to treat the municipal water supply, and water that tasted musty, which was never the case in Baltimore.
> 
> ...


Yikes, that what I drink!

I vote for roasted goose for dinner.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

fallard said:


> ...Ironically, your cited reference states the the transmission of enterobacteria between seagulls and humans remains theoretical. That said, the transmission of e coli between humans is clearly established and incorporated in health regulations.


That study seemed to only be testing for the presence of bacteria in seagull droppings, so no testing was done on transmission. The transmission of e.coli to humans is through contaminated raw food and water. The question is how you would ingest sufficient quantities of contaminated salt water and how dilluted does contamination need to be, in order to be benign.



> At some level, I bellieve the "yuk" factor is an evolutionary self protection mechanism.


While I agree with evolutionary behaviors, they also cause us to eat too much sugar. They may be directionally correct, but that's not science.


----------



## arisatx (Sep 2, 2004)

UnionPacific said:


> pol·lute
> pəˈlo͞ot/
> verb
> gerund or present participle: polluting
> ...


Have you read any of the new stories coming out of Rio and the 2016 Olympic watersports?

Rio 2016 Olympics: Alarming levels of viruses and sewage in swimming and sailing venues


----------



## seaner97 (May 15, 2011)

TakeFive said:


> The $64,000 question is, "Where else would you dump it?" It's easy to criticize the current method of treating and disposing, but you've got to come up with something better. I am not sure what that would be, but I suspect there are hundreds of scientists and engineers who have worked on this, and if they were to come up with a superior and affordable alternative, I suspect that municipalities would be begging for it.


Unfortunately, not true. Adulterating anything costs money, and not adulterating it is free unless someone puts a cost on not adulterating it (fines, fees, taxes and other "dirty" words). The tipping point comes when you put a high enough penalty on the "free" to "encourage" the proper use that "should" be done. There's the rub.
You get the Tea Party and libertarian contingent that thinks there should be minimal social input and then the rest of us that believe there is SOME social contract, but have differing opinions as to where that goes. Same in Canada, although pretty much all their parties espouse a higher standard of society than ours.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> The $64,000 question is, "Where else would you dump it?" It's easy to criticize the current method of treating and disposing, but you've got to come up with something better. I am not sure what that would be, but I suspect there are hundreds of scientists and engineers who have worked on this, and if they were to come up with a superior and affordable alternative, I suspect that municipalities would be begging for it.


The City of Key west solved this problem two decades ago. Prior to their current system, the city treated wastewater just like any other municipality, then it was piped 1/4-mile offshore and rose to the surface as a large, brown effluent that smelled awful. The effluent attracted lots of tiny finfish, which in turn, attracted tarpon, sharks, king mackerel, and grouper. The location of the discharge was known by the locals as the Rose Bowl. It killed the coral beds in the area and when the wind was blowing toward shore everyone deserted the adjacent beach.

Right next to the wastewater treatment plant was an oil-fired electrical generating plant. Someone came up with the wild idea that the wastewater could be incinerated using the heat generated by the plant, then filtering the steam with scrubbers and using the steam to generate electricity. Worked like a charm, there is no longer a discharge pipe dumping poop in the nearby Hawk Channel. The steam then runs through a condenser, transposing it back to warm water, then through a series of heat exchangers before being discharged into the harbor next to the US Naval Station Key West. The water is about 10 degrees warmer than the seawater and attracts huge numbers of pinfish, which again attract gamefish. Unfortunately, since 911, the area has been off limits to the general public for security reasons.

The ash scrubbed from the power plant's stacks is reduced to a tiny fraction of the solids contained within the wastewater volume and is mixed with asphalt to pave roads. Since then, several private companies have come out with a home use version that would nearly eliminate septic tanks. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_incinera.pdf

So, there is a better way of getting rid of poop other than dumping it in the water.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

fallard said:


> The BVI has had 2 treatment plants: at Road Town and Cane Garden Bay, but there seem to be some questions about their performance. For decades, the BVI has had plans to provide sewage services to much of the territory, including most of Tortala, Anegada, North Sound and several other areas, but doesn't seem to have the will to fund these plans, despite a rosy economic picture created by the the boom in the financial sector for many years.
> 
> So, if you charter there, you know what you are dealing with. Maybe the sailing community should put pressure on the BVI--not just for pump outs, but for not polluting the surrounding waters with raw sewage from land sources.


Are you sure the BVI currently has functioning municipal treatment plants that provide a meaningful level of wastewater treatment before it is pumped out to sea? If so could you direct me to a link? I'm assuming you understand the difference between a sewage system and a WWTP. This link is the most recent info that I was aware of. The BVI Beacon - SPECIAL REPORT: Why sewer progress has taken 40 years, part 2

I'd like world peace and the sky filled with rainbows along with a better way to handle waste generated by boats in the BVI. Having lived here and been involved with the charter industry and WWTP's in all of the USVI for only about 10 years I believe a few things that I can't necessarily prove. One thing is that anything that happens in the tourist dependent Virgin Islands that has a very detrimental impact on tourism causing bad international press will be addressed rather quickly. I see this with crime against tourists. Typically those crimes get solved quickly and in a public way because the overall cost of bad press is simply too much to ignore. Along that same vein, if visitors were getting sick on a regular basis from water born contaminants, there would be the will of the government and the giant charter industry, think Moorings/Sunsail, to fix it. I've never heard of an issue and in the course of a year I spend a lot of days on the water with a lot of people including my own family and friends. Personally I believe a visitor has very little influence on BVI domestic policy. A person comes, drops $5-$10K, spends a week and flies away. Visitors don't own local businesses, don't own real property and don't directly pay taxes or get to vote. Short of greasing palms, interesting concept in a waste discussion, I don't see how to influence a foreign government to do what you want them to do unless next season 20K people just don't show up and flood the BVI with letters describing their boycott based on the way they (don't) handle waste. One thing to keep in mind is that most of us are visiting a foreign country that doesn't have an entity like the US version of the EPA. You know they burn nearly all of the garbage over there, right? How do we feel about all the tons of burned plastic and other nastiness?

In the end I agree with you on so much of this but I think foreign influence is pretty futile and unfortunately I don't see much concern from the residents.

In the mean time I strongly encourage charter guests to use the holding tanks in the harbors and empty in deep water away from shore.


----------



## fallard (Nov 30, 2009)

FarCry said:


> Are you sure the BVI currently has functioning municipal treatment plants that provide a meaningful level of wastewater treatment before it is pumped out to sea? If so could you direct me to a link? I'm assuming you understand the difference between a sewage system and a WWTP. This link is the most recent info that I was aware of. The BVI Beacon - SPECIAL REPORT: Why sewer progress has taken 40 years, part 2
> 
> I'd like world peace and the sky filled with rainbows along with a better way to handle waste generated by boats in the BVI. Having lived here and been involved with the charter industry and WWTP's in all of the USVI for only about 10 years I believe a few things that I can't necessarily prove. One thing is that anything that happens in the tourist dependent Virgin Islands that has a very detrimental impact on tourism causing bad international press will be addressed rather quickly. I see this with crime against tourists. Typically those crimes get solved quickly and in a public way because the overall cost of bad press is simply too much to ignore. Along that same vein, if visitors were getting sick on a regular basis from water born contaminants, there would be the will of the government and the giant charter industry, think Moorings/Sunsail, to fix it. I've never heard of an issue and in the course of a year I spend a lot of days on the water with a lot of people including my own family and friends. Personally I believe a visitor has very little influence on BVI domestic policy. A person comes, drops $5-$10K, spends a week and flies away. Visitors don't own local businesses, don't own real property and don't directly pay taxes or get to vote. Short of greasing palms, interesting concept in a waste discussion, I don't see how to influence a foreign government to do what you want them to do unless next season 20K people just don't show up and flood the BVI with letters describing their boycott based on the way they (don't) handle waste. One thing to keep in mind is that most of us are visiting a foreign country that doesn't have an entity like the US version of the EPA. You know they burn nearly all of the garbage over there, right? How do we feel about all the tons of burned plastic and other nastiness?
> 
> ...


My impression from the BVI sources like the Beacon is that sewage treatment is at the third world level, despite over 4 decades of talk. We can lament the lack of progress in the BVI, but without publicity on this issue, I doubt that the chartering community will get energized to speak up. That said, the money from the chartering community has to be substantial enough that an organized objection to the status quo should help.


----------



## mr_f (Oct 29, 2011)

travlineasy said:


> The City of Key west solved this problem two decades ago. Prior to their current system, the city treated wastewater just like any other municipality, then it was piped 1/4-mile offshore and rose to the surface as a large, brown effluent that smelled awful. The effluent attracted lots of tiny finfish, which in turn, attracted tarpon, sharks, king mackerel, and grouper. The location of the discharge was known by the locals as the Rose Bowl. It killed the coral beds in the area and when the wind was blowing toward shore everyone deserted the adjacent beach.
> 
> Right next to the wastewater treatment plant was an oil-fired electrical generating plant. Someone came up with the wild idea that the wastewater could be incinerated using the heat generated by the plant, then filtering the steam with scrubbers and using the steam to generate electricity. Worked like a charm, there is no longer a discharge pipe dumping poop in the nearby Hawk Channel. The steam then runs through a condenser, transposing it back to warm water, then through a series of heat exchangers before being discharged into the harbor next to the US Naval Station Key West. The water is about 10 degrees warmer than the seawater and attracts huge numbers of pinfish, which again attract gamefish. Unfortunately, since 911, the area has been off limits to the general public for security reasons.
> 
> ...


This sounds interesting, but as near as I can tell it is not how the Key West wastewater treatment works. Is there a smaller project or old project to which you refer? Any more information?

The Key West plant appears to use filtration and fairly standard aeration tanks to biologically break down waste, then separates the sludge which is *shipped by truck to a sanitary landfill*. The remaining waste water is pumped into two deepwater wells. They stopped pumping into the ocean when the 1st well was completed in 2001. After the second well was completed (in 2006?), the emergency overflow capability was 'permanently' closed. I believe the sludge was always shipped away (since construction in around 1989).



> The waste activated sludge (WAS) is stabilized and thickened aerobically which means that air is bubbled through the sludge. This oxidizes the micro-organisms, killing pathogens and activated sludge bacteria. The thickened sludge is mixed with a coagulant called polymer, and dewatered on belt filter presses. Belt Filter Presses (BFP's) squeeze much of the water out of the sludge. The dewatered sludge, called "cake" is dry enough to be loaded into trucks. *The sludge cake is hauled out of the Keys to a sanitary landfill on the mainland owned by Waste Management, Inc.*


If you read through the "tour" at this weird website that appears to have been made by a child, but claims to be OMI, it walks you through the technology they use:
Tour the plant.

And here is some more information:
Wastewater Treatment / Key West, FL


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

The project was a small scale project when I was down there, and at the time it was still in the experimental stages. I think the same company also made the Destroilet systems and they were trying to introduce this on a larger scale. Made perfectly good sense to me at the time, and still does. To be honest, I never followed up on exactly how much of the wastewater was utilized as the project progressed, but I was thankful they stopped dumping into Hawk Channel. I interviewed Captain Tony when I did the story for a regional magazine. Captain Tony was running for Mayor of Key West at the time and provided me with much of the information. He was a neat guy, but I don't recall if he ever became mayor.

Waste Management was also involved in a big project in Maryland, Waste To Energy, a plant that was set up at Aberdeen Proving Grounds just inside the west gate. At this one, they burned trash, and used wastewater to generate steam, which was sold to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for heating the facility. It was closed a couple years ago, but I'm not sure why. When they were in full operating, they were burning hundreds of tons of trash daily, and recycling huge quantities of metal that was removed from the the refuse. It based upon a controlled burn system, and the stack scrubber removed tons of sulphur every day, which was also sold.

There's some really neat stuff out there, and it just shows we really don't have to dump poop into our waterways. Granted, it may cost a bit more to process, but I sincerely believe the saving of the waterways and their natural resources would provide far more revenues from recreational users and improved, sustainable, commercial fisheries.

Just me .02 cents worth,

Gary


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

If they could just turn poop into booze our problems would be solved. I can't believe Bill Gates spent all that money turning poop into water. Waste of resources.


----------



## Bruce3966 (Feb 8, 2015)

And I thought all sailors got along. 

Is it safe to say that I am happy I live in Michigan and surrounded by fresh and unsalted (and no sharks) CLEAN water where everybody better have their waste seacock wired closed or removed completely.


----------



## mr_f (Oct 29, 2011)

travlineasy said:


> The project was a small scale project when I was down there, and at the time it was still in the experimental stages. I think the same company also made the Destroilet systems and they were trying to introduce this on a larger scale. Made perfectly good sense to me at the time, and still does. To be honest, I never followed up on exactly how much of the wastewater was utilized as the project progressed, but I was thankful they stopped dumping into Hawk Channel. I interviewed Captain Tony when I did the story for a regional magazine. Captain Tony was running for Mayor of Key West at the time and provided me with much of the information. He was a neat guy, but I don't recall if he ever became mayor.
> 
> Waste Management was also involved in a big project in Maryland, Waste To Energy, a plant that was set up at Aberdeen Proving Grounds just inside the west gate. At this one, they burned trash, and used wastewater to generate steam, which was sold to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for heating the facility. It was closed a couple years ago, but I'm not sure why. When they were in full operating, they were burning hundreds of tons of trash daily, and recycling huge quantities of metal that was removed from the the refuse. It based upon a controlled burn system, and the stack scrubber removed tons of sulphur every day, which was also sold.
> 
> ...


Although not poop-related, Waste Management also uses the methane emitted from decomposing landfills to generate power in some places. Here is some info on one such project at the University of New Hampshire:

Cogeneration & EcoLine (Landfill Gas) | Sustainability Institute

When fully operational, UNH will get 85% of their electricity and heat from decomposing garbage.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

travlineasy said:


> The City of Key west solved this problem two decades ago...





travlineasy said:


> The project was a small scale project when I was down there, and at the time it was still in the experimental stages.


You're backpedaling here. As a chemical engineer who has spent my whole career developing and scaling up products, I know that demonstrating a new experimental process at a small scale does not equate to "solving the problem." That's reminiscent of W's "Mission Accomplished" banner.

There are lots of really neat processes that just can't scale up for a variety or reasons. I am not familiar enough with the process that you described to immediately know what the pitfalls are. But I can speculate on a few:

Whether burning trash or poop, the tradeoff is often between water quality (streams or groundwater) vs. air quality. Even after you take out the bacteria and toxins, you still have elemental discharges (heavy metals, sulfur) and small compounds (CO2, H2S, and other acid rain contributor). You mentioned scrubbers, but then where does the scrubber water go? Eventually it all makes its way into rivers and streams.

Use of human waste sludge as farm fertilizer has a mixed history, too. Here's just one article from awhile back. I used to drive on the bridge over this plant every day on the way to/from work, and learned real quickly to put the air on "recirculate":

City sludge, country qualms Philadelphia's recycled sewage makes great fertilizer, some say. In rural areas, though, there are complaints that biosolids cause sickness. - philly-archives


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Read the EPA report again! http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_incinera.pdf

You may want to take a look at this as well. 




I respect that you have a significant background in this area, and chemical engineering, but you must admit, there are alternatives to dumping into the rivers and streams. These are just a few examples. In my case, I have a 1,000-gallon septic tank that has never failed in nearly 50 years. We do not use chlorine bleach or any products with chlorine that would be sent to the septic system. Consequently, when the tank gets pumped out, which is once every three to five years, the honey dipper guy repeatedly tells me that I'm wasting my money having it pumped. There has never been more than one inch of solids on the bottom of the tank, and most of the time there's none at all - just liquids. My 550-foot deep well is situated about 200 feet from the septic system, I have it tested every 5 years, and it has never been contaminated. I guess the bacteria in the septic system is doing a good job and the surrounding earth in the septic field my be one Hell of a good filtration system.

All the best,

Gary


----------



## hellsop (Jun 3, 2014)

Bruce3966 said:


> And I thought all sailors got along.
> 
> Is it safe to say that I am happy I live in Michigan and surrounded by fresh and unsalted (and no sharks) CLEAN water where everybody better have their waste seacock wired closed or removed completely.


TOO clean. Darned mussels.


----------



## travlin-easy (Dec 24, 2010)

Actually, Paul and I get along quite well, especially when we get together for a rendezvous, drink some booze and play music.

Gary


----------

