# Poo isn't so bad, is it?



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

For the first time I've had to look for a pump-out for my holding tank, and start making inquiries. Despite the size and business of Victoria's port, there are only two pump outs, both private, one not working, and until today, the other wasn't working either. Cost? $20.00. The resulting effluent will then be run through Victoria's sewers, and then dumped untreated in the Jaun deFuca Straight.

I live in a liveaboard marina where there are no sewage hookups, and many boats never leave their slips. There are other marinas in the harbour that also have no sewage hookup and have liveaboards.

The regs clearly stipulate that no blackwater is to be discharged into the harbour, and yet there is no policing, no enforcement, and it will cost you to discharge legally, if you can find a pumpout that works.

Up to now I've discharged more or less legally into deep major bodies like Haro Straight and Juan deFuca, but now that I see that the regs are being ignored, are not enforced, little is done by authorities to actually make the system work (working public pumpouts) the city pumps effluent untreated, and the harbour itself is already listed as a federal toxic waste site after 100 years of industrial contamination, I'm thinking it's all a joke and the poo should go over the side along with everyone else's, to mix with the brew of PCB's, dioxins, heavy metals and whatever else is out there.

Can somebody make an argument that this would be wrong?


----------



## Andyman (Jul 20, 2007)

Yeah. Murphy's Law.
"If everyone in the Marina dump poo and doesn't get caught, when you dump your poo...you'll get caught".

Really...no place you can motor over to so you can dump?


----------



## mentalfee (Jul 11, 2001)

The solution to pollution is *NOT* dilution!

Have you considered a used Lectra San?


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

Victoria is a disgrace.

It's wrong because you asked the question.

Sail out to pump out beyond three miles, or whatever the local limit is. The fact that others **** where they float doesn't make it right. That kind of logic went out with "I was only following orders". Don't add to the mess that makes the approaches to Victoria "following ordure".

Besides, I think you are the type of guy who needs fresh sea air to clear his head (pun intended) once in a while.


----------



## tommyt (Sep 21, 2002)

Thank you Val, well said. We in the Great Lakes, both Canada and the US, take this seriously. No three mile limits here. Wire it shut or get the fines.

In the US we are easy on murder, but if you dump your **** in the Great Lakes and get caught, you will wish you were dead.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

I understand your frustration Hoffa; but "everybody else is doing it" doesn't even work for my 6yr old grandson......

Be the best guy in the harbor !


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Hoffa,

For those of us who go to very considerable expense and inconvenience to comply with the no-discharge requirement, it's discouraging to hear about a place like Victoria.

In my book, direct discharge into the harbour waters is no different than throwing trash overboard, or out your car window for that matter. Maybe by way of example, you can pursuade your marina neighbors to adopt less vile habits.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd have to agree with the others... don't dump in the harbor.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Funny...but in the Caribe you can dump wherever you want and the water is pristine everywhere except in small enclosed harbors without tidal flow. I won't advise not to follow the law...but i believe the law is a sledgehammer where only a tack hammer should be needed. You got pods of Orcas taking dumps night and day in the Straights of Juan de Fuca with no ill effect...but you wouldn't want that in Lake Tahoe. Then they outlaw MSD's that process waste CLEANER than the municiple waste water regulations...and you can't find a working dump station within 10 miles....then you pay for the privilege of using it as it returns your waste to the municipal system and empties it back into the bay!! DUH!!!


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

I see that some folks feel quite strongly about this. Is that because in the US they actually take it seriously and so the ethic has been adopted? There was a time when drinking and driving wasn't such a social taboo, either. Is it because if I pay, you should pay too? 

I'm not exactly enamored with the quality of the harbor's water either, but while the idea of floating turds IS repugnant, I am a lot more concerned about the toxic buildup in the sediments from industry. That's the stuff that gives you seals with two heads. Not to mention people. 

Not surprisingly the harbor authority recently announced "troubling" levels of E. coli in the water, but from what I understand from my microbiologist bro, in most cases it's harmless, but it's a MARKER for fecal contamination, which gets the health authorities scared fast. In fresh water it can lead to all kinds of plagues and stuff, but saltwater? What is the worry other than we don't like floating in sewers?

The thing about most ethics and morals, they only work if a good, solid segment of society also follow them. If you're the only guy adhering to a value, and paying all the consequences while everyone else ignores it and reaps the reward, you might feel good about yourself, and you might even be a model fellow, but you also just might be an twit.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Unfortunately, government doesn't make much sense about a lot of things.


----------



## HeadHoncho (May 30, 2007)

HoffaLives said:


> For the first time I've had to look for a pump-out for my holding tank, and start making inquiries. Despite the size and business of Victoria's port, there are only two pump outs, both private, one not working, and until today, the other wasn't working either. Cost? $20.00.


Is there no boat-to-boat pumpout service in Victoria? The going rate here in the Bay Area is $25.00 for a pumpout and you don't even have to be at the boat.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

HoffaLives said:


> I am a lot more concerned about the toxic buildup in the sediments from industry. That's the stuff that gives you seals with two heads. Not to mention people.


I'll agree with ya on the two heade seals, but are you sure it gives us people too.

I could go out 3 miles and dump, but I really hate sh*t in my pool, so I have a service come by twice a week @ 45.00 a pump to take of business

It's a lot of moola, but it is the right thing to do IMHO


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

When we were first looking at our current boat, I found a switch tucked in a cabinet. I asked the owner about the switch. She said "oh, that's to the Canada pump." I hadn't heard that term before so I asked her what a "Canada Pump" is. She said "you know, it's for when you go cruising in Canada and you have to pump overboard". 

On our way up to Desolation Sound each summer, we hit the pump out at Nanaimo on the way up and tried for the one at Lund, but it's usually blocked in by rafted boats. Sure would like to see one up at Refuge Cove or Squirrel Cove.


----------



## canadianseamonkey (Sep 4, 2006)

I can't believe this question? It's all about morals and being able to sleep at night. If anybody in my harbour would dump overboard, I would probably take a knife to his sails. This is absolutely disgusting, you are endangering the waters and peoples lives. If you don't have a proper pump-out station, find another solution. Sick!


----------



## cesarid (Sep 2, 2003)

Maine is no better. Chartered there several years ago and didn't have an option - there was no holding tank. We thought it was pretty disgusting, especailly in beautiful little harbors; but the water was not so beautiful.


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

canadianseamonkey said:


> I can't believe this question? It's all about morals and being able to sleep at night. If anybody in my harbour would dump overboard, I would probably take a knife to his sails. This is absolutely disgusting, you are endangering the waters and peoples lives. If you don't have a proper pump-out station, find another solution. Sick!


Instead of getting riled, why not actually answer the question(s)? So far all I'm getting is it's an aesthetic issue rather than a moral one. How is it endangering the waters and people's lives? I believe cholera is spread by fecal contaminated drinking water, but we're talking salt water here. I've yet to see dead marine life washed up on the shore because of poo...

I'm seriously not being inflammatory; there was a lot of noise about getting these regs pushed through, but I still haven't heard any reason why, other than people are disgusted and don't eat the shellfish.

It's an unfortunate truth that all societies and civilisations wallow in their own filth (been to a dump lately?). Again, there's no hurry in cleaning up the toxic waste in the harbour, and as an environmental disaster, I would bet my left gonad that junk has a far greater impact on ecosystem health.

My understanding of the impact of human waste is it's a fertilizer and leads to excess phytoplankton growth and reduced O2 levels.


----------



## canadianseamonkey (Sep 4, 2006)

Hoffa - I understand what you are saying, but I don't understand much on the effect of salt water and crap in a harbour. All I know is that if I'm swimming and a piece of **** floats near me.....I will freak! 

As far as diseases, Hep B is causes by fecals I believe.

You mention dumps....when you go to a dump you know what to expect. When I go swimming I'm expecting crap free water. I don't consider urine a pollutant though, as it's mostly water.


----------



## cruisingdream (Feb 7, 2007)

$25 to $40 dollars to pump out ?
I complain if its more than $5 but here in the great lakes almost every marina has pump out facilities and everyone uses them 
(pump out is usually free with $50 or more fuel fill up)


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

Hoffa, 
If you're searching for some justification for dumping your solid wastes into the planet's coastal water systems and oceans, you will be hard-pressed to get it here, or even receive it from anyone with any level of intelligence. 

Without getting into a long winded debate over this - since I don't have the time right now, there are many levels of harm this will do to the environment - aside from the very well known, harmful effects of fecal coliform bacteria. 

Excessive nutrient loading is a huge problem with Bays and estuaries worldwide, with some very devastating effects. Dissolved oxygen levels are reduced by decomposition of macroalgae blooms fueled by excess nutrients. Low dissolved oxygen affects the survival and growth of most marine animals.

There are so many other devastating effects to the environment caused from the discharge of your boat's fecal matter - but again, I don't have the time to debate this. I do urge you to please study the thousands of reports with scientific research that mandated these laws.

Besides, the mere fact that you're actually posting such a ridiculous argument, is either proof of your ignorance of this topic or testimony to your sheer stupidity. If the latter is true, then there's no point in me even debating this.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

TB, don't hold back, please tell us how you _really_ feel.


Oh, and just FYI, it's fecal coliform, but I know you were busy and in a hurry. 


TrueBlue said:


> Hoffa,
> fecal chloroform bacteria.


I agree with you to a very large extent; but probably mostly in areas with semi-limited flow, like any harbor or cove and most estuaries; even big places like the Chesapeake.

Less so in distinctly open water, like 3 or 4 miles into the Gulf of Maine; at least in the levels we're talking about here.


----------



## TrueBlue (Oct 11, 2004)

Duly noted and corrected Ajari. Sorry for the rant - I'm in a pissed-off mood today. I meant no disrespect to Hoffalives - personally, just the attitude that his **** is clean.


----------



## TSteele65 (Oct 19, 2006)

No Christmas candy for any of you.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

TrueBlue said:


> Duly noted and corrected Ajari. Sorry for the rant - I'm in a pissed-off mood today. I meant no disrespect to Hoffalives - personally, just the attitude that his **** is clean.


NP, TB  Sorry to hear you're in a $#!ttY mood, Pun definitely intended 

I do understand the frustration Hoffa expressed in his original post. It's hard to pony up with glee when we see others around us flaunting then rules with impunity.

As for the correction, I just thought it was funny chloroform/coliform. Done in by the old spell-checker .... 

Hope your day gets better,
Fred


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

To change the subject a bit... Has anyone had any experience with onboard composting toilets? I know they exist, but I haven't heard first hand of any.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Has anyone seen what it looks like when you flush overboard?

Well from my point of view,(a diver) it looks like it is snowing during a duststorm...
There is nothing that floats so no reason to worry anout bumping in to a "baby ruth" while swimming.

Its a great way to attract fish but please don't flush/pumpout while I'm in the water!!!!


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

deepblueme said:


> but please don't flush/pumpout while I'm in the water!!!!


Again it comes down to personal responsibility and common sense. Laws be damned, nobody should be pumping out in any body of water where a diver or a swimmer would _want_ to be, let alone where they _are_.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

We on San Juan Island live next door to Victoria/Vancouver Island, and it is an ongoing, irate source of "news" that they are dumping millions of gallons of raw sewer over there into the local waters. Other than Hoffalives, my take is that most of the population over there doesn't give a crap (sorry...), or they would do something about it. Since most people tend to ignore it and look the other way, it ain't gonna change any time soon.

Hoffa, as far as your personal moral conundrum, I once lived in a marina outside of Portland, OR (on the slow moving Multnomah Channel) where the marina manager literally told us to "do what everyone else does" and pump right into the water. Which was against I don't know how many state and local regulations. Well, we wouldn't do it. We pumped out properly, and over time made a few of our neighbors feel guilty enough to alter their pump out practices for the better.

To me, the moral of the story is change is quite often made one person at a time. My default has always been to do what is right, even if it's a pain in the ass (sorry again!).


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

T B, despite the harshness of your words, and the stinky mood, I totally agree with you. What I don't understand is that Hoffalives said the city sewage system dumps untreated. It would seem to me that the provincial government and/or the Canadian government should force the city to stop that practice. In most of the U S that would happen.
BTW, Sea Monkey, the water around Manituolin Island is DRINKABLE, and since I intend to return there on Ragtime (I previously chartered there) I took out the macerator pump and installed a larger holding tank so I would not have to pump as often!


----------



## canadianseamonkey (Sep 4, 2006)

TSteele65 said:


> No Christmas candy for any of you.


That was priceless....thanks for the laugh.


----------



## canadianseamonkey (Sep 4, 2006)

RAGTIMEDON said:


> T B, despite the harshness of your words, and the stinky mood, I totally agree with you. What I don't understand is that Hoffalives said the city sewage system dumps untreated. It would seem to me that the provincial government and/or the Canadian government should force the city to stop that practice. In most of the U S that would happen.
> BTW, Sea Monkey, the water around Manituolin Island is DRINKABLE, and since I intend to return there on Ragtime (I previously chartered there) I took out the macerator pump and installed a larger holding tank so I would not have to pump as often!


Thank you for respecting our waters. And it's true, the water of Manitoulin has less pollutants then our city drinking water.


----------



## eryka (Mar 16, 2006)

HoffaLives said:


> Instead of getting riled, why not actually answer the question(s)? So far all I'm getting is it's an aesthetic issue rather than a moral one. How is it endangering the waters and people's lives? I believe cholera is spread by fecal contaminated drinking water, but we're talking salt water here. I've yet to see dead marine life washed up on the shore because of poo...
> 
> I'm seriously not being inflammatory; there was a lot of noise about getting these regs pushed through, but I still haven't heard any reason why, other than people are disgusted and don't eat the shellfish.
> 
> ...


Moral reason: 100 years ago, we as a society TRULY didn't fully understand the consequences of our dumping actions. Now we do. So don't!

Medical reason: You are correct that e. coli itself isn't hazardous. We use the e. coli. indicator because when it's there, there's a chance of other bacterial/viral diseases THAT AFFECT HUMANS like hep. and cholera, etc. E. coli is just cheaper/easier to test for. Where there's smoke ... there could be fire. And you don't need to drink it, just get splashed while sailing, if the water's bad enough. Or eat the shellfish that bioconcentrate both the inorganic toxics and the bacterials.

Brand new big nasty medical reason: Guess what ELSE is in your crap and pee? The unmetabolized portion of every drug you and your harbor-neighbors take. Anti-depressants? Cholesterol-reducing meds? Perhaps you'd enjoy a quick dip in the estrogen from my birth-control pills?


----------



## eryka (Mar 16, 2006)

BTW, if the estrogen didn't shrivel it, I guess you owe me your left gonad??

Look for "pharmaceuticals and personal care products" on EPA's website, or try googling "intersex fish." Turns out that the estrogen has been turning little boy fish into little girl fish in the Potomac, maybe other places as well.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

eryka said:


> Turns out that the estrogen has been turning little boy fish into little girl fish in the Potomac, maybe other places as well.


It's a plot to demasculate us all


----------



## eryka (Mar 16, 2006)

The girl fish? Or Hoffa's gonad?

I suppose its equally possible that the fish no longer have high cholesterol, or are happier than before, but how could you tell?

And cool! That's the second time this week I could claim to have been doing something work-related while on SailNet at the office!


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

Hoffa,

An alternative to dumping in the harbor would be to put a portapot on your boat while you're living aboard in town and walk it up to the on shore facilities every other day. We used that method on a previous boat. The potty duty got rotated among family members so everyone was careful about using shore facilities when they were available.


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

Hey TB, read before you blow yer wad. if you go back and study the post, I was asking if anyone KNEW what the concerns were...I posited a few that I knew about **** in H2O and wasn't sure how it worked in the briney, and why these regs exist, especially given the lack of concern shown by officialdom. Seems to me it is meant to shut up a vocal constituency rather than deal with the issue, whatever the issue is.

We have activists in Victoria raising the stink about raw poop in Juan deFuca, a massive body of water 100 kilometres long and 25 km wide and has depths ranging from 180m to 250m on the pacific coast and 55m at the sill. Flow is very complex according to several papers I looked at online, but with tidal volumes 25cm/s -75 cm/s, think about the sheer volume of water that flushes thru there every day. I'm not saying there is no impact, but the governments are looking at a billion dollars to rectify this, and what about the toxic waste in the harbour? Where should the money be spent?

I'm not worried about phytoplankton blooms in the harbour - maybe I'm the only one who cares about this, but how can you shriek about turds while these chemicals are being ignored? I guess it's easy to simply pass laws saying don't poop in the harbour while PCB's Dioxins, heavy metals, poisons, etc are left alone. I just don't see the logic. If the harbour was clean except for effluent than by all means, but only a fool would dip a toe in that water, poo or no poo.
I'm not arguing for pooing in the harbour, but I think people are dumping on the wrong issue here. Get rid of the long-term industrial poisons first THEN tell me not to dump. 

What is the sense in saying don't poop in our toxic waste site?

I agree with banning overboard pooping in the gulf islands because they are not otherwise contaminated (as far as we know), but what about the sewage off those islands anyway? Where is that going?

And even if you sanitise your effluent, you are left with tons and tons of bioactive solids, and you still have to deal with that. It tends to concentrate things like heavy metals and hormones and such, so you can't just dump it in the nearest garden.

There's a lot of rhetoric out there but I'm just positing THE QUESTION. It's too easy to jump on the green bandwagon without asking why.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

I posted something on the other Poo thread that could have been construed as my being in favour of "to hell with the pollution, just go for it". nothing could be further from the truth particularly when talking about heavily populated areas , marinas and the like. Also places where there are swimmers and/or divers about. 

Obviously direct pump out in a situation like that would be totally irresponsible and a significant health risk as is the habit of emptying out HTs in a harbour, port or river.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

HoffaLives said:


> Hey TB, read before you blow yer wad. if you go back and study the post, I was asking if anyone KNEW what the concerns were...I posited a few that I knew about **** in H2O and wasn't sure how it worked in the briney, and why these regs exist, especially given the lack of concern shown by officialdom. Seems to me it is meant to shut up a vocal constituency rather than deal with the issue, whatever the issue is.
> 
> We have activists in Victoria raising the stink about raw poop in Juan deFuca, a massive body of water 100 kilometres long and 25 km wide and has depths ranging from 180m to 250m on the pacific coast and 55m at the sill. Flow is very complex according to several papers I looked at online, but with tidal volumes 25cm/s -75 cm/s, think about the sheer volume of water that flushes thru there every day. I'm not saying there is no impact, but the governments are looking at a billion dollars to rectify this, and what about the toxic waste in the harbour? Where should the money be spent?
> 
> ...


Hoffa,

I'm having trouble following your line of reasoning. Are you saying that Canada is still allowing "PCB's Dioxins, heavy metals, poisons, etc" to be dumped in the harbour? Or are you saying that because these pollutants were once dumped into the harbour that you should be allowed to continue dumping your own pollutants?

My understanding is that dumping of those chemicals is no longer allowed -- a necessary first step toward cleaning up any contaminated waterway. I don't know whether Victoria is considering any environmental remediation, but often the best course of action is to allow such chemical residues to be capped by sediment and left in place. Human waste is another pollutant that behaves differently, since it dilutes and remains in suspension. Which is why I can't follow the argument that the persistence of residues from now-banned chemicals in the harbour's sedimentation is justification for direct discharge from your toilet.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

JohnR makes good points. But I think we should go a little easier on Hoffa, he's just asking questions.
I do think it's a bit crazy to pump your holding tank into the municipal system for $25, only to have them dump it right back into the ocean.
There are stories aplenty of municipal systems flushing millions of gallons of untreated waste into various open bodies of water all over the USA.


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

I'm not "justifying" anything; I'm looking for rational answers to pointed questions. Read this excerpt from a recent study:

"Victoria and Esquimalt Harbours are the most polluted marine environments in the CRD. The harbour sediments contain high levels of metals and organic contaminants. Sediment contaminant levels in some areas have the potential to be acutely toxic to marine life and could pose a threat to human health if a 
fishery was allowed. Evidence of this is the closure of the commercial crab fishery in Victoria Harbour due to high dioxin levels in crab tissue. In addition, both harbours have experienced habitat loss and alteration, particularly in the highly urbanized areas.
The pollution and habitat destruction in the harbours is a result of both historical and current activities. In the past inputs from industrial and other urban activities to the harbours were largely unregulated and alteration of the harbour shoreline went on unchecked. Current regulations are more stringent, however contaminants continue to enter the harbours through storm drains, from boating activities and from 
shoreline industries..."

I live on this water. I'm more afraid of gull **** laced with dioxins landing on me and my boat (dioxins are DNA analogues and very toxic at extremely low concentrations). than getting plague from the water. I did a cursory look online and it seem there is still some question as to whether human-transmitted pathogens can even survive salt water. Apparently the jury is still out.

I'll keep repeating myself: I'm suggesting that keeping turds out of the water is all fine and good, but the situation here is like telling your kid to not play with matches while the house around you is burning. It's easier for government to pass regs against boaters and ignore them than deal with the far more important issue of environmental contamination.


----------



## eryka (Mar 16, 2006)

If the gull had enough dioxin to give you cancer, it would be dead before it could ****. Whereas leftover meds in are designed to be active to humans in teeny tiny quantities.


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

*A bit of clarification:*



eryka said:


> Moral reason: 100 years ago, we as a society TRULY didn't fully understand the consequences of our dumping actions. Now we do. So don't!
> 
> Medical reason: You are correct that e. coli itself isn't hazardous. We use the e. coli. indicator because when it's there, there's a chance of other bacterial/viral diseases THAT AFFECT HUMANS like hep. and cholera, etc. E.
> coli is just cheaper/easier to test for. Where there's smoke ... there could be fire. And you don't need to drink it, just get splashed while sailing, if the water's bad enough. Or eat the shellfish that bioconcentrate both the inorganic toxics and the bacterials.
> ...


E-Coli (E-0157:H7) is indeed hazardous: fatal in fact. It causes approx 61 deaths per year in the US.

It was the cause of 7 deaths in the community of Walkerton, Ontario Canada in 2000.

Coliform counts are used as an indicator of pathogen presence. Coliforms (including some e-coli's) are not pathogenic but may indicate the presence of pathogenic coliforms.

Regardless of all that mumbo-jumbo: as a sailor, a swimmer & a diver (who is pretty grossed out by this as I have dived at Ogden Point in Victoria) I would ask respectfully that you do not **** in my playground.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> I'll keep repeating myself: I'm suggesting that keeping turds out of the water is all fine and good, but the situation here is like telling your kid to not play with matches while the house around you is burning. It's easier for government to pass regs against boaters and ignore them than deal with the far more important issue of environmental contamination.


I think that's a valid point Hoffa, and I think you're getting kicked a bit while you're down. In a perfect world, the pumpout stations would be free and functional and the waste would go somewhere and disposed of responsibly. It ain't that way in Victoria. You can do your part to minimize your impact on the environment however and discharging into a small waterway has more of an impact in my opinion than into a large waterway.

I have a problem with a marina that allows liveaboards but doesn't have the infrastructure in place to deal with the sewage issue.


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

Silly point # one. E-Coli (E-0157:H7) is indeed hazardous: fatal in fact. It causes approx 61 deaths per year in the US.

And how many people in the US die every year to to various diseases directly or indirectly caused by industrial toxins in the environment? I would guess millions, but don't quote me.

Silly point # two. Regardless of all that mumbo-jumbo: as a sailor, a swimmer & a diver (who is pretty grossed out by this as I have dived at Ogden Point in Victoria) I would ask respectfully that you do not **** in my playground.

While aesthetically, swimming in water with diluted effluent makes us all gag (and you did, unfortunately), ingesting water laced with chemicals with no know safe threshold should be your real concern . That's the kind of stuff that makes your nuts fall off when you're 60, and you have no idea what caused it. 

Silly point # 3: If the gull had enough dioxin to give you cancer, it would be dead before it could ****. Whereas leftover meds in are designed to be active to humans in teeny tiny quantities.

A gull eats a crab carrying dioxins and poops out the remnants, the remnants are toxic. That the gull will die next year is a story that won't be told. These kind of things are cumulative toxins and they don't usually kill fast unless in high doses. Thats why the crabs are still alive. We notice the effects more cause we are around a lot longer than any crab. And if other chemicals become concentrated in effluent biosolids, how do we know that hormones don't as well? 

Salient point #1: I have a problem with a marina that allows liveaboards but doesn't have the infrastructure in place to deal with the sewage issue.

I agree totally. Even if we can't seem to make a rational argument (aside from aesthetics) for keeping poo out of a toxic harbor, if we say we want poo out, make a reasonable effort to make sure it happens. I'll keep using my holding tank even though I can't justify the effort while the boats around me flush away. A good definition of being a numbskull, that.


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

HoffaLives said:


> Silly point # one. E-Coli (E-0157:H7) is indeed hazardous: fatal in fact. It causes approx 61 deaths per year in the US.
> 
> And how many people in the US die every year to to various diseases directly or indirectly caused by industrial toxins in the environment? I would guess millions, but don't quote me.
> 
> ...


The points regarding e-coli were directed at eryka to clarify her/his comment that e-coli was not hazardous - it is.

The point regarding swimming in your dung was directed at you. Just because industry/government might be irresponsible doesn't mean that it is acceptable for you - or any of your scat-spewing harbour-mates to knowingly add your own effluent to the stew.

I get your point that industrial waste is worse than a little bit of #2. But being concerned about toxic waste does not mean that I cannot also be concerned about raw sewage.

It was interesting to note in your response that you find the deaths of people in Canada and the US 'silly'. It was the silliness of the people responsible for checking water quality, and their ignorance of the severe consequences of e-coli infection that led to the deaths of the 7 in Walkerton.


----------



## pegasus1457 (Apr 14, 2002)

HoffaLives said:


> While aesthetically, swimming in water with diluted effluent makes us all gag (and you did, unfortunately), ingesting water laced with chemicals with no know safe threshold should be your real concern . That's the kind of stuff that makes your nuts fall off when you're 60, and you have no idea what caused it.


Thanks, Hoffa, now I know what the source of my problem is


----------



## seabreeze_97 (Apr 30, 2006)

I think if my dogs have sense enough to go out to the edge of the property (on their own) to do the doo, we should have sense enough to do the same.


----------



## Lion35 (Sep 28, 2007)

DUDE! I've lived aboard for over 13 years and never taken a dump in my head while in port, nor has anyone else. Don't you have heads onshore at the marinas in Canada? Holding tanks are mandatory here for liveaboards but it really doesn't matter because liveaboards have developed the incredible skill of walking up the dock and taking a dump in the shore side head. I keep hearing about live aboard boats that don't go to the pump-out, I would expect most of them don't dump in their heads and have empty holding tanks like mine.

I really can't buy into the thought process that an area is polluted with heavy metals so it's OK to pollute it more. "Just don't eat the shellfish"? I personally would like to continue to eat the sea's bounty, and if others are polluting I'm happy to break the trends and not join in.

Karma, treat the seas well and they'll do the same.


----------



## poopdeckpappy (Jul 25, 2006)

HoffaLives said:


> issue of environmental contamination.


 Do you realize in the amount of time you spent rationalizing the irrational , you could have contacted your local environmental org. and had the ball rolling to not only stop the industial pollution into the marine ecosystem but also creating a NDZ

These orgs eat this **** up ( pun intended ), your local gov would have lawsuits coming out their ears and you/we would have cleaner water


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

So everybody has their bugaboos and I hear poo is a big one. That's okay. But I'll take my fears in a different direction. While poking about the web on this stuff and edumicating myself, I found out lots I didn't know about the state of toxic contamination in this area; it goes way beyond the seabed. There are several sites on the foreshore in both harbours that are toxic. Rock Bay - a few blocks up the street - is the most contaminated site in BC. An old coal gasification plant was there for almost 100 years.

Victoria is a tourist town and prides itself in it's beauty, and it does look beautiful, but there is an ugly truth here that people should probably know about.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

Hoffa
You were making some sense until you minimalized the 61 deaths from e-coli. Those deaths came pretty fast from the contamination. If you get toxic contamination (cancer), you might die 20, 30, 40 years later. Using your type of logic, I could minimalize those deaths down to miniscule proportions.
I'd be curious to know the size of the water body your are talking about, the volume of water flow from tides & rivers to flush that waterbody and the amount of poo that gets pumped by livaboards as well as the location of swimming beaches nearby. That could have a bearing on whether I would make the effort to pump out with these difficult conditions to meet.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

One thing I'd point out about dioxins is that the higher level predators tend to concentrate the poisons quite well, since most everything they eat, eats dioxin laden prey further down the chain. That's one reason you're not supposed to eat too much of the large predatory fish, like Tuna, since they tend to concentrate toxins, like mercury in their case. 

BTW, the Acushnet River, which is what my marina is on, as well as most of New Bedford harbor is an EPA Superfund site... one of the most contaminated in the country AFAIK. This is one major reason neither Fairhaven or New Bedford harbors have been dredged in many years... as doing so requires hazardous materials handling that vastly increases the costs. But all of Buzzards Bay is an NDZ... mainly because the way the currents flow, there isn't enough of a tidal exchange to clear out anything dumped in the waters there. It would tend to concentrate over time. That may also be the case with Victoria's harbor... I don't know.


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

xort said:


> Hoffa
> You were making some sense until you minimalized the 61 deaths from e-coli.


It's not about minimalizing anything; it's about getting riled about what is really important. More people get killed by lightning strikes. Every preventable death is a tragedy, altho I haven't read anything that indicated those deaths were caused by preventable fecal contamination, but I say focus first on the BIG problems before turning to the small.

I'm totally left scratching my head about this thread. People keep coming back to the poo, which hasn't killed anyone in this harbour, hasn't even be shown to be a health hazard because of the salt water, and meanwhile there are potentially thousands of people who's health could be impacted by the toxic waste here, waste that there is no doubt how dangerous it is.


----------



## flyingwelshman (Aug 5, 2007)

HoffaLives said:


> It's not about minimalizing anything; it's about getting riled about what is really important. More people get killed by lightning strikes. Every preventable death is a tragedy, altho I haven't read anything that indicated those deaths were caused by preventable fecal contamination, but I say focus first on the BIG problems before turning to the small.
> 
> I'm totally left scratching my head about this thread. People keep coming back to the poo, which hasn't killed anyone in this harbour, hasn't even be shown to be a health hazard because of the salt water, and meanwhile there are potentially thousands of people who's health could be impacted by the toxic waste here, waste that there is no doubt how dangerous it is.


Once again: just to clarify - the comments concerning the danger of e-coli were directed at a post that suggested that e-coli was not a dangerous organism. It did not pertain to the issue of contaminated water (except inasmuch as pathogenic organisms (including e-coli 0157:h7) will be present where there is an increase of raw sewage.)

I would suspect that the majority of fatalities in the US are caused by food-borne e-coli (in ground meat etc.) rather than water-borne.

Regarding the effect of salt water on e-coli - Peter R. Smith, Evelyn Farrell, and Kieran Dunican of the Department of Microbiology, University College, Galway, Ireland have demonstrated that sea water does not adversly affect e-coli.


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

Fascinating thread. I'll jump in.

1. Sanitation laws are made to please the political constituants that pay the most taxes - read waterfront land owners - not livaboards. They don't make sense. It is illegal to urinate or deficate into any 'device' ( including a bucket) and dump it overboard. No matter that the city/factory down the street does - they pay more taxes, larger constituancy, etc. In order to appear to address the problem with little political blowback the 'boaters dumping' is targeted. However,because of the way the law is written, one could legally take a leak or dump directly overboard and be in complete compliance with marine sanatiation laws. Maybe indecent exposure problem but try to go in the dark, right. Weird? Always has been. Breath in, breath out, move on.

2. Why don't I dump overboard? Not the right thing to do. Hopefully I don't need to explain why.

Good luck.


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

I have to jump in here too.

Hoffa, most cannot read or understand what you have tried to say a few times.

Someone said living in our own poo is common and is correct. It has always been so and is so today except that some seem to think that if it is removed a certain distance then everything is OK. I know a lot of poo is collected and treated so y'all can save the replies about that.

But in most of the world................

I was looking at cats to buy and charter and came upon this. I was shocked to find out the charter capital of the world does not pump out. Hmmm.......

http://sailingthecaribbean.com/Bareboat-instructions/heads 1-04.htm

Sorry to hear your water is crappy.

Tampa Bay (near me) has supposedly been made cleaner over the years but you would not know it by trying to see the bottom.

Maybe it is the ever increasing number of manatees (how big is a manatee turd anyway?) and the fact that they are protected (cute) and are now decimating our sea grass beds too.


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

Here is a quote from another forum.

Then you would be really shocked to find out what we still do with very bad chemicals.

If You ever get to the St Louis mo area. I will take you down to a spot were you will not only see 55 gallon drums barried in the river front. You will also see truck bring more in to barry and a full time dozer operator that keeps covering them over.

The funny thing. The site has been closed for years and is a supper fund clean up site.

I have hauled MILLIONS of pounds into this place and also been around at say 2 or 3 in the am when a tanker truck or 7 just got empty some how.

Its nasty what is done.

I am all for sending trash to space. Let it burn up on reentry. Just it costs way to much.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Hoffa-

Where do you get your information. Dioxins are mutagenic and damage DNA and RNA, but are not in any way or form DNA analogues. Last I checked, DNA was made up of amino acids-proteins, which contain Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen. Dioxin is a nasty chemical compound made up of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen. While they are highly carcinogenic, considered mutagenic and tetragenic, they are not a DNA analog.



HoffaLives said:


> I live on this water. I'm more afraid of gull **** laced with dioxins landing on me and my boat (dioxins are DNA analogues and very toxic at extremely low concentrations). than getting plague from the water. I did a cursory look online and it seem there is still some question as to whether human-transmitted pathogens can even survive salt water. Apparently the jury is still out.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

Hoffa, it is all valid questions I think.

We are all animals too, and there is plenty of animal crap in the water. Frogs, eels, fish, dolphins, whales, sharks, you name it, they all take a crap right there in the water. And even the land animals do, you can't drink the water in most of the creeks because they run straight through fields full of cows that just do their business whenever they want to, where ever. So, no, in the big scheme of things I don't think your little contribution is going to hurt anything.

As for myself I will try to stick to the rules. Not because I necessarily think it's that big of a deal but just because I would rather play by the rules if everyone else is. I would not, however, think twice about dumping overboard if it were a mechanical emergency. I would never put oil overboard or anything like that, but if the head was having problems and I needed to work on it I would pump the tank into the water without losing a bit of sleep over it. That is what you call special circumstances.


----------



## Robby Barlow (Apr 23, 2006)

Have read a lot of varied opinions on this threat, but I'm sure it wouldn't occur to any of you to crap on your front lawn, even thou it may not be explicitly prohibited. 

So why chuck it overboard?

Funny thing is one of the requirements for a Eurruppeean boat to enter the US is that it must have a black water tank installed!?!

Looking forward to receiving the results of this discussion via the Gulf stream  - or maybe not.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

Hey Otaga,

Buck's Harbor in Brooksville, right? Not the other Bucks Harbor? I fished out of there for two winters. How long have you been keeping your boat there? I used to run The Landing Restaurant there, a loooong time ago.

Well met, neighbor


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

sailingdog said:


> Hoffa-
> 
> Where do you get your information. Dioxins are mutagenic and damage DNA and RNA, but are not in any way or form DNA analogues. Last I checked, DNA was made up of amino acids-proteins, which contain Nitrogen, Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen. Dioxin is a nasty chemical compound made up of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen. While they are highly carcinogenic, considered mutagenic and tetragenic, they are not a DNA analog.


This is really scary. Are you ready for this? I remember this clearly from organic chem. I used the term analogue loosely in the interests of brevity, but the problem is that dioxin has a similar structure - at least in terms of bonding - to the base pairs of DNA.

Recall that DNA is a double helix of sugar phosphate containing the base pairs adenine (A) thymine (T) guanine (G) and cytosine (C). What dioxin can do is "bump" the base pairs out of the DNA and take their place in the DNA molecule. It fits right in there, becoming part of your DNA.

So when transcription takes place (reading the DNA to make a protein). The messenger RNA zips along until it hits the dioxin at which time it all goes to hell. So whatever protein that part of the DNA codes for will also be screwed up, or not made at all.

Makes metabolic inhibitors like cyanide seem like candy.


----------



## AjariBonten (Sep 7, 2007)

When I was there the marina was owned by Granny. Will do on the sail, thanks! I visit Sedgwick often, my ex-wife and daughter live there.

Fred


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Our Govenments Hypocrisy on Discharge Kills Me !*

*Quote from above: *"What I don't understand is that Hoffalives said the city sewage system dumps untreated. It would seem to me that the provincial government and/or the Canadian government should force the city to stop that practice. In most of the U S that would happen."






Wrong!!!!!! Here's a few excerpts from the Portland, Maine Press herald from just a few months ago!

Quote Press Herald:
"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."

My Comment:
Portland is perhaps one of the most "liberal" & "environmentally active" cities in the US besides Berkley CA and a select few others. So where is the outrage over *1.8 BILLION* gallons of *RAW* sewage? Where is the ACTION instead of the LOUD VOICES of these folks telling others how to live. They tell me what light bulbs I should be using in my house or that I need to throw away the expensive Lectrsan sewage TREATMENT system I installed at a HUGE expense that was to help protect the environment?

Quote Press Herald:
"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."

More of my comments:

That's a very good question coming from a supposedly "environmentally pro-active" and "environmentally friendly" senator from one of the most liberal states in the country. The so called "environmentally friendly" left, here in Maine, have been in total power in the state of Maine since 1972. I can't stress this enough *THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN RUNNING MAINE SINCE 1972 and they are asking why nothing has been done?* Hmmm do they really care about the environment? Apparently not! 



Making Maine's Casco Bay an NDZ is a total scam and a bunch of feel good BS to help a particular party look as if they do something when they really do nothing. The same bay, the above article was referencing, is the one made an NDZ (No Discharge Zone) just last year while our Democratically ruled state government decided to look the other way on 1.8 BILLION gallons of raw sewage! 



When will the feel good attacks on boaters, and other small segment groups, stop and real legislation be accomplished? The Dems and Repubs are NO different IMHO and it is no clearer than the hypocrisy witnessed here in Maine. Maine should be one of the cleanest states in the country, if you base your biases on things like Repubs are anti-environment and the Dems are pro-environment.

Maine is also the state where the Green party was founded and we have many Greens in our state govt. These are folks who are way, way, way to the left of the left when it comes to governing, the environment and being anti-capitalist are their driving issues. One of them, a big wig in Maine government, is from, of all places Portland!!!!!! 



1.8 BILLION gallons and liberal "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 did! The treated waste coming out of my Lectrasan was far cleaner than ANY of the 1.8 BILLION gallons dumped into Casco Bay by my own "environmentally friendly" GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!

With the highest taxes in the country you'd think Maine would have the funds to fix our sewer systems. Unfortunately these elected scum bags just want feel good legislation, to ensure re-election, and NO real action. As usual it's only a bunch of empty talk and attacks on the "low hanging fruit", or the "easy targets", like the evil "rich" boaters. 



They attack these small segments of the population, like us evil filthy rich boaters, because it's easy, and it looks good in campaigns and in 30 second sound bites. Making themselves look good is priority #1 and it's usually done at the cost of the environment and always in a class warfare style! After all we boaters are rich and we can all afford to rip our Lectrasan units out, which are cleaner than what the state dumps into the bay, because we are evil and obviously stole our money from the poor.

Disclaimer: I am not a Democrat or a Republican and think both parties are basically the same & full of hypocrite fat cat empty words and BS.

I have been trying to comply for many years unfortunately my government does not take the environment as seriously as I do..





 
​


----------



## HoffaLives (Feb 19, 2007)

That's a purdy nice boat you got there halekai36. I admire yer taste!


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

*Well*

My beef is NOT with the NDZ, I live on Casco Bay and want it clean, but rather politicians saying one thing and doing another. The hypocrisy is what kills me not the fact hat we are Democratic, Green or Republican just that the party in power has done NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH to stop the pollution being dumped into Casco Bay accept point the finger at boaters!

Maine should have done something about Casco Bay long ago!! In case your not informed about Maine politics senator Nutting, among others, was a BIG player in getting Casco Bay the NDZ so it does have a local impact even though the feds push it, or suggest it, it's up to us to accept it and to implement it. Furthermore , here is a direct quote from the "Application for a State Designated, Federally Approved No Discharge Area for Casco Bay" directly form our own states DEP. Quote"As a result, the MEDEP feels it is appropriate to request designation of Casco Bay as a No Discharge Area" here's the link: http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/topic/vessel/nda/Casco_Bay_NDA_final.pdf

The senate and house of Maine have basically been under Democratic power since 1972. Even though we have had a Republican governor his hands were tied and he could literally do nothing and had no power as governor. I'm no Republican and even I can see that! How I classify Maine as Democratic is is a direct correlation to the hypocrisy of a party I see claiming to think and believe one way but doing the exact opposite. I want real legislation and real action on cleaning up Casco Bay not just the feel good "get me elected" attacks on us boaters. What about the billions of gallons of UNTREATED WASTE DUMPED INTO CASCO BAY EVERY YEAR?? Where are the feds on that NDZ?? Where is your outrage on that?

The first official green party, in the US, according to some highly esteemed greens I know, and one who ran for governor, started here in Maine even prior to the US National Green party being formed. I'm sorry I was not referring to Germany or did not qualify my statement with "in the US". Sorry, my bad, I forgot John Eder had not been re-elected in 2006 as a Portland, Green. That in fact was an oversight on my part but he was, as a Green, holding a state office when the NDZ went through and still NOTHING was done to stop the Billions of gallons of untreated waste flowing into Casco Bay!

I had installed my Lectrasan in a previous boat, not this boat, and I had to remove it. This is NOT my first boat and over the years I've actually owned TWO Lectrasan units trying to do my part LONG BEFORE PUMP OUTS were even available! My Lectrasan was far cleaner than what my government allows dumped into the bay and that is flat out hypocrisy. I can't even clam in front of my house any more, and the flats have been closed for a while, due to "human waste" pollution and I can assure you this pollution s NOT coming from boaters!

Quote: "IMHO you are grossly mis-characterizing the great people of a great state by branding them as Liberal."

One question. When did being a Liberal become a bad thing? There is nothing wrong with being Liberal but you need to take action and live up to your claims and positions and not just use your positions as seats of power. Do as I say not as I do does not fly with me or the many hard working Americans for that matter who truly want clean water not empty BS feel good attacks on small segments of society...

Wanting "clean water" in Casco Bay, ME.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

"When did being a Liberal become a bad thing?" Well, halekai, if you'd like to step on over to "Off Topic" I and a few others would be more than happy to inform you on the matter. (g)

And you are quite right in your implied criticism of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Feds mandate and the state's and municipalities are required to comply. How can the Feds mandate? Well, it's a little matter of the interstate commerce clause and the navigable waters of these here United States.

The standard for sewage treatment has been continuously raised, and rightly so to a degree, with no funding to aid the states in achieving the standards. And since it has also been mandated that storm sewer water be treated, a good heavy rain storm is sufficient to overwhelm most systems. It is a frequent occurence in Grand Rapids, Michigan where the effluent ends up in the Grand River and eventually Lake Michigan which, coincidently, Grand Rapids draws it's drinking water from. (!)

Most municipalities are nowhere even near having their storm sewers all hooked up for treatment, even had they the capacity to treat the water. so most muni's storm sewer water runs right into the local waterways. This is why the oil spill in SF Bay, while highly undesirable, is hardly the worst thing being done to the Bay, and being done much more frequently and in greater quantities. Most muni's are in a situation of a rolling non-compliance with Federal standards, and probably don't have much of a chnce at meeting the latest standards on time. The problem is that it is everybody's pollution and yet nobody's pollution. We all contribute, but we're unable to point the finger at one entity as the polluter, unlike the oil spill in SF Bay.

Which brings us to your boat. I'm not sure how many fish s*** equivalents your boat would represent. (g) But the calculation can be made. What matters though is that you are identifiable. You are a boat owner, ipso facto, you are rich. Therefore you are required to contain your effluent, no matter how small in number your fish s*** equivalent units are. The same Liberal rule-making body that targets you, while letting the town you live in skate, is the same one that brought you the luxury tax of the 1980's. You remember that one don't you? That's the one that put a lot of the small boat manufacturers, as well as every non-commercial aircraft manufacturer, out of business. Because the goal was to tax the rich on purchases over $35,000 I believe it was. (they sorta missed the point that the rich could buy whatever they wanted, but the marginal income buyer was faced with a make or break decision on the taxes alone. It's doubtful any increased revenue flowed to the Treasury from the law, but unemployment in those fields sure increased.) Well, you're in the same boat so to speak. You have something that is uncommon, a boat, and since we have a problem and we can identify you with it, let's tax you. You're not taxed, you're regulated, but the net effect is a loss of money from your pocket in return for a possibly cleaner waterway. Don't bother to ask if the monies spent on your Lectrasan, if combined with other boater's monies, could have gone to far more effective waterway cleanup efforts. So we all have to do our part towards the goal of clean waterways, just that some part's are bigger than other part's.

Now if you tend to observe that one political party is more adept at milking the philosophy of soak the rich, than another party, and if you see that they are hardly consistent in their application of regualtions towards achieving clean waterways, then you might begin to think that party to be hypocritical and perhaps even ideologic. And that my friend is how the word Liberal became an epithet. Nothing really got cleaned up, because that's expensive, but see how we got after those rich polluters. Remember, you're rich. You own a boat. To that political mindset, the perception that action is being taken is much more important than the efficacy of the action or whether it's even worth the money given the size of the problem. And, in the interest of objectivity, i should say that a conservative paln to accomplish the same goal would be to examine first where we can get the greatest clean-up of our waters for the dollar spent, and then pursue that goal first. I doubt your boat shows up under that type of analysis. But then neither does your Lectrasan show up either, it's "free" to society, although you've lost a healthy chunk of your annual contribution to Ducks Unlimited.

And here's a good one for you. Where does your pumped out effluent go to? Probably to the municipal waste water treatment facility. Where, when it rains heavily, it overflows and goes into the Bay. You really can't make this stuff up.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

otaga05 said:


> The real problem in all of this discussion is that so much of it is opinion based. Read back through this thread and see if you can find a piece of hard scientific evidence to back up any of the discussion. If the Federal EPA or the Maine DEP have good scientific evidence in the form of hard data from peer reviewed studies directly linking discharge from recreational boats to water quality problems, they are doing a terrible job of publicizing it. That being said, I would still argue that it is better to err on the side of caution when it comes to discharge.


This is the smartest thing anyone (including me) has said on this thread.

I disagree that it is better to error on the side of caution. Making errors on the side of caution has taken away more freedoms in this country than any other argument. Making errors on the side of caution is why kids can't set off fireworks on the 4th of July, and why we end up with "click it or ticket" being more important than individual freedom, etc. Making errors on the side of caution is responsible for more waste in our economy than any other single argument, and it all adds up to expense and burden on the public. This has become a country and increasingly a world where you can justify anything by saying it'll save a life.

Waste is waste is waste, no matter how you justify it. And over engineering solutions because of superstition is about the worst kind of waste there is. Too much solution is as bad as too little, what we need is the right amount of solution for the problem. Because if we aren't careful we'll be living in protective bubbles.

Edit ..

I hope someday that people's happiness and joy will get figured into all these horsesh&t equations.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

Quote:

"Making errors on the side of caution is responsible for more waste in our economy than any other single argument, and it all adds up to expense and burden on the public."

This is very, very true. Take for example the old Honda CRX HF. The original 1.3 liter CRX and the later American-market *CRX HF* model could reliably achieve better than 50 mpg, more than a decade before gas-electric hybrids appeared on the market, and at no price premium over the base model; the 1.3 liter CRX HF was rated at 49 mpg for CITY and 52mpg highway!

Contrast that with the vast improvements in in engine technology since the 80's, and the fact that in 2008 Honda's best MPG small, non-hybrid car only gets as Honda states 34mpg on the highway!!!

"Fuel-efficient
Its *109-hp 1.5-liter, 16-valve, SOHC VTEC® engine*, along with the *Drive-by-Wire™ throttle system*, provides remarkable fuel economy. In fact, the Fit and the Fit Sport equipped with 5-speed manual transmission both achieve *28 city/34 highway"

*Why you may ask does the teeny tiny FIT only get 34mpg? Weight! Much of it mandated by our own government safety freaks. Side impact protection, ABS, airbags, rear shoulder belts on and on etc. etc. all have made cars less efficient and heavier. The real clincher is that there has been negligible, if any, real safety improvement if you break down the NHTSA's own stats..

The 1990 CRX HF weighed 1967 Lbs. and got 52 MPG
The 2008 FIT weighs 2551 Lbs. and gets 34 MPG

Just a little food for thought.....


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Halekai-

One serious problem with cars and mileage in them is the size of the automobile in question. A 1990 CRX was small enough that it could almost fit in the back of a full-size pickup truck. It is far too small a vehicle to be really safe when you look at the behemoths that it has to share the road with—Hummer H2s, Suburbans, etc. 

From a study done back in the late 1960s... the average passenger vehicle should weigh about 3000 lbs, which is close to what most mid-size sedans do weigh. For example, the 2006 Ford Taurus is 3300 lbs. 

A vehicle of that size was developed in the late 1960s that was capable of producing far less pollution than most cars out today, as well as getting about 30-35 MPG. This vehicle was basically buried by the oil and automotive manufacturers at the time. 

If you think about how much fuel we could have saved, and how much less pollution there would have been if those changes had been implemented forty years ago... it would be quite a different story.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Otaga...you said:
*As far as I can tell the only real impact of a NDZ on recreational boaters is on the use of Type I (& Type 2 ?) MSD's. Discharge of untreated blackwater is already illegal within the NDZ. Recreational discharge of graywater is not restricted. I don't get why some recreational boaters get so riled up about NDZ's.

*The reason we get riled up is because Type I MSD's have LOWER "pollution" and Higher Sanitation standard than the legally allowable discharge of TREATED sewage standards from the cities that empty into the same bays.
So we instead empty untreated waste into the muni sewer systems where it gets treated and dumped back in the bay with more pollution than if we had used an electrasan. Duh..


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

A couple of other facts regarding discharges. Those cruise ships are allowed zero discharges within 50 miles offshore and then they can only discharge treated waste which, with today's treatment systems they do not have to do. So the Bay at Casco is not threatened by cruise ships. Your household toilet and street storm sewer are the more likely culprits. But then you'll probably find that your home septic system has been outlawed and you must utilize the city sewer.

SailingDog's point about the car of the 1960's and it's capabilities is bulltookey. If it is not, Prove It!

Weight is the single largest controllable factor in fuel economy in vehicles. And it is the government mandated safety, as well as pollution, controls that have added weight to vehicles. Forget about your CRX, Honda had the CVCC engine back in the seventies and it would meet the air standards of the time on leaded gas and still get close to 50 mpg.

SailingDog is also incorrect on another point, aside from the fact that a CRX will in no way, shape, or form, "nearly fit in the back of a pick-up truck". The CRX isn't that small by classic standards. Look at an old Mini Cooper with 10" wheels or a Citroen 2CV. Smaller cars are not less safe, per se. Smaller cars get into fewer accidents than larger cars. When they do the damage is more severe. Larger cars, by weight, are less manoeuverable, accelerate and decelerate slower, handle and corner less well in all road conditions, and of course pollute more per driven mile. If you want to survive a highway collision buy the biggest land yacht you can find. If you want to avoid an accident get a car that is light and manoeuverable.

There are a number of projects out there that have found that municipalities, driven by the Feds standards, have gone in the wrong direction in waste water trreatment. Instead of achieving the costly goal of drinking water quality at discharge it is possible to do about half the treatment we do and then discharge the water into a wetland and nature will do the rest. this is being experimented with in the PacNW and FL I believe. Apparently swamps and marshes are quite good at removing harmful microbes of sewage discharge into them at a controlled rate, with the same water quality observed at the discharge end of the swamp as at the discharge end of currently mandated treatment plants; all at pennies on the dollar.

In all of this, it is important to remember, "THE SOLUTION TO POLLUTION IS DILUTION". At the end of the day, every pollution remediation and treatment involves dilution, either as a final solution or as part of the treatment process. And pollution isn't pollution once it's under a certain concentration. Idealistic goals of "zero pollution" are the dreams of the ignorant. These same people are the ones that want "pure" water throughout their house. They are stunned when informed that, aside from the size and cost of the equipment to provide it, all of their plumbing would have to be removed and replaced with something like PEX and that they could only have plastic fixtures throughout the house. "Pure" water will dissolve copper piping as well as eat away any metal in your household fixtures when you run it, at pressure, through the lines. Anotherwords, there is a certain amount of "pollution" in every thing we drink, eat, and breath-we're just happier pretending there isn't.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Wind Magic makes a most excellent point on waste, ably backed up by hakelai, and gets to the heart of most "public interest" matters. Once the standard of "one child" or "one life" is set and accepted as the desirable goal level of success it paves the way for the opening of a Pandora's Box of government action and regulation. Any perspective on cost per life saved goes out the window. And, if you challenge it, you're accused of being heartless. And that's bulltookey. We make such analyses every single day without considering ourselves heartless. Our entire land, sea, and air travel systems are designed around a sense of reasonable losses for advantages gained.


----------



## wind_magic (Jun 6, 2006)

sailaway21 said:


> Any perspective on cost per life saved goes out the window. And, if you challenge it, you're accused of being heartless. And that's bulltookey. We make such analyses every single day without considering ourselves heartless.


They get away with this because nobody responds in the same language.

I give you an example (hypothetical) ....

If we would only spend 10 million $us (a small sum) we'll save one life a year. Who wouldn't want to do that ? Of course we will do that, it's only 10 million $us, a tiny sum in the big scheme of things, especially when you compare it to our national budget. Of course the American people are willing to pay 10 million $us, that only comes out to be pennies per person, and blah blah blah. We are a rich country, we can handle it, and "every life is precious", and they do it in Europe, and etc, that's the kind of a thing they say.

But look at it this way ...

These people who make these decisions think of money as if it falls out of the sky, because in Washington D.C. that's exactly where it comes from, and in ever increasing amounts. They are not forced (by us) to put a human price on that money, but for the sake of argument let's do that right now.

The median household income in 2006 was 48201$us/year (source: wikipedia) meaning that half of the households (husband + wife + whoever = total) earned higher than 48201$us and half of the households earned lower than 48201$us. That's total income for the whole house. That number is, in essence, a quantifier that tells you what a household/year of labor is worth in the United States, one household's labor for a year is worth in monetary terms approximately 48201$us.

From that 48201$us there is a certain amount of overhead to keep a household alive. That amount varies but includes shelter, food, medical, transportation, and all of the other things that human beings in America use to keep themselves alive and functioning as members of the community. Once you subtract out all that stuff I have no idea what kind of number you end up with but I think that saying the family ends the year with 5k$us is GENEROUS, because looking at savings rates in America median families are NOT saving 5k$us/year, they do not have that kind of extra income. But for the sake of argument let's say there is 5k$us left at the end of the year, that's the "surplus" that is available to be taken away by the government for it's pet projects, that's how much they could raises taxes without taking food off of people's tables.

So, basic math, how many households does it take to raise 10 million $us a year ?

At 5k$us/family, for one year, that's 2000 households (2k x 5k = 10 mil).

So, in essence, what the argument kind of distills down to is that to save one life we are willing to essentially take all of the surplus that a town of 2000 people in America has and task it to this cause. That's 2000 people who may have wanted to buy motorcycles, or boats, or heaven forbid even save up money to send their kids to college, and we are willing to take that 10 mil$us from this little town like a bunch of bandits and come back year after year and demand the same amount of tribute, just for one little girl's life (it's always a little girl they show pictures of).

Is it worth it ?

Or .... could the locality save more lives with that 10 mil $us by using it to buy new rescue squads, put up traffic lights, etc ?

Or .... could we save even MORE LIVES if we just let 2000 people KEEP their 5k$us so they could afford medical insurance ?

See, there is a REAL cost involved here, and it adds up. They spread it around to all tax payers because that really does come down to pennies a day and nobody of course is going to argue about pennies a day. But even then, those pennies DO come from somewhere, they DO matter. Instead of it being the heartless decision to drive a whole town to ruin for the 10 mil$us they'd rather hide it across the whole country, but I've seen the effects and so have you ... I've seen someone walk up to the counter at the store and not be able to buy all the food they put in the cart for lack of a few pennies, and I've seen someone run out of gasoline a mile away from the gas station, and I've seen someone have their license to drive suspended because they couldn't come up with money to pay a traffic ticket.

That kind of stuff happens every day all across this country.



> For want of a nail the shoe was lost, For want of a shoe the horse was lost, For want of a horse the rider was lost, For want of a rider the battle was lost, For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, And all for the want of a horse. - Ben Franklin


The way they get away with all of this is by hiding the burden of their programs in places where it cannot be quantified. But when you add up all these programs, safety measures, etc, and really start to think about it, they are enslaving people to pay for all of this waste. Some of these programs are good ideas, but many of them simply add to the burden on the public and create human misery where they was none. The only effective way to counter an emotional/rhetorical argument when it appeals to a soft audience is WITH emotion and rhetoric. All this money taken for these programs means something, it means people living on the street, it means kids that don't get to go to college, one less chicken breast in the bucket, etc, it has a cost. And worse, sometimes the cost to save a life is the loss of even MORE lives - the person who couldn't call the rescue squad because they didn't have insurance, the person who ran out of money to pay for a nursing home, or one of the 400,000 people who will harm themselves this year, 30,000 of whom will actually succeed in killing themselves. And beyond the number of people who might die as a result of the increased burden, what about the person who just wanted to have a little more happiness ? What about the person who just wanted to buy a cake at the store for their kid's birthday so they wouldn't have to make it themselves ? Or what about the person who wanted to get the kid an X-box for Christmas ... if only they had the money to buy it ? Or the woman who has already worked a hard day but has to take her clothing home to hang it on the line because she doesn't have the extra few bucks to use the drier at the laundromat ?

That's the real human cost of waste.


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

A point well made Windy.

It's particularly appropriate given that we are currently at war and many see the amount of money the government is able to spend on that effort and think that it somehow means that that money is in some way available for social a nd other government programs if we could just stop the war. Of course we know that one day the war will end or at least the cost of the war will decrease substantially. We have no evidence or experience that any of those missing government programs the war precludes would ever end or become less substantial.


----------



## Sapperwhite (Oct 21, 2006)

Lion35 said:


> DUDE! I've lived aboard for over 13 years and never taken a dump in my head while in port, nor has anyone else. Don't you have heads onshore at the marinas in Canada? Holding tanks are mandatory here for liveaboards but it really doesn't matter because liveaboards have developed the incredible skill of walking up the dock and taking a dump in the shore side head. I keep hearing about live aboard boats that don't go to the pump-out, I would expect most of them don't dump in their heads and have empty holding tanks like mine.


What a crappy thread

I can't believe it took 50 posts for someone to ask this question. Forget the broken/no pumpout, walk up to the marina toilet and do your business. I keep my head practically mothballed when I don't go out for a while. When I do go out, part of the returning ritual is to find a pump out and top up on fuel.

I also understand the real question here, and I won't pretend to be some scientist that has all the medical/eviro answers you seek. I will say however that all of the most polluted waters in the world have direct sewer dumping (go take a dip in the Ganges). The Delaware River used to be black, and pilots on approach to Philly reported they could smell the water. Modernized enviromental controls and enforced regulation cleaned that up quite a bit.

You shouldn't be asking why can't you pollute the water, but why is the area industry and municipal sewer allowed to pollute the water unchecked. Just because the big guy is doing it on a larger scale doesn't mean its "not that bad" on your small scale.

Oh yeah, what about giardiasis, hep A, hep E, dysentery, typhoid, polio, cholera, etc. etc. All can be contracted through the very fun sounding oral-fecal route. So, when the flyingwelshman is diving in poo water, he could catch any of these either by taking an accdental sip of the water or through an open cut exposed to said poo water.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

For all you scientists & brainiacs out there...is there a difference between animal poo & human poo in relation to this problem?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yes, only because far more human-affecting pathogens live in human waste than in animal waste. In terms of damage to the marine environment, there is little difference what source the fecal matter is from, but in terms of danger of infectious disease... human waste is far more dangerous.


xort said:


> For all you scientists & brainiacs out there...is there a difference between animal poo & human poo in relation to this problem?


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

DLCook said:


> To change the subject a bit... Has anyone had any experience with onboard composting toilets? I know they exist, but I haven't heard first hand of any.


Here's why composting toilets aren't the norm.

*fecophobia* :Fear of fecal material, especially in regard to the use of human fecal material for agricultural purposes.

(I love old threads )


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

How did I miss the poo thread? Classic.


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

knothead said:


> (I love old threads )


I do too.

I miss HoffaLives.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

therapy23 said:


> I do too.
> 
> I miss HoffaLives.


Reading the thread, it was amusing how few of the posters actually got his point. A good one by the way. 
But what I found truly amazing was that nobody, with the exception of the person I quoted, even brought up composting heads.

People are so hung up about their own feces that they can't see that the simplest solution is the best solution. 
Composting.
People would rather carry around stinking, sloshing cesspools, drill holes in the bottom of their boats and have to actually pump the stuff out than use a simple odorless dry bucket that can be safely dumped in a compost pile where it can do some good. 
It's mind-boggling. At least to those who have gotten over their fecophobia.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

As for the composting head, if you live-aboard your boat, where are you supposed to dump it since it could take up to 2 months to compost?


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

remetau said:


> As for the composting head, if you live-aboard your boat, where are you supposed to dump it since it could take up to 2 months to compost?


Yeah, it's funny that it's easier to find a pump out station than a compost pile. 
I don't have that problem as I have a home base and my own compost pile. But looking back to when I was cruising, I don't think I would have had much of a problem finding places to dump a bucket or two of compost every month or so.

The only reason that marinas don't have a place to dump the contents of composting heads is because there aren't enough people using composting heads. It would be a simple matter of providing a special bin for that purpose.


----------



## jjablonowski (Aug 13, 2007)

*Free Pumpout on Your Mooring*

...they do ask for a donation to their 501 (c) (3) nonprofit, however.

*Soundkeeper* organization, similar to others in region---Hudson Riverkeeper, etc.---runs boats with pumpout gear to your slip or mooring, on their own schedule, upon receipt of an emailed request from you.

Pumpout Request Form

The activist group is also good at holding municipalities' feet to the fire in getting them to fix broken sewer pipes around Long Island Sound, a Big problem in an area full of aging infrastructure.


----------



## Maine Sail (Jan 6, 2003)

knothead said:


> The only reason that marinas don't have a place to dump the contents of composting heads is because there aren't enough people using composting heads. It would be a simple matter of providing a special bin for that purpose.


Or perhaps because they perform like CRAP (pun intended). A good friend, who is quite cutting edge green, researched the heck out of composting heads, bought one, ripped every bit of head plumbing off his boat and used it one season before converting back to a standard holding tank design. The whole fiasco cost him THOUSANDS of dollars.....

If even my buddy Eric, a die hard greenie, can't tolerate the piss poor performance of a composting head I'd be very surprised if the average Joe could. Not to mention even the smallest one will have trouble fitting in many heads out there.

Cool idea for a camp where you have space and power but on a sailboat I honestly don't think they are ready for the mass market.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd also point out that most composting heads don't finish composting the waste in them unless you let them sit unused for an extended period of time. The waste that comes out of them in the course of normal usage is still a biohazard...


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

Maine Sail said:


> Or perhaps because they perform like CRAP (pun intended).


Mine works perfectly, has no smell, is impossible to clog, requires no holes in the boat, and cost me less than 150.00.

Dog, composting should take place in a compost pile, not in a toilet.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Then why are these heads called COMPOSTING TOILETS? If they're just a bucket to hold excrement and pee...then why are they so expensive...



knothead said:


> Mine works perfectly, has no smell, is impossible to clog, requires no holes in the boat, and cost me less than 150.00.
> 
> Dog, composting should take place in a compost pile, not in a toilet.


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

knothead said:


> ....People are so hung up about their own feces that they can't see that the simplest solution is the best solution.
> Composting.
> People would rather carry around stinking, sloshing cesspools, drill holes in the bottom of their boats and have to actually pump the stuff out than use a simple odorless dry bucket that can be safely dumped in a compost pile where it can do some good.
> It's mind-boggling. At least to those who have gotten over their fecophobia.


Knotty,

So, you've converted all your shoreside toilets, too, then?  

Our marine head with holding tank works great. I'm a broken record on this one, but I still feel like composting toilets are a solution looking for a problem. Maybe someday the paradigm will change, for now I see no reason to switch.

That said, I actually agree that composting toilets have a place, but that they make more sense shoreside than on a boat. If I had a large property outside city limits, I'd probably add one out behind the barn.

Man, this is an old thread.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

sailingdog said:


> Then why are these heads called COMPOSTING TOILETS? If they're just a bucket to hold excrement and pee...then why are they so expensive...


They are expensive because so few are sold. They are called composting heads because they actually compost. However, the term "Composting toilet" has come to mean anything that doesn't flush the stuff away.

My composting head is a plastic bucket and plastic jug for liquid, with a bowl that separates the liquid from the solids. So in reality, it's more of a containment system. But if I called it a containment system, nobody would know what I was talking about. And again, it cost less than $150.00.

I personally think that the actual expensive composting heads are a waste of money. Still a lot better than a conventional marine toilet but a waste of money nonetheless.

My bucket, with continuous use by one person has to be emptied or changed out about every three weeks. The liquid container obviously has to be emptied out every couple of days at the most. 
If I didn't have a compost pile handy to empty the bucket, I would simply snap on the lid and store it until I found a compost pile.

People make this issue so much more complicated than it needs to be. Why? The only reason that I can figure is that they are fecophobic. 
Whether on land or at sea, flush it away so we don't have to look at it. Who cares that it is a wasteful and unsustainable practice. As long as I don't have to deal with it. 
Like I said earlier, it's mind boggling.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

knothead said:


> People make this issue so much more complicated than it needs to be. Why? The only reason that I can figure is that they are fecophobic.
> Whether on land or at sea, flush it away so we don't have to look at it. Who cares that it is a wasteful and unsustainable practice. As long as I don't have to deal with it.
> Like I said earlier, it's mind boggling.


For me, it is because of the expense and the impracticality of it on a boat since it takes weeks for it to decompose. To dump it on shore or at the dock before it turns to dirt is a bio-hazard to other people.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

JohnRPollard said:


> Knotty,
> 
> So, you've converted all your shoreside toilets, too, then?
> 
> ...


We only have one bathroom and no, I haven't converted it. But I haven't used it in over 8 months. I simply put a composting head in the garage. My wife still uses the flush toilet. I've not been able to convert her either, but at least she conserves water by not flushing every time. She even keeps a bucket in the shower to save the warm up water which she pours into the tank.

Unfortunately, as evidenced by what you read here, people are still pretty closed minded about the subject. Guests would probably be a little put off if they actually had to look at their deposit while they covered it with sawdust. :laugher

Just wait until a natural disaster hits a community and the water is shut off for a month. Oh wait, that's already happened. Many times. What do people do? They live in filth because they are unprepared. Disease spreads. People often die.

Like I said John, flush toilets, especially those on land are perhaps the most wasteful invention ever developed. It is not sustainable and the world will eventually come to see this. Probably not by choice though.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

remetau said:


> For me, it is because of the expense and the impracticality of it on a boat since it takes weeks for it to decompose. To dump it on shore or at the dock before it turns to dirt is a bio-hazard to other people.


If you dump it on the dock like the crap you spill when you pump out your holding tank then maybe. Otherwise, bullsh!t.

If it is dumped into a compost pile, it will compost. Duh. 
If it is buried in the ground, it will compost. Duh. 
No bio hazard, no danger. It will simply return to the earth. Just like the feces from every other creature on earth. Or is your poop special?


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

knothead said:


> ...Like I said John, flush toilets, especially those on land are perhaps the most wasteful invention ever developed. It is not sustainable and the world will eventually come to see this. Probably not by choice though.


Knotty,

I agree about the issues that could arise if the water supply were cut off. I live in a fairly urban area and it would be a real problem. I HAVE given it some thought, and have some contingencies in place. But none of them are as good as an up-and-running outhouse, much less a true composting toilet facility.

That said, in all my years I've never lived anywhere that this has occurred (touch wood). The current plumbed-toilet system seems to work very well, and reliably. Modern toilets have been credited for greatly reducing the risk of communicable diseases, particularly in congested urban areas. Count me among those that would not want to go back to the old ways.

Also, our municipal system re-processes the waste and it is used as fertilizer. Even folks with residential septic systems are returning the water and nutrients to the earth. These systems have worked well for over a century now. I'm glad we have them and like the marine toilet/holding tank system, I would need to see a problem with them before I'd switch. Right now I just don't see that problem.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

knothead said:


> If you dump it on the dock like the crap you spill when you pump out your holding tank then maybe. Otherwise, bullsh!t.
> 
> If it is dumped into a compost pile, it will compost. Duh.
> If it is buried in the ground, it will compost. Duh.
> No bio hazard, no danger. It will simply return to the earth. Just like the feces from every other creature on earth. Or is your poop special?


No need to bash me. I looked into getting one until I realized that they were so expensive and they took weeks to completely decompose.

I pump out my own boat, and I don't spill on the dock thank you.

If you could get all the marinas to set up compost bins for it, then okay I could see it. Down here in the keys, its against the law to let your dog crap on the ground let alone your wife.

I really like the ideas of these, but I still agree with the earlier posting that they work best on land where I can dump it regularly.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

Hoffa,

If you don't think your effluent is so bad, just seal your cockpit drains and pump your blackwater into there. Then you can let the water evaporate off and shovel the stuff out once in a while. What's that? You don't like the idea of gallons of sewage sloshing around underfoot? Well at least it will be YOUR problem, and not everyone else's.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

JohnRPollard said:


> Knotty,
> 
> I agree about the issues that could arise if the water supply were cut off. I live in a fairly urban area and it would be a real problem. I HAVE given it some thought, and have some contingencies in place. But none of them are as good as an up-and-running outhouse, much less a true composting toilet facility.
> 
> ...


John, I agree that many municipalities have taken steps to improve the way that waste is treated. (actually, if it's turned into something usable, it's not waste anymore. ) 
I think that's great. I hope that becomes the norm rather than the exception. All too often you hear of massive sewage spills simply because of heavy rains. 
I admit that there are situations where composting is totally impractical. Such as high rise building in urban areas. I can just see people in the elevators carrying their buckets down to the building's compost pile in the basement.:laugher 
I guess my point is that composting is a completely natural process that could improve the lives of countless people in places like Haiti where the soil has been been depleted. It could save countless gallons of fresh water. It could prevent disease and save lives.

It could also help a lot of boats to smell better. 

Reme, Sorry, I didn't mean to bash you. It's just that so many people think that there is something inherently unhealthy or unsanitary about composting. They think that unless the stuff is flushed away so that some stranger has to deal with it it becomes a biohazard. That's simply misinformation and paranoia.
I can understand paranoia based on ignorance, but I bristle at misinformation.
And if you can honestly say that you've never spilled raw sewage on a dock in the process of pumping out, then I can honestly say that I don't believe you.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

knothead said:


> And if you can honestly say that you've never spilled raw sewage on a dock in the process of pumping out, then I can honestly say that I don't believe you.


There is a big difference between a couple of drips from the end of the hose and a bucket full of poo.


----------



## SlowButSteady (Feb 17, 2010)

Did I really just reply to a two and a half year old thread?
D'oh!!


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

remetau said:


> There is a big difference between a couple of drips from the end of the hose and a bucket full of poo.


True. A couple of drips of raw sewage from the end of a hose presents a health hazard whereas a bucket of properly composted poo doesn't.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

knothead said:


> True. A couple of drips of raw sewage from the end of a hose presents a health hazard whereas a bucket of properly composted poo doesn't.


When you are dumping the waste from a boat that you just used the head on this morning, the poo is not composted at all. It takes weeks to decompose and therefore you would be dumping a pile of poo.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

*I like how you contradict yourself... *you said in an earlier post that the bucket or composting head doesn't COMPOST the POO...that happens in a compost pile... *so instead of a few drops of sewage from a hose, you have an entire BUCKET OF POO to deal with...*



knothead said:


> True. A couple of drips of raw sewage from the end of a hose presents a health hazard whereas a bucket of properly composted poo doesn't.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

sailingdog said:


> *I like how you contradict yourself... *you said in an earlier post that the bucket or composting head doesn't COMPOST the POO...that happens in a compost pile... *so instead of a few drops of sewage from a hose, you have an entire BUCKET OF POO to deal with...*


I'm not contradicting myself at all. I never said that it's is composted when you dump it. What I am saying is that if you dump it into a compost pile where it is allowed to compost it is not a health hazard whereas raw sewage on a dock certainly is.

What part of that are you guy's not understanding?


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

So, instead of a few drops of raw sewage, you advocate walking around with a FULL BUCKET OF RAW SEWAGE....which is still a biohazard UNTIL IT IS COMPOSTED.



knothead said:


> I'm not contradicting myself at all. I never said that it's is composted when you dump it. What I am saying is that if you dump it into a compost pile where it is allowed to compost it is not a health hazard whereas raw sewage on a dock certainly is.
> 
> What part of that are you guy's not understanding?


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

On a boat, where do you keep a compost pile? If you dump it on shore here in the keys, you would be arrested especially since that turd from this morning is still steaming.

I'm not bashing these things, but they just don't seem appropriate for cruisers or liveaboards. Like I said earlier, this could change if the marina was willing to put in large compost bins.


----------



## sailjunkie (Nov 4, 2009)

SlowButSteady said:


> Did I really just reply to a two and a half year old thread?
> D'oh!!


Yup, you sure did! 

We shouldn't "dump" on the OP too much. 2.5 years later, Victoria is still one of two Canadian cities (I won't mention the other city because they are implementing sewage treatment plans) that do not treat sewage before discharge into the sea. Pretty disgusting. 

The OP isn't the only Victoria resident who needs an attitude change. Unfortunately, Greater Victoria politicians are still looking for excuses not to do anything.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

remetau said:


> On a boat, where do you keep a compost pile? If you dump it on shore here in the keys, you would be arrested especially since that turd from this morning is still steaming.
> 
> I'm not bashing these things, but they just don't seem appropriate for cruisers or liveaboards. Like I said earlier, this could change if the marina was willing to put in large compost bins.


You would need a fairly large boat to have a compost pile. :laugher However, as I mentioned earlier, it is pretty simple to simply snap on the lid and store the bucket until such time an appropriate dumping place can be found. In fact, with the introduction of some Black Soldier fly larvae and earthworms the composting can be accomplished in the bucket.

Still, I understand your point and actually, liveaboard cruisers are actually a small percentage of boat owners. 
The vast majority are day sailors and weekenders who could very easily use composting heads. 
A huge number of people on land could easily convert to composting. Not just their humanure but their kitchen scraps, lawn clippings etc. etc.

Hopefully as awareness increases and the demand increases the marinas will add bins. As it stands now, most of the cruisers who do use composting toilets (and there are a lot of them who in spite of Maine's experience are very satisfied) simply dump the contents into the marina dumpsters. Both wasteful and unsanitary. At least most of them put it into plastic bags first.

In the meantime, if anyone needs to dump their compost in the Tampa Bay area. I offer my compost pile.

Nothing changes if no one challenges the norm.


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

knothead said:


> You would need a fairly large boat to have a compost pile. :laugher However, as I mentioned earlier, it is pretty simple to simply snap on the lid and store the bucket until such time an appropriate dumping place can be found. In fact, with the introduction of some Black Soldier fly larvae and earthworms the composting can be accomplished in the bucket.


That makes it kind of difficult to go if the need should occur.



knothead said:


> Still, I understand your point and actually, liveaboard cruisers are actually a small percentage of boat owners.
> The vast majority are day sailors and weekenders who could very easily use composting heads.
> A huge number of people on land could easily convert to composting. Not just their humanure but their kitchen scraps, lawn clippings etc. etc.


I concur.



knothead said:


> Hopefully as awareness increases and the demand increases the marinas will add bins. As it stands now, most of the cruisers who do use composting toilets (and there are a lot of them who in spite of Maine's experience are very satisfied) simply dump the contents into the marina dumpsters. Both wasteful and unsanitary. At least most of them put it into plastic bags first.
> 
> In the meantime, if anyone needs to dump their compost in the Tampa Bay area. I offer my compost pile.
> 
> Nothing changes if no one challenges the norm.


Again I concur. There were quite a large number of Canadians who were down here with composting toilets, but I have no idea where they were dumping.


----------



## catamariner (Mar 3, 2010)

mentalfee said:


> The solution to pollution is *NOT* dilution!
> 
> Have you considered a used Lectra San?


Got one. It's coming out of our new-to-us boat in September. Anyone who's picked up this thread can PM me if interested, otherwise it will go up on various for sale lists when it gets replaced by the Lavac-with-holding-tank.

STILL untreated by the city? What is their problem?!


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

remetau said:


> ...There were quite a large number of Canadians who were down here with composting toilets, but I have no idea where they were dumping.


I guess that explains the size of Knotty's compost pile. And here I thought he was just full of it.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

remetau said:


> That makes it kind of difficult to go if the need should occur.


Reme, seriously? 
You have an extra bucket or two.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

So, instead of a marine head and holding tank, or a porta-pottie MSD, you're suggesting it makes more sense to have multiple buckets aboard the boat, some of which will be filled with POO, some of which will be filled with a mixture of blowflies, maggots and POO, and some of which might be empty?

Then you have to carry the buckets home and dump the still biohazardous waste on your COMPOST PILE, which will now smell like POO, and have a huge cloud of blowflies flying around it...

Yeah, that really sounds like such a good solution...     uke



knothead said:


> Reme, seriously?
> You have an extra bucket or two.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

sailingdog said:


> So, instead of a marine head and holding tank, or a porta-pottie MSD, you're suggesting it makes more sense to have multiple buckets aboard the boat, some of which will be filled with POO, some of which will be filled with a mixture of blowflies, maggots and POO, and some of which might be empty?
> 
> Then you have to carry the buckets home and dump the still biohazardous waste on your COMPOST PILE, which will now smell like POO, and have a huge cloud of blowflies flying around it...
> 
> Yeah, that really sounds like such a good solution...     uke


Dude, Your ignorance is overwhelming. :laugher

Flies? Who is talking about flies? Smell? Who is talking about smell?
Do a little research before you say such stupid things for God's sake.

Why do you suppose it's a big thing to carry a couple of five gallon buckets?
When I was cruising I carried at least three jerry cans of diesel and at least three or four jerry cans of extra water. A couple of five gallon buckets would certainly not present much of a problem. Especially since the empty ones can be nested.

And by the way, if you had read what I wrote earlier, (I know that's tough for you) then you would have seen that I conceded that my system might not be practical for a lot of live aboard cruisers. 
I mentioned the Black Soldier fly larvae simply as a way of pointing out the fact that there are a lot of different, interesting and yes, sanitary ways of dealing with the age old issue of dealing with our feces.

You are typical of the vast majority of closed minded and therefore ignorant masses. Like I said, do a little research. I have.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Knothead—

I just don't see your solution as a realistic solution... it is far worse than the existing system of a standard marine head and holding tank, which is a pretty workable system. 

Fanatics are unable to see the problems with what they believe in...


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

sailingdog said:


> Knothead-
> 
> I just don't see your solution as a realistic solution... it is far worse than the existing system of a standard marine head and holding tank, which is a pretty workable system.
> 
> Fanatics are unable to see the problems with what they believe in...


I understand that you don't see it as a reasonable solution. I am simply saying that the reason that you don't see it as a reasonable solution is because of your prejudice and ignorance. 
I have been using the system everyday for eight months in my home and my boat and know that it is a reasonable solution.

If you want to categorize me as a fanatic, fine. I have no problem with that. I am a fan of saving water and adding nutrients to the soil so sure, I'll be a fanatic. But believe me. I know much better than you the problems with what I believe. Since I have studied and used the system for the better part of a year. 
The main problem is overcoming ignorance and prejudice.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Only an asshat sees people who disagree with them as prejudiced and ignorant.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

sailingdog said:


> Only an asshat sees people who disagree with them as prejudiced and ignorant.


No, only an asshat makes definitive statements pertaining to subjects about which they are ignorant and prejudiced.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

Oh, SD. Just for your edification. 

Blowfly...bad.










Black Soldier Fly...Good.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

so what you're saying is that SD doesn't know poop about poop? and he is saying you are a poopyhead? If you get knockroached while sitting on the head, does a composting head then become an asshat?


----------



## JohnRPollard (Mar 26, 2007)

Alright guys, we've pretty well beat this one to death, eh?

[EDIT-Sorry, never mind]

I think we all agree that having a toilet aboard is useful.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Can you still call it "dropping the kids off at the pool" when using a composting toilet?


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

Hey BL. You know that composting is an aerobic process (as opposed to the anaerobic processes that are going on in your holding tank) (that's why it stinks) so many composters are keen on mixing it up occasionally to introduce oxygen. 

So I'm glad you stopped by. You compost stirrer you.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

sailjunkie said:


> We shouldn't "dump" on the OP too much. 2.5 years later, Victoria is still one of two Canadian cities (I won't mention the other city because they are implementing sewage treatment plans) that do not treat sewage before discharge into the sea.


I'm glad you mentioned this as I have been wondering if Victoria still does this. What I don't know is whether the availability of pump out stations has improved in the almost two years since this thread started?

I think the OP's point, from two years ago, is still a good one. 
Given:
1. Pump outs are not reliably available in the harbor.
2. If a pump out is available (and working) it costs $25.
3. If he successfully pumps out his holding tank he has, in effect, simply dumped his holding tank ~3000 yards away.

I'm not advocating not pumping out, but if he was to take his boat outside Victoria harbor and discharge his holding tank, he would have accomplished the same thing, only done it cheaply and illegally.

Yes Victoria should clean up it's act. Yes, everyone should use pump out stations. But what happens when you can't find a pump out station that is operational, for a fee or not?


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

knothead said:


> Dude, Your ignorance is overwhelming. :laugher





> Do a little research before you say such stupid things for God's sake.





> And by the way, if you had read what I wrote earlier, (I know that's tough for you)





> You are typical of the vast majority of closed minded and therefore ignorant masses.


Wow, this degenerated pretty quickly.


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

dhays said:


> Wow, this degenerated pretty quickly.


No, It took a number of ignorant statements and misrepresentations before it degenerated.


----------



## DropTop (May 7, 2009)

Many cites in Connecicut overflow their treatment facilities any time there is a rain storm with more than half an inch of rain in a 24 hour period and dump raw sewage into the sound.

for many days following any decent rain storm it is not uncommon to have a brown film floating on long island sound near some of the bigger costal cities (stamford, greenwich, norwalk, bridgeport etc). 

One saturday last summer when out with a few friends about 2 miles offshore, I droped sail and threw out the swim line / bouy and we all dove in for a much needed escape from the afternoon sun. About 15 minutes into the swim we drifted into a patch of one of these brown films. We all climbed back on board, rinsed off as best as we could (I don't have a fresh wate shower)... As we all dried off, we started to REEK of $#!+... the 75ft of swim line that I throw out attached to a small bouy in case anyone gets caught by the current had to be thrown out and replaced because even after a few uses over the next week, the smell kept coming back, and it stunk up the line / fender locker in the cockpit.

am I concerned with the waste produced by the boaters on Long Island Sound? no... but the people living next to it? YES!


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

sailingdog said:


> Only an asshat sees people who disagree with them as prejudiced and ignorant.


Now THAT'S classic.


----------



## sailor50 (Aug 26, 2009)

DropTop,

I would call it LOG Island Sound after that incident!


----------



## DropTop (May 7, 2009)

sailor50 said:


> DropTop,
> 
> I would call it LOG Island Sound after that incident!


ewwwwwwwwwwww

lol, good one...


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

DropTop said:


> Many cites in Connecicut overflow their treatment facilities any time there is a rain storm with more than half an inch of rain in a 24 hour period and dump raw sewage into the sound.
> 
> for many days following any decent rain storm it is not uncommon to have a brown film floating on long island sound near some of the bigger costal cities (stamford, greenwich, norwalk, bridgeport etc).
> 
> ...


Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Cruisers aren't the problem. Hell, boaters aren't the problem. There aren't enough of them. It's the millions of toilets polluting the millions of gallons of fresh water using pipes that are part of the rainwater runoff systems of so many communities in this country. 
Water is precious. Yet we continue to waste it, as well as the nutrients in our own byproducts as if the process can continue forever. 
It can't. 
As stewards of this planet, we have to start living in sustainable ways. What we take out, we should put back. What we use, we should replenish. After all, energy isn't lost, it's converted. 
It may take a little personal sacrifice sometimes, but it's really not that hard to make a difference. 
I live in Florida. I keep the air conditioner in our two bed one bath house set at 80. Every day I collect 4.5 to 5 gallons of water from the condensate. That water is used for irrigation or for flushing the wife's toilet. 
I have a rain barrel system that collects the runoff from about 1/4 of our house and I haven't had to use a drop of city water for irrigation or for filling our above ground pool since it's installation. (six months)

Sailingdog calls me a fanatic about composting toilets and I'm quite sure a lot of people agree with him. But the truth is that I'm just as fanatical about weaning ourselves off of oil. I just want to see our beautiful world last. I just want to do what I can to keep it going.

Thanks DropTop. You illustrated the problem better than I ever could have by making it real. The problem being the continuation of our seeming indifference to our environment. 
It doesn't matter what the scientists say or what the statistics say. When you come out of the water smelling like sh!t, you know there's a problem.


----------



## relmason (Mar 1, 2010)

*Composting head*

I am seriously considering a composting head for the very reason you mentioned. The hassle of doing the right thing leads me to look for the simple solution and thats why.


----------



## TheRealBill (May 28, 2010)

Hey Knothead, great info ...thanks.

I seen those two units you made on another site. I have a ? for ya. You didn't use any kind of crank handle to churn up the poo a bit? Reason? 

Second, I didn't see any trap door...so when you lift the lid you just can't avoid seeing the bucket of poo right?

Also...no air vent?

Also, since fresh urine is sterile, why can't it just be tubed out...instead of jugged?


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

Knothead....Link to the other site TheRealBill mentions ?


----------



## knothead (Apr 9, 2003)

TheRealBill said:


> Hey Knothead, great info ...thanks.
> 
> I seen those two units you made on another site. I have a ? for ya. You didn't use any kind of crank handle to churn up the poo a bit? Reason?
> 
> ...


_On a boat, I don't see any reason it couldn't be. I would probably just tee into the sink drain in the head. 
In my garage, that wouldn't work so well and since both the boat unit and the garage unit share the same interchangeable bowl and seat. I can't do it on the boat either.

_


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

This crappy thread sure has legs!
It is not just heavy rains that cause municipal sewage systems to discharge raw sewage into our waterways. Does anyone remember the north east US and Canada blackout about 6 years ago? There was a lot of conjecture as to the blame of how and why that happened but there was also no accountability to the way our local sewage plants operated during the blackout. 
It was hot as it gets in NYC and the power grid went down. No spit (well, lots of spit) the NYC subway shut down and people walked home from work or lined up for ferries to get home to wherever. I took a boat home from NJ and walked with some co-workers to the Brooklyn Bridge and walked home to our apartment in lower Manhattan. 
With no air conditioning my wife and I took a walk along the banks of the Hudson but after a block the smell of the effluent that had been dumped in the river forced us to retreat back toward home a few blocks away. I could see the crap floating on the river that came from either the huge sewage plant at 125th St or up in Yonkers as plain as day but most of all you could smell it. 
My employer at the time seemed to have auxiliary generators as my workstation kept running but the municipal sewage plants did not? I don't know how many millions of gallons of sewage were dumped before the power came back on and I doubt anyone really knows for sure. All I do know is that the rules are a bit of a farce but break them only at your own risk as a boat owner lest you get caught. The municipalities get away with murder yet you could be fined for a number of violations if you do the same. 
While it is true that in the Virgin Islands you are not required to keep a holding tank on board so many charter boats are set up for discharge overboard I prefer having the ability to choose not to. Using a head in a small harbor with limited flow is really a no-no. 
At least some states have tried to provide adequate pump out stations for the boating public. New York seems to be pretty good but it would be ironic if my tanks contents had to travel through 20 miles of pipe just to end up in the same river I had kept it out of.
Composting is an interesting idea for sure. Harness the methane gas from the fermentation process for cooking fuel too. I kid you not, this has been done.
I also hear that the use of cannabis reduces some cancers. Hmm.
<exhales>


----------



## ffiill (Jul 15, 2010)

At least we bother to use toilets on board.
I was recently reading the book on Australian Marine Archeologists examination of Dutch East Indiaman which was wrecked of the coast of western Australia in the 17th century.They found that the bilges of the wreck were full of "s--t"
Seemingly it was common practise in bad weather just to go down in the bilges!Same I believe was true on men of war right through until Nelsons day.
The book is well worth a read-seemingly the survivors occupied two islands-the crew and the passengers. They raided each other and ate those they captured!
They were only rescued when the ships captain and several others sailed a small boat northwards along the west coast of Australia to the East Indies.
Any Australian readers who can remember name of ship?
On a lighter note Captain John Smith(Virginia Company etc) relates in his book on everything you need to know about sailing, how the first crew member spotted going to the beak head of the ship in the morning to use the toilet would be called a "layer"(dont ask-I havent a clue)-once spotted his job for the day would be to keep the chains supporting the bowsprit clean of s--t-not forgetting the "toe rag"-a piece of discarded rope with its unravelled end trailing in the water and used instead of toilet paper.!


----------



## catamariner (Mar 3, 2010)

THANK YOU, ffiill, I'll bet it was "tow rag" originally! You have wiped out (LOL) a long-standing puzzlement of mine, the 1864 etymology (of convicts and sock substitutes) being very unconvincing!

tow (plural tows)
1. An untwisted bundle of fibers such as cellulose acetate, flax, hemp or jute.


----------



## tdw (Oct 2, 2006)

ffiill........she was the Batavia.

Batavia (ship) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

ffiill said:


> Seemingly it was common practise in bad weather just to go down in the bilges!Same I believe was true on men of war right through until Nelsons day.


It may have been common practice, but it wasn't sanctioned by the RN. Sailors were just too lazy, cold, whatever to go up on deck to use the head. On the larger ships, they sometimes had a private head off the captains cabin for his use alone. It was simply cantilevered over the side.

If you think we have problems with bilge odors now, can you imagine? The only redeeming feature of the wooden ships of the day was that they leaked terribly. This brought sea water into the bilge on a daily basis that had to be pumped out, at least providing some flushing of the bilge. I do that with fresh water once a season to keep the boat smelling fresh.

Dave


----------



## ffiill (Jul 15, 2010)

Tow rag-Convicts being transported were refered to as tow rags by the ships crew for obvious reasons-also believe it or not the convicts as property of "his/her majesty" having been "detained at his/her majesties pleasure" were seen as a more valuable commodity than the ships crew-the same was I believe true on slave ships.Conditions of both passengers and crew on emigrant ships,usually totally overloaded converted slave ships were in fact far worse than on either slave or convict ships.
I was recently reading a book on the history of the Plimsol line(load mark).
There was one infamous vessel which sank I believe somewhere off the coast of Africa en route to Australia with loss of all lives.
At the Public enquiry a "lady" who had seen her husband off from the pilot boat remarked that the pilot had stepped down from the little pilot boat onto the ships deck so heavily was it overloaded.


----------



## MoonSailer (Jun 1, 2007)

Poo is good for oysters and crabs!!!! They love to eat ****!!!


----------



## neoxaero (Feb 18, 2010)

Poo is pretty nasty - I'm a fan of those incineration toilets.. No stinky mess to deal with and the left overs are pretty safe to handle. 

I recall a buddy telling me about a diving trip he was on. He was a diving instructor for a resort in Mexico.

He was about 35-40ft deep with 4 or 5 new divers. He looked up and saw some lady swim overhead, pull her bottoms to the side and drop a deuce. 

Wouldn't you know it - it was a sinker and headed straight down towards them.. :laugher

Humorous in hindsight but I bet those new divers never went diving again!


----------

