# Head dumps directly into sea?



## 2wheelin

Hi everyone!

I have been lurking for 2 years just trying to learn from the experts.

I got my bareboat certification this past year and I have already booked my first charter for later this year in the VI. 

I was talking with an acquaintance who has sailed 3-4 times in the VI and he was sharing a list of unexpected emergencies (tangled lines, toasted generators, injuries, etc.) that have happened to him (some embellished lies, I think) on his charters.

One issue he had was a major-clog in the head pump. Long story short, he said all of the head waste (piss, turds, barf) bypasses the holding tank and goes directly into the sea on charter boats.  He seems to think charter companies are exempt from emptying holding tanks every Saturday. 

Any truth to this? Is this standard procedure in the VI? 

I think he is full of, . . . , wait for it, . . . , CRAP!

Thanks to all who make this place the best resource for sailing! 

TOM


----------



## Minnewaska

Clogging a marine head is not all that uncommon, but has nothing to do with dumping overboard. It's usually because too much was put in the bowl and not enough clear chasing water was flushed behind the last use to get it through the system.

Most modern production charters seem to have a setup where the bowl is pumped up to a holding tank behind a cabinet in the head. It's this lift that requires sufficient clear flushing water to move the waste. Too many just assume its gone because it left the bowl, when its just sitting in that waste line. The waste enters the top of the holding tank, but exits the bottom of the tank by gravity to a thru hull. 

It's illegal to dump overboard within 3nm of the USVI, but in the BVI it's not. Yes, in some cases, they are less than 3nm apart.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

Some countries prefer you to pump directly overboard flush by flush instead of dumpling 100 litres at a time in a small area.
Also pumping overboard flush by flush means no chemicals.

Its much more environmentally sound than the big dump of a big holding tank topped with blue anti stink stuff.

Remember, some islands none of the houses have sewrage systems anyway so having a pump out facility for ten boats is just silly.

You are not in New York/London/Sydney now, you are in countries where the entire population is less than 50,000.


----------



## ianjoub

Fish **** in the sea all the time, why shouldn't we?


----------



## Bill-Rangatira

if you pump to a tank first then at least the decomposing has started before discharge and also usually a macerator pump is used to break up the chunks .... nothing worse than a boat leaving a "paper" trail as they leave harbour.
if you want to go the extra step look at a composting head or a bucket and cedar chips
solids are not that much to store and liquid is safe to dump in most cases.


----------



## mr_f

ianjoub said:


> Fish **** in the sea all the time, why shouldn't we?


Squirrels crap on your lawn, why shouldn't I?

Birds crap on your car, why shouldn't I?


----------



## TakeFive

I don't think installing a composting head in someone else's charter boat is a particularly good idea. 

The head on our last BVI charter boat did not have a 100 liter holding tank. More like 10 liters, located right above the toilet bowl, like Minne described. It's basically enough to get you through the night in the anchorage, then you dump it the next day on the way to your next island. It's a bad idea to dump your stuff in the anchorage where there are people swimming around. uke


----------



## ianjoub

mr_f said:


> Squirrels crap on your lawn, why shouldn't I?
> 
> Birds crap on your car, why shouldn't I?


I kill every squirrel I see in my yard with a pellet gun .... just saying.

My dog craps in my lawn. She is a 130 lb Irish Wolfhound. I leave it for the insects to dispose of.


----------



## ianjoub

TakeFive said:


> It's a bad idea to dump your stuff in the anchorage where there are people swimming around. uke


+1

That is just common courtesy.


----------



## FarCry

The VI is pretty vague and covers a couple of countries and a whole bunch of space. In the USVI and the SVI you are under the jurisdiction of the USA and are not supposed to dump within 3 miles. In the BVI there are no rules. 

There is no exclusion for any boat in US waters that I'm aware of. 

The current best practice was described well by Takefive.


----------



## denverd0n

2wheelin said:


> Long story short, he said all of the head waste (piss, turds, barf)...


Okay, no one else has mentioned it, so I will. You should not be barfing into the head! Urine, feces, and toilet paper are the ONLY things that should go in there. If you need to barf, you barf over the side, or into a bucket. NOT IN THE HEAD!!! (Which may well explain how your friend clogged the head.)


----------



## FarCry

denverd0n said:


> Okay, no one else has mentioned it, so I will. You should not be barfing into the head! Urine, feces, and toilet paper are the ONLY things that should go in there. If you need to barf, you barf over the side, or into a bucket. NOT IN THE HEAD!!! (Which may well explain how your friend clogged the head.)


Some would argue that toilet paper shouldn't go in there either.


----------



## ccriders

You should clarify with the charter company exactly how the sewage system works on the boat you will charter. 
I really wanted to sail around St. John, but during our briefing we were told that the holding tank on our boat had been by-passed and the head could only discharge directly overboard. This would have been illegal in the USVI waters so we had to scratch St John from our itenerary. It also complicated using the head in a couple of anchorages.
Still had a great time and fabulous sailing.
John


----------



## CLucas

ccriders said:


> You should clarify with the charter company exactly how the sewage system works on the boat you will charter.
> I really wanted to sail around St. John, but during our briefing we were told that the holding tank on our boat had been by-passed and the head could only discharge directly overboard. This would have been illegal in the USVI waters so we had to scratch St John from our itenerary. It also complicated using the head in a couple of anchorages.
> Still had a great time and fabulous sailing.
> John


Several charter companies will also charge you an additional fee if you return their boat with anything other than an empty holding tank.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

ianjoub said:


> I kill every squirrel I see in my yard with a pellet gun .... just saying.


What a warm and loving person!

Do you also poison all the songbirds that happen to come in your yard?


----------



## Bill-Rangatira

FarCry said:


> Some would argue that toilet paper shouldn't go in there either.


 i am one of those ... i have a diaper genie in the head for paper and other things ... feminine hygene prodects
i is a continuos bag and twists evey time you push the lever


----------



## ianjoub

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> What a warm and loving person!
> 
> Do you also poison all the songbirds that happen to come in your yard?


Why thank you for your kind words .

I shoot the tree rats because they eat all of the food I put out for the songbirds, then try to find their way into the attic for a warm dry home....


----------



## radly53

I was at Jost Van Dyke the other day and the cat next to me had there guests swimming, when some aboard used the heat and they were swimming in TURD water,I could hear them complaining about the smell... NICE


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

ianjoub said:


> Why thank you for your kind words .
> 
> I shoot the tree rats because they eat all of the food I put out for the songbirds, then try to find their way into the attic for a warm dry home....


There are other ways to discourage squirrels to eat bird food or to move into the attic than killing them. There are bird feeders specifically designed to be inaccessible for squirrels, and if you keep your home properly sealed, no squirrel will be able to enter it.

But I suppose killing harmless animals (why do you call them 'tree rats?') is less work, and it gives you the joy of killing.


----------



## ianjoub

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> But I suppose killing harmless animals (why do you call them 'tree rats?') is less work, and it gives you the joy of killing.


Have you ever shaved a squirrel's tail? You would know why I call them tree rats. Shooting them is less work than other options, and it is fun. We, as humans, do all sorts of things for fun. We also do all sorts of things to make our lives easier. Do you have reservations about swatting mosquitos? Do you have reservations about mouse traps? Squirrels are vermin. I treat them as such .... and on a side not, all of my efforts have close to ZERO effect on their local population.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

ianjoub said:


> Have you ever shaved a squirrel's tail? You would know why I call them tree rats. Shooting them is less work than other options, and it is fun. We, as humans, do all sorts of things for fun. We also do all sorts of things to make our lives easier. Do you have reservations about swatting mosquitos? Do you have reservations about mouse traps? Squirrels are vermin. I treat them as such .... and on a side not, all of my efforts have close to ZERO effect on their local population.


I don't even know where to start, and I don't have all day.

First, I don't quite see where shaved squirrels come in. You think buying a squirrel-safe bird feeder is too much work but you go out and shave squirrel tails?? You, Sir (or Madam, how would I know?) are a strange creature. Perhaps by mutilating a squirrel you make it look like more like a rat (I suppose; I have never seen a shaved squirrel), and since rats are, indeed, vermin, your twisted mind tells you that killing squirrels is just like killing rats.

Or, as you openly admit, killing animals is 'fun' for you. Indeed, what a warm and loving person you are.

I have no reservations about swatting moskitoes, or other insects that actually do harm. Mice also do harm and need to be controlled but I actually do consider some traps as unnecessarily cruel. I would never use a glue trap and I believe they should be outlawed. Life traps work perfectly and releasing the critters somewhere in the forest at least gives them a chance to live.

I have little respect for people that are too lazy to do the little work necessary to seal their houses properly and instead kill harmless little creatures. uke


----------



## FarCry

joethecobbler said:


> after reading this thread,
> I no longer want to cruise the crap-a-rean,er the carribean.
> and am curtailing my swimming to the pool.


Newsflash!!!! Fish poop in the water.

Stay in the pool...:laugher:laugher:laugher


----------



## TakeFive

Yeah, I hear the parrot fish crapped all over the beaches down there.


----------



## Minnewaska

joethecobbler said:


> after reading this thread,
> I no longer want to cruise the crap-a-rean,er the carribean.
> and am curtailing my swimming to the pool.


Ok, a bit of a gross story.

I was sitting in the cockpit at an achorage in the BVI, when the head was used below. The occupant did not realize the thru hull was still open. Sure enough, I hear the pumping and see a brown plume exit the side of the vessel. Gross, no doubt. Shouldn't have happened.

However, I was oddly intrigued to see what happened to it. Partly, because I was worried the current was going to wash it past the boat moored behind us and I would be embarrassed.

I was amazed to see it dissipate so quickly. In 10 feet, it was nearly indistinguishable. 10 more feet past the stern and there was no evidence whatsoever. I suspect dumping a holding tank would be different, but I think the effect of dilution is not appreciated, when overwhelmed by the gross factor.

I'm not saying I would have wanted to dive off the railing at the moment, but the idea that boats are emptying in Sir Francis Drake channel, with trillions and trillion of gallons of water, isn't keeping me from swimming ashore. Indeed, that is why marine life excrement isn't an issue.


----------



## Minnesail

ianjoub said:


> Have you ever shaved a squirrel's tail?


Whoa.

Paddle faster, I hear banjos.


----------



## Minnesail

This is completely off-topic and not sailing related, but it's pretty funny.

The squirrels ripped apart one of my strings of Christmas lights and have taken the 1" bulbs away and buried them. I think they're going to be pretty disappointed come March when they're getting hungry and they go to dig up the bulbs. LEDs taste nothing like acorns.


----------



## ianjoub

I have never shaved a squirrel's tail. My comment was to suggest that without a furry tail, they would be virtually indistinguishable from rats. Squirrels are vermin and pestilence to me. I treat them as such.

As far as killing a living thing for no good reason, I have a good reason. They get in my bird feeders and attic. They aren't wasted either. I toss them over the fence to feed the turkey vultures.


----------



## ianjoub

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> I have no reservations about swatting moskitoes, or other insects that actually do harm. Mice also do harm and need to be controlled..
> 
> I have little respect for people that are too lazy to do the little work necessary to seal their houses properly and instead kill harmless little creatures. uke


Squirrels carry diseases, rabies, and cause damage to houses.

Seal the house properly? Squirrels will chew their way through siding. Incidentally, they will chew through electrical wiring as well, creating fire hazards.


----------



## GeorgeB

Mastundschotbruch, O.K., I'll bite. What is the human way to "discourage" squirrels? My yard is too small and has too many trees for a "squirrel proof" bird feeder.  The one that has the weight activated door doesn't work well either. (it shuts when a dove or jay feeds. and the song birds all preferred the Yankee feeder anyways) So how do you discourage the squirrels? My wife won't let me take the 20 gauge and take down the squirrel nests!


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

ianjoub said:


> Squirrels carry diseases, rabies, and cause damage to houses.
> 
> Seal the house properly? Squirrels will chew their way through siding. Incidentally, they will chew through electrical wiring as well, creating fire hazards.


Pretty much all wild animals can carry rabies. Are you gonna kill everything moving around you?

Just stop shaving them, and you won't catch rabies 

We are here pretty much surrounded by squirrels, in the leafy suburbs of Baltimore. I never ever had any damage to the house, or wiring. Nor do I know of anyone who did.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

joethecobbler said:


> I've hunted squirrels for consumption, I've even tanned a few of the pelts.
> never tried to shave one. I suspect you'd get bit.


I wouldn't shoot squirrels to eat them, or to use their furs, but I can understand why someone does it. Killing 'for fun' I don't understand.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch

GeorgeB said:


> Mastundschotbruch, O.K., I'll bite. What is the human way to "discourage" squirrels? My yard is too small and has too many trees for a "squirrel proof" bird feeder.  The one that has the weight activated door doesn't work well either. (it shuts when a dove or jay feeds. and the song birds all preferred the Yankee feeder anyways) So how do you discourage the squirrels? My wife won't let me take the 20 gauge and take down the squirrel nests!


Amazon.com : Perky-Pet 104 Evenseed Squirrel Dilemma Wild Bird Feeder : Squirrel Proof Bird Feeder : Patio, Lawn & [email protected]@[email protected]@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/[email protected]@[email protected]@41z4cU6y6fL


----------



## ianjoub

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Just stop shaving them, and you won't catch rabies


Sound advice for any man


----------



## TakeFive

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> ...Just stop shaving them, and you won't catch rabies


MUS for the win!!! :batter


----------



## MarkSF

FarCry said:


> Newsflash!!!! Fish poop in the water.
> 
> Stay in the pool...:laugher:laugher:laugher


The point here is that human sewage is far more dangerous than fish sewage. That's because human sewage can contain human pathogens that can be caught by people swimming. That's why emptying your holding tanks near to an area where people swim, is so disgusting, even if you can't see it after a while.

There's a strong link between all kinds of illnesses, mostly skin infections & digestive ailments, and swimming in water contaminated by human sewage.

If you scroll down, there's a list :

http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/Health_Risks_of_Sewage_fact_sheetb119.pdf

Have you any idea of the human health problems faced in countries that have drinking water contaminated by human waste?


----------



## guitarguy56

MarkSF said:


> The point here is that human sewage is far more dangerous than fish sewage. That's because human sewage can contain human pathogens that can be caught by people swimming. That's why emptying your holding tanks near to an area where people swim, is so disgusting, even if you can't see it after a while.
> 
> There's a strong link between all kinds of illnesses, mostly skin infections & digestive ailments, and swimming in water contaminated by human sewage.
> 
> If you scroll down, there's a list :
> 
> http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/Health_Risks_of_Sewage_fact_sheetb119.pdf
> 
> Have you any idea of the human health problems faced in countries that have drinking water contaminated by human waste?


And to think the 2016 Olympic Sailing arena is to be done in one of the most polluted areas of the world in regards to sewage... surely not the worst place as I have seen in other places on the globe... such a disgrace!


----------



## Minnewaska

MarkSF said:


> The point here is that human sewage is far more dangerous than fish sewage. That's because human sewage can contain human pathogens that can be caught by people swimming. That's why emptying your holding tanks near to an area where people swim, is so disgusting, even if you can't see it after a while.
> 
> There's a strong link between all kinds of illnesses, mostly skin infections & digestive ailments, and swimming in water contaminated by human sewage.
> 
> If you scroll down, there's a list :
> 
> http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/Health_Risks_of_Sewage_fact_sheetb119.pdf
> 
> Have you any idea of the human health problems faced in countries that have drinking water contaminated by human waste?


I don't disagree with needing to keep our shores and harbors clear. Most of the contamination comes from municipal treatment plants that improperly treat or overflow. It's the concentration of hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes millions, that overwhelms the environment. Even dozens of recreational boaters putting one gallon of waster (most in the holding tank is salt water) when as little as a half mile from shore, will never, ever, pollute the shore. Way too much dilution, just like the sealife.


----------



## Multihullgirl

I found that the only sure way to keep the squirrels not only off the feeders but out of the house was to apply RWS Diana 1400fps. Squirrel are good in gumbo and fricassée

I've made a couple trips to the BVI, and at least in the snorkel-access areas I saw evidence of nutrient loading/indicator species. So that whole dilution thing?... um, no. The ocean isn't really THAT big, and throwing things into it that it's not evolutionarily designed to take isn't really a good idea. Think 'cumulative.'


----------



## Minnesail

I like squirrels. They mess up my garden a bit, but I can live with that. They entertain the hell out of the cats. As far as getting in your house goes... Maybe it's a southern thing, building codes are looser down there. Here in the north houses are well built and sealed tight. My neighborhood is thick with squirrels, but nobody worries about getting them in the attic. 

They don't even mess with my boat. They climb all over everything else, but I guess the boat just doesn't interest them.


----------



## skalashn

GeorgeB said:


> What is the human way to "discourage" squirrels


Get a mean cat?

Back on topic. While I understand (and follow) the best practice of using your tank and not dumping while in harbor, what about those boats that stay in beautiful Caribbean anchorages and don't move for months on end?


----------



## 2wheelin

Thank you all for the informative and entertaining posts on . . .

. . . *squirrels!* :laugher

For those keeping score:

Poop in the ocean has 22 posts.
Squirrels have 21 posts.

Next time you charter in the BVI, let us know where the content of the head on your cat is going.

Thanks all!


----------



## CLucas

Minnesail said:


> I like squirrels. They mess up my garden a bit, but I can live with that. They entertain the hell out of the cats. As far as getting in your house goes... Maybe it's a southern thing, building codes are looser down there. Here in the north houses are well built and sealed tight. My neighborhood is thick with squirrels, but nobody worries about getting them in the attic.
> 
> They don't even mess with my boat. They climb all over everything else, but I guess the boat just doesn't interest them.


...until you put them in the head.


----------



## GeorgeB

O.K., I've got to even the score. We have a neighbor's cat who loves to hunt the birds on the ground when they are displaced buy the evil squirrels on the feeder.


----------



## skalashn

GeorgeB said:


> O.K., I've got to even the score. We have a neighbor's cat who loves to hunt the birds on the ground when they are displaced buy the evil squirrels on the feeder.


Get rid of the birds so the cat could focus on the squirrels.


----------



## Minnewaska

Multihullgirl said:


> .....So that whole dilution thing?... um, no. The ocean isn't really THAT big, and throwing things into it that it's not evolutionarily designed to take isn't really a good idea. Think 'cumulative.'


Well, we disagree, but that's okay. I say the offshore ocean is bigger than most can comprehend.

Most can't even comprehend that what we know to be the modern planet, including the ocean's occupants, have only existed for a grain of sand on the beach of time.

Most arguments for the planet or environment are humorously suggesting that everything should stay just the way I found it.

I have no desire to see pollution, poor water quality or the melting of the polar ice cap. I suspect there is little nothing we can do about some of it, the focus should be on how we are going to adapt. Build on higher ground or drown while cursing the SUV.

I would love to see some actual science about how afar offshore one needs to be before any detectable evidence of recreational boat waste is measured.


----------



## guitarguy56

Minnewaska said:


> Well, we disagree, but that's okay. I say the offshore ocean is bigger than most can comprehend.
> 
> Most can't even comprehend that what we know to be the modern planet, including the ocean's occupants, have only existed for a grain of sand on the beach of time.
> 
> Most arguments for the planet or environment are humorously suggesting that everything should stay just the way I found it.
> 
> I have no desire to see pollution, poor water quality or the melting of the polar ice cap. I suspect there is little nothing we can do about some of it, the focus should be on how we are going to adapt. Build on higher ground or drown while cursing the SUV.
> 
> I would love to see some actual science about how afar offshore one needs to be before any detectable evidence of recreational boat waste is measured.


The science has been there for decades... problem is just like global warming some seem to turn a blind eye or call it 'voo doo' science...

NOAA Ocean Explorer: Deap East 2001

Sewage - Marine pollution | National Oceanography Centre | from coast to deep ocean

http://iwlearn.net/iw-projects/2131/reports/Deep-sea-biodiversity-Rogers.pdf

There are tons more... but the _*science is there*_!


----------



## guitarguy56

For keeping squirrels off the bird houses/feeders, I electrified them with bug zappers... modified the feeders so that the squirrels would be zapped each time they got on the feeders... it sure has 'modified' their behavior... they no longer jump on the feeders or bird houses! :laugher :laugher

Not a single squirrel has been harmed either...


----------



## FarCry

MarkSF said:


> The point here is that human sewage is far more dangerous than fish sewage. That's because human sewage can contain human pathogens that can be caught by people swimming. That's why emptying your holding tanks near to an area where people swim, is so disgusting, even if you can't see it after a while.
> 
> There's a strong link between all kinds of illnesses, mostly skin infections & digestive ailments, and swimming in water contaminated by human sewage.
> 
> If you scroll down, there's a list :
> 
> http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/Health_Risks_of_Sewage_fact_sheetb119.pdf
> 
> Have you any idea of the human health problems faced in countries that have drinking water contaminated by human waste?


Who suggested it was a good idea to dump holding tanks where people swim?

What does your link to American Rivers have to do with the majority of effluent originating from boats? Being a resident of the USVI and spending much of my time in, on and around the local waters, I've yet to hear of anybody getting sick from swimming in the ocean. That would indeed be front page news. Since I've not been everywhere and I do work for an engineering firm, I can only comment with first hand knowledge of how human waste is handled in the USVI and BVI. Nobody said human waste is a good thing to have in high concentration. Do you have any idea of the GPM of raw sewage that gets dumped out of Roadtown, Tortolla? To be clear, I'm not saying that I want to swim in water that is adjacent to a charter cat that just emptied all of it's holding tanks. I'm also not concerned with swimming, snorkeling, diving or wading in the local waters unless it has rained heavily recently. But that is another topic.

Yes, I am well aware of the health problems that human waste can create in drinking water. What country drinks salt water from the ocean? Most run it through an RO plant and end up with very pure water for human consumption. Do you really think the origination of human effluent in the Caribbean Sea is largely caused by people on boats? Yes, every little bit can help but the correlation between land based sewage runoff and water based discharge are incredibly disproportional, at least in my neck of the woods.


----------



## Jiminri

Bringing this back to squirrels...that is what this thread is about, isn't it???

Last winter at our marina south of Annapolis, MD the squirrels chewed and gnawed the heck out of the hard plastic dinks stored on the racks. Did a LOT of damage. Didn't touch the inflatables. I'd be PO'd and willing to keelhaul every squirrel I found if my dink had been there and damaged. Just sayn...


----------



## Seaduction

Mr. cuddly little squirrel chewed 5 large holes through 5 different panels in my mainsail about 2 years ago. It birthed its litter within the sailcover then couldn't easily get them out of all the folds so just chewed holes. I had to get a new mainsail. When I lived in the north (Pennsylvania) I was aware that squirrels got into lots of attics and chewed at electric insulation among other items. They are just rats with furry tails in my book.


----------



## Minnesail

Jiminri said:


> Last winter at our marina south of Annapolis, MD the squirrels chewed and gnawed the heck out of the hard plastic dinks stored on the racks. Did a LOT of damage.


People have to get out of the habit of smearing peanut butter all over their dinghy.


----------



## CLucas

Seaduction said:


> Mr. cuddly little squirrel chewed 5 large holes through 5 different panels in my mainsail about 2 years ago. It birthed its litter within the sailcover then couldn't easily get them out of all the folds so just chewed holes. I had to get a new mainsail. When I lived in the north (Pennsylvania) I was aware that squirrels got into lots of attics and chewed at electric insulation among other items. They are just rats with furry tails in my book.


Ouch.
Had an idea...

wait for it...

Squirrel tell-tails [sic] <- (unshaved, of course)


----------



## Minnesail

We've got some pretty bold squirrels in my neighborhood (even one albino whom I call Stephen) but they don't get in the attic and they leave my boat alone.

This adventurous little fella just wanted to say "Hi" to the cats. The cats wanted to eat him.


----------



## guitarguy56

joethecobbler said:


> January 21st is national squirrel appreciation day, it is also national give a hug day.
> I propose taking some squirrels sailing offshore and hugging them as you discharge your holding tanks in an environmental friendly manner.
> I will also be offering complimentary haircuts, shave and pedicures for any interested squirrels who are willing to pledge not to get in my attic, birdfeeder or dingy.
> I think this approach is fair to all concerned.
> The cat disagrees.


You forgot to mention you'd be wearing your 'mankini' during this time!  :laugher :laugher


----------



## SaltyHog

More squirrel content:


----------



## Minnewaska

guitarguy56 said:


> The science has been there for decades... problem is just like global warming some seem to turn a blind eye or call it 'voo doo' science...
> 
> NOAA Ocean Explorer: Deap East 2001
> 
> Sewage - Marine pollution | National Oceanography Centre | from coast to deep ocean
> 
> http://iwlearn.net/iw-projects/2131/reports/Deep-sea-biodiversity-Rogers.pdf
> 
> There are tons more... but the _*science is there*_!


Okay, I tried to read them. Two seem to refer to the same study and one is just on the biodiversity of the seafloor. Would you care to direct me to where any of them discuss the impact of the dumping of a small amount of waste from a recreational boat.

The studies you cited refer to "NURP-funded scientists documented the impact of 42 million tons of wet sewage sludge dumped 2,500 m (8,000 ft) off the Mid-Atlantic coast"

I would say that would be the equivalent of 525,000 recreational boats at once.

I am always open to the science. Show me.


----------



## dhlamar

I just threw up in the back of my throat!


----------



## Group9

Minnewaska said:


> Okay, I tried to read them. Two seem to refer to the same study and one is just on the biodiversity of the seafloor. Would you care to direct me to where any of them discuss the impact of the dumping of a small amount of waste from a recreational boat.
> 
> The studies you cited refer to "NURP-funded scientists documented the impact of 42 million tons of wet sewage sludge dumped 2,500 m (8,000 ft) off the Mid-Atlantic coast"
> 
> I would say that would be the equivalent of 525,000 recreational boats at once.
> 
> I am always open to the science. Show me.


One of those seemed to be talking about large amounts of land person created sewage that was dumped at sea as a method of disposal. I think we all already kind of knew that when a half a million people's crap gets put into the oceans in a small area, it does cause problems.


----------



## Group9

MarkSF said:


> The point here is that human sewage is far more dangerous than fish sewage. That's because human sewage can contain human pathogens that can be caught by people swimming. That's why emptying your holding tanks near to an area where people swim, is so disgusting, even if you can't see it after a while.
> 
> There's a strong link between all kinds of illnesses, mostly skin infections & digestive ailments, and swimming in water contaminated by human sewage.
> 
> If you scroll down, there's a list :
> 
> http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/Health_Risks_of_Sewage_fact_sheetb119.pdf
> 
> Have you any idea of the human health problems faced in countries that have drinking water contaminated by human waste?


And, if you're swimming in any water, close to human habitation, you are probably swimming in some you know what, regardless of whether any boats are near or not. Look up the e. coli numbers for the ocean near your town. They are tested daily, not weekly, monthly, or yearly, for a reason.

We were based near the dock when the testing boat was first going out after Katrina near where I live. The counts were off the scale for a while, and then they quickly went back to normal (and, no normal is not e. coli free, unfortunately).

And, it is disgusting when you think about it. But, that's why I don't get in the water in closed in harbors with boats, or in the ocean near the beach after a big rain.


----------



## Minnewaska

Group9 said:


> One of those seemed to be talking about large amounts of land person created sewage that was dumped at sea as a method of disposal. I think we all already kind of knew that when a half a million people's crap gets put into the oceans in a small area, it does cause problems.


Exactly and environmental impact is not linear. All animals put waste into the environment and it can deal with it to a degree. Pass that degree and there is trouble. I really would like to see some science on the environmental impact of recreational discharge at given shore distances. My hypothesis is that you could not detect discharge from a dozen recreational boats that are a quarter mile from shore. I would like to see it tested.

Assuming the average depth of the water was 20ft out to a quarter mile, there are roughly 200,000 gallons of water in every single 1 foot slice of shoreline. 100 ft of shoreline is 20 million gallons. A half mile of shoreline (a very small beach) is 521 million gallons. And there is vastly more water on the other side of that quarter mile distance!

I just want to see a good study of it. I'm not pushing for a quarter mile limit, but I've never seen any study that determined 3 miles as scientifically relevant.


----------



## denverd0n

Minnewaska said:


> ...I've never seen any study that determined 3 miles as scientifically relevant.


Indeed. My understanding is that the "3-mile limit" was first derived centuries ago, as a territorial limit, when that was the effective range of the typical shore battery equipped with a cannon. How that might have anything to do with a "good" distance for being able to dump the waste from a recreational vessel is quite beyond my limited powers of comprehension.


----------



## Minnewaska

denverd0n said:


> Indeed. My understanding is that the "3-mile limit" was first derived centuries ago, as a territorial limit, when that was the effective range of the typical shore battery equipped with a cannon. How that might have anything to do with a "good" distance for being able to dump the waste from a recreational vessel is quite beyond my limited powers of comprehension.


I've heard the rumor on what originally defined a 3nm range. However, it's the Submerged Lands Act from the 1950s that granted jurisdiction to the States out to that limit.

I suspect, if the States had jurisdiction out to 1000 miles, that would be the no-discharge limit just to appease the uneducated.


----------



## ccriders

All of this was argued back when the the coasties defined MSDs and set out rules regarding their design and function. Funny thing is that if you don't have a MSD and use a bucket you can throw it all overboard and, I assume, no harm is done. Don't know much about state laws.
John


----------



## outbound

Been living down here since November. From what I've been told strictly speaking in BVIs is illegal to discharge with 1000 yards of a shore and in USVIs with 3nm. These rules are followed by their total neglect.
In the USVIs as in the US it is perfectly legal to piss over the side ( if anyones watching you could be a sex offender) but not into the head with thro hull open. Piss is sterile unless you have a UTI so this makes no sense. 

Would note with a macerator running no poop color in the water in 2' not 10'. Generally speaking gut flora and coliforms don't do so well in direct UV and high salinity. Still to be kind wait until sailing to drop your load. Usually everyone is just finishing that morning cup of joe before the first tack so not much of a issue unless you're living life among the constipated.


----------



## SVAuspicious

ccriders said:


> All of this was argued back when the the coasties defined MSDs and set out rules regarding their design and function. Funny thing is that if you don't have a MSD and use a bucket you can throw it all overboard and, I assume, no harm is done.


Not true in the US. You can excrete directly into the water without issue. Any intermediate container is considered an MSD and subject to existing regulation.

Short version: "bucket and chuck it" is illegal in the US.


----------



## goat

ianjoub said:


> I kill every squirrel I see in my yard with a pellet gun .... just saying.


I'm with Ian on this one; if I saw a squirrel with a pellet gun I'd probably shoot it too.









goat


----------



## Group9

SVAuspicious said:


> Not true in the US. You can excrete directly into the water without issue. Any intermediate container is considered an MSD and subject to existing regulation.
> 
> Short version: "bucket and chuck it" is illegal in the US.


What about peeing your pants? Is your underwear an intermediate container? I did that one time on a boat when the mast came down in the middle of the night.


----------



## Minnewaska

Group9 said:


> What about peeing your pants? Is your underwear an intermediate container? I did that one time on a boat when the mast came down in the middle of the night.


I hope the mast that you presumable cut off, didn't have any plastic on it. You'd really be in trouble. 

[truthfully, other than for an obvious emergency like this, one has to be opposed to discarding plastic in the ocean, unlike the over zealous restrictions around biodegradable waste]


----------



## captain jack

Minnewaska said:


> Exactly and environmental impact is not linear. All animals put waste into the environment and it can deal with it to a degree. Pass that degree and there is trouble. I really would like to see some science on the environmental impact of recreational discharge at given shore distances. My hypothesis is that you could not detect discharge from a dozen recreational boats that are a quarter mile from shore. I would like to see it tested.
> 
> Assuming the average depth of the water was 20ft out to a quarter mile, there are roughly 200,000 gallons of water in every single 1 foot slice of shoreline. 100 ft of shoreline is 20 million gallons. A half mile of shoreline (a very small beach) is 521 million gallons. And there is vastly more water on the other side of that quarter mile distance!
> 
> I just want to see a good study of it. I'm not pushing for a quarter mile limit, but I've never seen any study that determined 3 miles as scientifically relevant.


good post. i think that one thing that no one seems to consider is that no dump areas are as silly as no smoking areas in a restaraunt. to wit: it's all the same air. contriving some sort of conceptual boundary doesn't keep it from combining. in this case, it's all the same water. the water inside of the 3mi zone combines with the water on the outside of that zone. if i throw a sealed bottle with a message into the sea 2mi from shore, and it never breaks, it is totally possible someone on the other side of the ocean could find it. on the other hand, if i throw that bottle in the water 3mi out, there is nothing to keep it from washing up on the beach, 3mi away.

also, how much sea life defocates in the sea? all of it! think of how much fish and whale and crab poop that is. lol. seriously, though...

so, i agree: where is the science behind it all? how much of it is real science and how much is it to keep the 'unwashed masses' feeling all warm and fuzzy wen they go to sleep after a day swimming at the beach?


----------



## captain jack

SVAuspicious said:


> Not true in the US. You can excrete directly into the water without issue. Any intermediate container is considered an MSD and subject to existing regulation.
> 
> Short version: "bucket and chuck it" is illegal in the US.


but it's ok to make a deposit as long as there isn't a container between you and the water? that makes total sense to me


----------



## captain jack

guitarguy56 said:


> The science has been there for decades... problem is just like global warming some seem to turn a blind eye or call it 'voo doo' science...
> 
> NOAA Ocean Explorer: Deap East 2001
> 
> Sewage - Marine pollution | National Oceanography Centre | from coast to deep ocean
> 
> http://iwlearn.net/iw-projects/2131/reports/Deep-sea-biodiversity-Rogers.pdf
> 
> There are tons more... but the _*science is there*_!


ummmm global warming....you mean that 'factual reality' 'proved' to us by the scientists that brought us the fraud of climategate 1 & 2?


----------



## ccriders

SVAuspicious said:


> Not true in the US. You can excrete directly into the water without issue. Any intermediate container is considered an MSD and subject to existing regulation.
> 
> Short version: "bucket and chuck it" is illegal in the US.


Do you have any idea of when this came to pass. 
As I recall, MSDs were defined in such a way that the definition did not include buckets. And, at the time some sailors removed their heads in favor of buckets over MSDs.
"Bucket and chuck it" should be illegal in no discharge zones in my opinion.
John


----------



## captain jack

Multihullgirl said:


> . So that whole dilution thing?... um, no. The ocean isn't really THAT big, and throwing things into it that it's not evolutionarily designed to take isn't really a good idea. Think 'cumulative.'


so, let me see if i understand this correctly. you are saying that, on a planet teaming with life (100% of which has to eliminate waste), the earth isn't evolutionarily designed to handle animal waste? or are you just saying that there is a magical line that keeps all land animal waste from entering the water and humans are violating this magical line because we don't believe in magic any longer?

i think the issue is one of concentration. land generated human waste is at huge concentrations because we are hopelessly overpopulated; a point which the powers that be love to deny but which is supported by te fact that scientists are seriously worried about feeding our exponentially expanding populations, in the near future.

land generated waste, farming run off, and lawncare and landscaping run offs are what cause over nutrient laden waters along with their killer microbes. compared to all of that, which this conversation really doesn't address, what is the actual effect of the, comparatively, tiny amount of waste possibly generated by pleasure boats?

since concentration seems to be the issue, perhaps holding tanks are a bad thing. if you dump a month's worth of human waste in the water all at once, it's going to have much more of an immediate effect than dumping an individual deposit here and there over a month. that's just logic.

think about it. if i have the faucet running and i trickle an entire container of morton's table salt in the stream at a teaspoon every 2 hours, it will not clog my drain. the flow will dilute the salt and carry it away. however, if i dump the entire container in the drain, all at once, it's going to clog up the works, at least for a bit.


----------



## ccriders

Oh, and for those that are opposed current sewage discharge regulations, just understand that harbors and bays where most of us sail, are very polluted with feces of several animal sources. Our MSDs are our little contribution to cleaner water. We probably would have very clean water now if storm water runoff requirements had not been eased from those proposed in the 1980s. After every rain coastal eColi counts skyrocket, beaches get closed and shellfish get quarantined. Do you really think we should be adding to this water pollution?
Also, the fish population has been so drastically reduced that their sewage impact has to be much lower than in the past. Meanwhile the human population continues to grow.
John


----------



## captain jack

Minnesail said:


> This is completely off-topic and not sailing related, but it's pretty funny.
> 
> The squirrels ripped apart one of my strings of Christmas lights and have taken the 1" bulbs away and buried them. I think they're going to be pretty disappointed come March when they're getting hungry and they go to dig up the bulbs. LEDs taste nothing like acorns.


hmmmm you know, squirrels forget where they bury most of the nuts they bury. this helps to plant new trees. nature is awesome. so....perhaps you will be growing some LED trees, in the spring. i'd be careful with my mowing. that might be a profitable cash crop.


----------



## Minnewaska

ccriders said:


> Oh, and for those that are opposed current sewage discharge regulations, just understand that harbors and bays where most of us sail, are very polluted with feces of several animal sources.


No one is suggesting that we allow discharge anywhere near a harbor. The question is how far offshore, or within the tidal flow one needs to be before small recreational discharge can even be detected near shore.



> Do you really think we should be adding to this water pollution?


Please forgive ne being blunt, but that's the kind of uninformed intuition that creates these rules in the first place. It's akin to believing the earth is flat, because you only see flat. I want to see the science on whether any recreational discharge adds to anything. Let's not assume.


----------



## captain jack

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Pretty much all wild animals can carry rabies. Are you gonna kill everything moving around you?


that does tend to be the human response to the other life forms on the planet, haven't you noticed?



> Just stop shaving them, and you won't catch rabies


awesome!



> We are here pretty much surrounded by squirrels, in the leafy suburbs of Baltimore. I never ever had any damage to the house, or wiring. Nor do I know of anyone who did.


i live around that general area, too, and have never really heard about some sort of epic frequency of squirrel damage, either. maybe maryland just has friendly squirrels. my mom lives farther to the west and north of maryland. she feeds the birds and the squirrels. no squirrel damage to the house and, although it costs a little more for bird seed because they eat some of it, no problem with the bird feeder. she even puts peanuts out for both birds and squirrels. no problems with any of the wildlife.

also, anyone that thinks a squirrel with a shaved tail looks like a rat has obviously never seen a rat.

by the way: yes, my responses seem to be piecemeal and haphazard, in relationship to the chronology of the posts. that would be due to the haphazard way in which i am reading the thread. sorry about that.


----------



## captain jack

mr_f said:


> Squirrels crap on your lawn, why shouldn't I?
> 
> Birds crap on your car, why shouldn't I?


i was wondering where squirrels entered the conversation...


----------



## mr_f

captain jack said:


> i was wondering where squirrels entered the conversation...


Yes, twas my fault. And to the OP (and to squirrels everywhere) I apologize.


----------



## captain jack

ccriders said:


> Oh, and for those that are opposed current sewage discharge regulations, just understand that harbors and bays where most of us sail, are very polluted with feces of several animal sources. .........
> Also, the fish population has been so drastically reduced that their sewage impact has to be much lower than in the past. Meanwhile the human population continues to grow.
> John


ok. i have a solution that ties this into the whole squirrel thing: shoot, or otherwise kill, all animals that defocate in the water. then, shoot all the people, too (obviously with the shooter shooting himself when done). then, there won't be any feces in the water.


----------



## Minnewaska

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


----------



## captain jack

Minnewaska said:


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


excellent post.

the solution, i suppose, is shoot all seagulls?


----------



## TakeFive

I am a little less cynical about regulations and mileage restrictions than some of you. I think that, by and large, the regulations exist for a good reason. I believe in science, but I also know that you can conduct the experiment and select the data in a way to prove whichever side you want to take. So refusing to accept any explanation until science "proves" something is just a stalling tactic. That "proof" will never come, because special interest groups will hire their own "experts" to pollute the scientific data with dissenting opinions.

The "infinite dilution" argument is overly simplistic. Everyone tries to justify their own dumping by arguing that it's such a small proportion of the overall total. Such arguments are transparently self-serving.

In my mind, the concern is not whether a sewage dump would eventually dilute and/or degrade with UV/oxygen and other environmental exposure. The question is whether that pocket of foul stuff might make its way to a beach, swimming area, or other sensitive area before it dissipates sufficiently. And the answer to that is, it depends. While in most cases it seems obvious that local eddies would mix it up and dissipate it, there are some times when local currents, thermal gradients, etc., might transport a pocket of high concentration crap to shore without dissipating it. It's almost impossible to predict with certainty, and at a certain location it might dissipate 99 days out of 100, but that 100th day could have just the right conditions to carry the black water to shore from a signficant distance.

That is why there should never be dumping in a protected harbor or anchorage, and why, in my opinion, 2 or 3 nm offshore is not an unreasonable distance to restrict dumping. It provides sufficient distance for dissipation to occur.

The larger your holding tank, the further away from shore you should be.

Some of you might find this interesting:

?Fifty miles out we could smell the pollution?: sailing amid the ocean litter | Environment | The Guardian


----------



## captain jack

TakeFive said:


> I am a little less cynical about regulations and mileage restrictions than some of you. I think that, by and large, the regulations exist for a good reason. I believe in science, but I also know that you can conduct the experiment and select the data in a way to prove whichever side you want to take. So refusing to accept any explanation until science "proves" something is just a stalling tactic. That "proof" will never come, because special interest groups will hire their own "experts" to pollute the scientific data with dissenting opinions.
> 
> The "infinite dilution" argument is overly simplistic. Everyone tries to justify their own dumping by arguing that it's such a small proportion of the overall total. Such arguments are transparently self-serving.
> 
> In my mind, the concern is not whether a sewage dump would eventually dilute and/or degrade with UV/oxygen and other environmental exposure. The question is whether that pocket of foul stuff might make its way to a beach, swimming area, or other sensitive area before it dissipates sufficiently. And the answer to that is, it depends. While in most cases it seems obvious that local eddies would mix it up and dissipate it, there are some times when local currents, thermal gradients, etc., might transport a pocket of high concentration crap to shore without dissipating it. It's almost impossible to predict with certainty, and at a certain location it might dissipate 99 days out of 100, but that 100th day could have just the right conditions to carry the black water to shore from a signficant distance.
> 
> That is why there should never be dumping in a protected harbor or anchorage, and why, in my opinion, 2 or 3 nm offshore is not an unreasonable distance to restrict dumping. It provides sufficient distance for dissipation to occur.
> 
> The larger your holding tank, the further away from shore you should be.
> 
> Some of you might find this interesting:
> 
> ?Fifty miles out we could smell the pollution?: sailing amid the ocean litter | Environment | The Guardian


i totally agree with you about the variability of scientific 'proof'.

i agree about the idea that you can't predict how waste might get dispersed. i have said pretty much the same thing. it's just a point of logic, really. it's all the same water.

i also agree about your holding tank size observation.

all of this kind of supports the idea that small 'deposits' over a period of time are better than massive deposits all at once, regardless how far out you are.


----------



## aeventyr60

Group9 said:


> What about peeing your pants? Is your underwear an intermediate container? I did that one time on a boat when the mast came down in the middle of the night.


Depends on if the intermediate container was a huggie or a pampers, it really just depends....


----------



## Minnewaska

They hung scientists that said the world was round. That didn't make them wrong. An argument that says not to bother with the experiment because we can't trust the science, or special interests will overcome it, is itself biased. 

There are plenty of scientists who approach the scientific method with proper diligence. The problem is that everyone simply wants to rely on their intuition.


----------



## Group9

aeventyr60 said:


> Depends on if the intermediate container was a huggie or a pampers, it really just depends....


I see what you did there. Well played, well played.


----------



## ccriders

Minnewaska said:


> No one is suggesting that we allow discharge anywhere near a harbor. The question is how far offshore, or within the tidal flow one needs to be before small recreational discharge can even be detected near shore.
> 
> Please forgive ne being blunt, but that's the kind of uninformed intuition that creates these rules in the first place. It's akin to believing the earth is flat, because you only see flat. I want to see the science on whether any recreational discharge adds to anything. Let's not assume.


I'm assuming nothing here. There was a time when sea life was rife, and safe to eat. The waters in bays and estuaries clean and safe to swim in. But then humans began to destroy those environments with their various activities both on land and on water. After major crisis', government action began to require better practices, both on land and on water with the goal to clean up the water. The Coast Guard in doing its part proposed and implemented MSD regulations. While we, the boating public howled and screamed we lacked the political clout to turn back the regulations, which were only a small part of the big effort to clean up the water. The municipalities expended great effort and resources to clean up sewage and are successful to the point that this now clean discharge is being diverted and sold for industrial uses. That the cities and counties had the political clout to turn back the storm water treatment requirements results in most of the pollution seen today in bays, harbors and estuaries.
Granted, when I sail across the bay and observe that I'm just about the only boat out and pitch my urine overboard that is an undetectable event and has zero impact on the environment. I'm sure those Dolphins playing around me probably dump more urine in the bay than I do. But, until it rains, the bay is cleaner, more healthy than it was when the clean water act was instituted. And, no one is flushing their feces in the marina waters, so some benefit is achieved.
What kind of science do you really need to understand the degradation humans have inflicted on almost every body of water on earth? Simple observation (isn't that a fundamental aspect of science) would reveal that in the 
last 30 years water quality has improved, yet remains a work in progress.
Are you proposing elimination if the MSD requirements? 
John


----------



## TakeFive

Minnewaska said:


> ... An argument that says not to bother with the experiment because we can't trust the science, or special interests will overcome it, is itself biased...


I am not saying not to do the experiment. I am saying that there will be many experiments, run under different condition with conflicting results, and people will spin the conflicts to match their own biases (or that of the special interests funding the experiments). So that concrete unanimity that you seek will never be achieved.

In my own hypothetical example, in which you get one result 99 times and a different result on the 100th time, which result would you support? Many people these days will choose the result that fits their interests, or claim that the science is inconclusive and we need more study (if stalling fits their interests).

This kind of stuff is exactly what's happening with global warming "debate" (if you choose to even call it that).


----------



## captain jack

Minnewaska said:


> They hung scientists that said the world was round. That didn't make them wrong. An argument that says not to bother with the experiment because we can't trust the science, or special interests will overcome it, is itself biased.
> 
> There are plenty of scientists who approach the scientific method with proper diligence. The problem is that everyone simply wants to rely on their intuition.


i agree with you but, i think the problem is two fold.

on one hand, you are right. everyone wants to rely on their own 'feelings' of the matter. we have become a society that values emotion over reason, logic, or real world evidence.

but, i think there is another problem; that being that you can't tell if a scientist, or other authority figure, is giving you honest data and conclusions or if they are purposely skewing data and conclusions to support an objective.

the money that funds and pays scientists comes from somewhere. that somewhere usually has it's own objective and that objective isn't usually objective. 

let's face it, if you are a scientist being funded by a company that manufactures sunblock, it isn't good for you to discover that sunlight is actually good for you. so, a little data skewing can insure that you keep being funded. also, if you are a scientist and you buck up against the scientists who are being funded by said sunblock company....let's say you discover their altered data and conclusions...you stand to have that group of scientists do everything they can to ruin your career.

the problem is even further compounded when government gets involved.

by the way, i believe it's 'hanged'. people get hanged. drapes get hung. no one seems to know that, anymore. you even hear journalists say hung instead of hanged.


----------



## captain jack

TakeFive said:


> I am not saying not to do the experiment. I am saying that there will be many experiments, run under different condition with conflicting results, and people will spin the conflicts to match their own biases (or that of the special interests funding the experiments). So that concrete unanimity that you seek will never be achieved.
> 
> In my own hypothetical example, in which you get one result 99 times and a different result on the 100th time, which result would you support? Many people these days will choose the result that fits their interests, or claim that the science is inconclusive and we need more study (if stalling fits their interests).
> 
> This kind of stuff is exactly what's happening with global warming "debate" (if you choose to even call it that).


yes. climategate. although, i imagine that wasn't what you were talking about, as that is usually glossed over and a lot of people don't even know about it.


----------



## captain jack

ccriders said:


> I'm assuming nothing here. There was a time when sea life was rife, and safe to eat.


yes, but sewage isn't really the responsible factor in that (unless you count the huge amount of hormones released into the water system from birth control pill usage. most of the hormones in the pills can't be absorbed and get peed out. of course,our filtration plants can't filter hormones). overfishing, agricultural chemicals, and industrial waste is responsible. and not all the 'green' gimmicks actually help nature. for instance, CFLs have been pushed as a supposedly green product. yet, CFLs contain mercury, one of the worst heavy metals that we have spoiled the earth's waters with. it's mercury that has made it unsafe for people to eat too much fish...especially pregnant women. if they were going to try to push a truly 'green' alternative to regular light bulbs, they should have pushed LEDs. but, environmental concerns aren't always the actual concern when government agencies are involved.


----------



## captain jack

TakeFive said:


> Some of you might find this interesting:
> 
> ?Fifty miles out we could smell the pollution?: sailing amid the ocean litter | Environment | The Guardian


by the way, that's a great link and raises one fact tha we haven't addressed: there is a far bigger pollution problem than just crap. nature is evolved to handle crap. crap is natural. plastic, steel, and other man made trash isn't natural. things like fishing line and plastic six pack retainers are terrible on aquatic life and hang around a lot longer than sewage.


----------



## TxSea

Might want to read Sailing Course dott com (emphasis mine since I can not yet post a link ! ) Cruising Course - The Head


----------



## TxSea

Ever consider the chemicals, pseudo hormones, and drugs you are ingesting that are NOT NATURAL that your body is trying to process out? No, you do not retain all of it - only some of it! Yes, **think about it!


----------



## mr_f

captain jack said:


> not all the 'green' gimmicks actually help nature. for instance, CFLs have been pushed as a supposedly green product. yet, CFLs contain mercury, one of the worst heavy metals that we have spoiled the earth's waters with. it's mercury that has made it unsafe for people to eat too much fish...especially pregnant women. if they were going to try to push a truly 'green' alternative to regular light bulbs, they should have pushed LEDs. but, environmental concerns aren't always the actual concern when government agencies are involved.


I don't mean to further distract the discussion from squirrels, but CFLs actually reduce the amount of mercury released into the environment. The largest source of mercury is from power generation, particularly coal. The energy savings of CFLs (reducing power generation demand) more than offset the mercury contained in the bulb.



> To compare mercury emissions from different bulbs, their light output (in lumens) and lifetime need to be taken into account. For the same light output, conventional incandescent lamps lead to the greatest mercury emissions, followed by CFLs and halogen lamps. In the case of CFLs, most of the mercury is released at the end of the lamp's lifetime, if it is discarded with unsorted household waste and not recycled.


Mercury in Compact Fluorescent Lamps

This, of course, will depend on your power source. And separately, I agree that there are better technologies and we should move quickly to LEDs.


----------



## captain jack

TxSea said:


> Ever consider the chemicals, pseudo hormones, and drugs you are ingesting that are NOT NATURAL that your body is trying to process out? No, you do not retain all of it - only some of it! Yes, **think about it!


i already mentioned that in my reference to birth control pills. but, as you say, there are a lot of hormone mimicking cemicals in a lot of different products; from cream rinse to food and fertilizers to plastics. everyone is gung ho to hop aboard the fossil fuel hate wagon but you can't seem to get anyone to care about these chemicals.


----------



## captain jack

mr_f said:


> I don't mean to further distract the discussion from squirrels, but CFLs actually reduce the amount of mercury released into the environment. The largest source of mercury is from power generation, particularly coal. The energy savings of CFLs (reducing power generation demand) more than offset the mercury contained in the bulb.
> 
> Mercury in Compact Fluorescent Lamps
> 
> This, of course, will depend on your power source. *And separately, I agree that there are better technologies and we should move quickly to LEDs*.


and, so, you are defending CFLs because...why?

i believe LEDs were available when they began pishing for the use of CFLs and, since you agree with me about LEDs being a better soluton, i imagine you would also agree it made no sense to push CFLs instead of LEDs...if environmental friendliness was the real concern.

first, although they extoll the long life of CFLs, in my own experience, they last a lot less time than old fashioned bulbs. on the job site, we only installed CFLs (energy star ratings) and they wouldn't even last til the house walked before you were replacing them. and, let's face it. no one disposes of them in the proper way. they go in the trash just like all other bulbs.

LEDs don't contain mercury. they actually do last forever and a day. and they have an amazing versatility and offer a wide array of light qualities; just choose your color temp. (CLFs are always that sickly cold white color. not so LEDs. the ones i got for my boat cabin lights are warm and friendly like Edison intended lighting to be.) they also use only a tiny amount of electricity...much better than CFLs.

so....if the evironment is your concern, why wouldn't you push LEDs instead of CFLs?

as a side note: although propaganda in favor of CFLs, your link is not very favorable to CFLs. hope you don't have children. i notice they throw the green housegases thing in there. Co2, the big evil that comes from fossil fuels, is a *minor* greenhouse gas. the geological evidence clearly shows that elevated Co2 levels in the atmosphere trail (not preceed) elevated global temperatures by hundreds of years. do you know what the biggest greenhouse gas is? water vapor.

anyhow, enough light has been shed on this subject. back to poop in the pool....


----------



## mr_f

captain jack said:


> i believe LEDs were available when they began pishing for the use of CFLs and, since you agree with me about LEDs being a better soluton, i imagine you would also agree it made no sense to push CFLs instead of LEDs...if environmental friendliness was the real concern.
> 
> first, although they extoll the long life of CFLs, in my own experience, they last a lot less time than old fashioned bulbs. on the job site, we only installed CFLs (energy star ratings) and they wouldn't even last til the house walked before you were replacing them. and, let's face it. no one disposes of them in the proper way. they go in the trash just like all other bulbs.
> 
> LEDs don't contain mercury. they actually do last forever and a day. and they have an amazing versatility and offer a wide array of light qualities; just choose your color temp. (CLFs are always that sickly cold white color. not so LEDs. the ones i got for my boat cabin lights are warm and friendly like Edison intended lighting to be.) they also use only a tiny amount of electricity...much better than CFLs.
> 
> so....if the evironment is your concern, why wouldn't you push LEDs instead of CFLs?


My experience, anecdotal as it may be, does not match yours.

As an early (attempted) adopter of LEDs, I found them to be very expensive, dim, and of poor light quality. (Newer bulbs are vastly improved.)

As an early adopter of CFLs, I found that some bulbs were exactly what they should be (long lasting, came on right away, reasonable cost, good light quality and amount). I did find that not all CFLs were equal, leading to the perception, as you point out, that they did not meet expectations. I will say, I have always disposed of them properly. I hope you do too.

Now, many years later, I completely agree with you. CFLs pale in comparison to LEDs. LEDs are still expensive, but absolutely worth the cost. That being said, someone could easily buy the wrong bulbs and come to similar conclusions as you have about CFLs.

And again, I will apologize for distracting the conversation away from the topic at hand: squirrels.


----------



## captain jack

mr_f said:


> My experience, anecdotal as it may be, does not match yours.
> 
> As an early (attempted) adopter of LEDs, I found them to be very expensive, dim, and of poor light quality. (Newer bulbs are vastly improved.)
> 
> As an early adopter of CFLs, I found that some bulbs were exactly what they should be (came on right away, reasonable cost, good light quality and amount). I did find that not all CFLs were equal, leading to the perception, as you point out, that they did not meet expectations. I will say, I have always disposed of them properly. I hope you do too.
> 
> Now, many years later, I completely agree with you. CFLs pale in comparison to LEDs. They are still expensive, but absolutely worth the cost. That being said, someone could easily buy the wrong bulbs and come to similar conclusions as you have about CFLs.
> 
> And again, I will apologize for distracting the conversation away from the topic at hand: squirrels.


squirrels:laugher

i am glad you reminded me of that. i completely forgot about the delay in coming on. you get so used to it that you stop thinking about it.

you must buy some premo CFLs, sir. 

do i dispose of them properly.......you know....i really should.

but, in my defense, i don't use them, personally. i still use the old edison models (in the house. in my boat- soon to be my house-it's LED all the way). i wasn't about to throw away good bulbs to put in new CFLs. on the jobsite, there were no avenues for proper disposal. trash goes in the dumpster. it's bad. i know. but, then, so is all the terrible waste of materials and trash generation that goes along with construction; something that has always bothered my terribly. waste not want not.

all my life, i never had the money to waste stuff. now, even if i got the money to afford to waste stuff, i wouldn't. we are such a terribly wasteful society. we take everything for granted.

we've always been that way. of course, back in caveman days it was a little different: we took everything for granite, back then.


----------



## captain jack

disclaimer for my previous post: my last line was all in humor. i realize that, in the past when humans didn't have it as easy as we do or have as much in the way of material wealth, people didn't really take things for granted. however, i wanted to set up for my cheesy pun. i apologize to any people, from centuries past, that i may have offended. 


oh, and while we are on the subject of heads (or squirrels), does anyone know how the bathroom on a boat came by that name? it's a rather interesting word origin story.


----------



## Minnewaska

ccriders said:


> .......What kind of science do you really need to understand the degradation humans have inflicted on almost every body of water on earth? Simple observation (isn't that a fundamental aspect of science) would reveal that in the
> last 30 years water quality has improved, yet remains a work in progress.


Here is a perfect example of my point. We've observed the earth is flat, therefore, it must be flat.

I take no exception to humans having impacted our water quality (air quality too). The question at hand is whether recreational boat waste is having any measurable impact upon it. Narragansett Bay continue to have more sewage, even net of treatment, dumped into it every single day than every single boat within our State could possible dump in a decade.

I also reject the "why add to it" agrument, which is also just intuitive. Would dumping a 15 gallons holding tank right off Beavertail in open ocean add to it? I would like to see any study that could suggest it did. I'm not suggesting dropping a tank in the deepest coves within the Bay.

All life on earth impacts the environment to a degree. It's the degree that is important, not the absolute.

The planet and everything upon it has evolved over millions of years and will continue to do so. Trying to keep everything exactly as we found it, is scientifically absurd.



> Are you proposing elimination if the MSD requirements?
> John


And this is the default argument, whenever a rational discussion on this topic ensues and people's intuition is being challenged. Not one post above suggested anything that could remotely be interpreted this way. MSDs are clearly required in many circumstances. The discussion is about scientifically determining where the proper boundary lies.

Understand how this process works in the government. They pander for votes to the uninformed. Both parties. You do know that the EPA is actively discussing having no-discharge requirements on boats for your grey water too (sinks, showers, etc)? Do you think the boundary will be based on science or intuition?


----------



## Minnewaska

TakeFive said:


> ......In my own hypothetical example, in which you get one result 99 times and a different result on the 100th time, which result would you support?.....


In all honesty, I would like to see a study that could find even one example in a one hundred that could detect recreational waste in open ocean from given distances. I hypothesize that it would be impossible beyond a quarter mile in all conditions.

A proper scientific method would require that I try to prove that wrong and even one hit would do so. You would, therefore, try to identify the reason for the one hit. Say it was an incoming tide (which I still doubt). I would then be very comfortable with a rule that said dumping was only permitted on outgoing tides. This is just an example, not my hypothesis.

The real question is what would people do if there was negative contact 100 out of 100 times? (of course, the sample set would be much larger)


----------



## Minnewaska

Again, I'm not arguing against some restrictions, just for science to base appropriate restrictions upon. Here's the ultimate irony. If I were to dump our holding tank at the mouth of the Bay, it's entirely possible it would be fully diluted and swept out to sea. By holding it, as I do, and have it pumped out, it adds to the concentration of human waste in municipal treatment plants that often overflow back into the Bay.


----------



## SVAuspicious

There are at least three categories of approach here: science, law, and politics. They are only mildly interrelated.



captain jack said:


> so, i agree: where is the science behind it all? how much of it is real science and how much is it to keep the 'unwashed masses' feeling all warm and fuzzy wen they go to sleep after a day swimming at the beach?


The problem is that the public doesn't understand what "real science" is. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't make what they say real science. The product of discussion through publication in peer-reviewed journals is real science.

This is where vested interests, whether environmental groups, government agencies, or companies, fall short. A "report" or "study" not subject to peer review really isn't science. It is only a candidate for science.



ccriders said:


> Do you have any idea of when this came to pass.
> As I recall, MSDs were defined in such a way that the definition did not include buckets. And, at the time some sailors removed their heads in favor of buckets over MSDs.
> "Bucket and chuck it" should be illegal in no discharge zones in my opinion.


Vocabulary is important. A "no discharge zone" (NDZ) is a very specific thing. See the EPA description of the law which says in part:



> A "No Discharge Zone" is a designated body of water that prohibits the discharge of treated and untreated boat sewage. Federal Law prohibits the discharge of untreated sewage from vessels within all navigable waters of the U. S., which include territorial seas within three miles of shore. Boats with Type I and Type II Marine Sanitation Devices may discharge treated effluent in coastal waters UNLESS they are in a "No Discharge Zone". Type III marine sanitation devise is the only type that can be used legally in a "No Discharge Zone".


If you go to the underlying law, the word "discharge" is defined as coming from a boat system of any kind. Case law makes it clear that a bucket is a system. I'm not defending that decision, but it exists. Accordingly urination or defection directly into the water is legal, but the use of a bucket is not. The law is the law whether it makes sense or not.

Treated waste, which includes the output of Type I and II MSDs like the Raritan Electroscan, may be discharged EXCEPT in a specific No Discharge Zone (NDZ). Those are listed here.



TakeFive said:


> I also know that you can conduct the experiment and select the data in a way to prove whichever side you want to take.


And this is the problem properly addressed by peer review.



TakeFive said:


> So refusing to accept any explanation until science "proves" something is just a stalling tactic. That "proof" will never come, because special interest groups will hire their own "experts" to pollute the scientific data with dissenting opinions.


See above. The peer review process that leads to good science has been prostituted by dueling experts competing in the press before a public audience that isn't qualified to render judgement. The court of public opinion is demonstrably a bad one.

Unfortunately, politicians who make law don't really understand science, the scientific method, or the scientific process of peer review. They respond to the rantings of the unwashed masses and of special interests who pick and choose "science" to support preconceived notions.

A real scientist has an open mind, and is excited when experimentation and analysis refutes their hypotheses because that means they are on the verge of new understanding. I don't see a whole lot of that from the environmental interests or industry, although in my opinion in very recent years industry seems to show more open mindedness than the environmental activists.


----------



## captain jack

Minnewaska said:


> Here is a perfect example of my point. We've observed the earth is flat, therefore, it must be flat.
> 
> I take no exception to humans having impacted our water quality (air quality too). The question at hand is whether recreational boat waste is having any measurable impact upon it. Narragansett Bay continue to have more sewage, even net of treatment, dumped into it every single day than every single boat within our State could possible dump in a decade.
> 
> I also reject the "why add to it" agrument, which is also just intuitive. Would dumping a 15 gallons holding tank right off Beavertail in open ocean add to it? I would like to see any study that could suggest it did. I'm not suggesting dropping a tank in the deepest coves within the Bay.
> 
> All life on earth impacts the environment to a degree. It's the degree that is important, not the absolute.
> 
> The planet and everything upon it has evolved over millions of years and will continue to do so. Trying to keep everything exactly as we found it, is scientifically absurd.
> 
> And this is the default argument, whenever a rational discussion on this topic ensues and people's intuition is being challenged. Not one post above suggested anything that could remotely be interpreted this way. MSDs are clearly required in many circumstances. The discussion is about scientifically determining where the proper boundary lies.
> 
> Understand how this process works in the government. They pander for votes to the uninformed. Both parties. You do know that the EPA is actively discussing having no-discharge requirements on boats for your grey water too (sinks, showers, etc)? Do you think the boundary will be based on science or intuition?


i thoroughly agree with everything you said. (well, except that the idea that people used to believe the world was flat is a myth. we know the greeks and norse didn't believe that. since our modern world came after those cultures, it is doubtful that between the vikings and the rennaisance, people forgot. even during the middle ages, people sailed across the horizon, even if only the southern horizon. the chinese had sailed around a lot of the world so i seriously doubt they did. in fact, anyone who has walked or ridden or sailed far enough to cross where their previous horizon was would have to figure that out.)

that was a seriously rational post based on reason and logic. you are right. everyone is about extremes. either you do it all or nothing. it's like no one really cares about the issue to want to find fact and truth. it's our side or their side. kind of like a football game. every issue seems to be that way, now.


----------



## captain jack

SVAuspicious said:


> There are at least three categories of approach here: science, law, and politics. They are only mildly interrelated.
> 
> The problem is that the public doesn't understand what "real science" is. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't make what they say real science. The product of discussion through publication in peer-reviewed journals is real science.
> 
> This is where vested interests, whether environmental groups, government agencies, or companies, fall short. A "report" or "study" not subject to peer review really isn't science. It is only a candidate for science.
> 
> Vocabulary is important. A "no discharge zone" (NDZ) is a very specific thing. See the EPA description of the law which says in part:
> 
> If you go to the underlying law, the word "discharge" is defined as coming from a boat system of any kind. Case law makes it clear that a bucket is a system. I'm not defending that decision, but it exists. Accordingly urination or defection directly into the water is legal, but the use of a bucket is not. The law is the law whether it makes sense or not.
> 
> Treated waste, which includes the output of Type I and II MSDs like the Raritan Electroscan, may be discharged EXCEPT in a specific No Discharge Zone (NDZ). Those are listed here.
> 
> And this is the problem properly addressed by peer review.
> 
> See above. The peer review process that leads to good science has been prostituted by dueling experts competing in the press before a public audience that isn't qualified to render judgement. The court of public opinion is demonstrably a bad one.
> 
> Unfortunately, politicians who make law don't really understand science, the scientific method, or the scientific process of peer review. They respond to the rantings of the unwashed masses and of special interests who pick and choose "science" to support preconceived notions.
> 
> A real scientist has an open mind, and is excited when experimentation and analysis refutes their hypotheses because that means they are on the verge of new understanding. I don't see a whole lot of that from the environmental interests or industry, although in my opinion in very recent years industry seems to show more open mindedness than the environmental activists.


this is the problem with almost all modern issues where science and policy are combined. tobacco, pot, global warming, alcohol; you name it. science is tainted, often with fraudulent data or tweaked standards, to prove the outcome desired by one side or the other. then a good bit of emotional BS is added in to sell it to the public.

it's to the point that you really have no idea what is true or not. personally, i try to eliminate things that i find out are direct fraud. then i apply logic and reason to conclusions to see if they are sensible. even doing this can only lead you to a state of opinion and conjecture. real scientific method, by real scientists only interested in truth, is the only was to try to achieve actual knowledge and understanding.

but actual truth has to be the goal. in the modern world, it rarely is.


----------



## danvon

One thing to remember is that dumping sewage into water has effects beyond whether it can be seen/smelled or whether live bacteria can be detected. A major cause of deterioration in marine ecosystems is eutrophication (addition of nutrients through sewage, agricultural runoff, etc.). In any given marine area the limit on growth of things like algae is likely set by the availability of nutrients like nitrogen (N) or phosphate (P). If the concentration of the limiting nutrients is increased, growth of algae may be promoted. That can shift the mix of species living in the ecosystem, sometimes dramatically. 

Whether the sewage is diluted beyond visibility does not change this, and whether or not the bacteria in the sewage is dead or alive when it hits the water also does not change this. It's simply the increased concentration of the N or P (pun intended) in the water that does this. While a recreational boat dumping its tanks in the open ocean would be expected to have a negligible effect, doing so in an area like a small bay or a harbor could very well lead to algae growth and ecosystem disruption. Among other systems, coral reefs are quite susceptible to damage caused by excess nutrients.


----------



## danvon

It occurs to me that the birdseed in your yard is acting somewhat like a limiting nutrient for the squirrel population.


----------



## captain jack

danvon said:


> One thing to remember is that dumping sewage into water has effects beyond whether it can be seen/smelled or whether live bacteria can be detected. A major cause of deterioration in marine ecosystems is eutrophication (addition of nutrients through sewage, agricultural runoff, etc.). In any given marine area the limit on growth of things like algae is likely set by the availability of nutrients like nitrogen (N) or phosphate (P). If the concentration of the limiting nutrients is increased, growth of algae may be promoted. That can shift the mix of species living in the ecosystem, sometimes dramatically.
> 
> Whether the sewage is diluted beyond visibility does not change this, and whether or not the bacteria in the sewage is dead or alive when it hits the water also does not change this. It's simply the increased concentration of the N or P (pun intended) in the water that does this. While a recreational boat dumping its tanks in the open ocean would be expected to have a negligible effect, doing so in an area like a small bay or a harbor could very well lead to algae growth and ecosystem disruption. Among other systems, coral reefs are quite susceptible to damage caused by excess nutrients.


all very true and good points. however, i think what minnewaska is saying is very relevant. how much can be attributed to joe sailor taking a crap and how much from industry and agricultural runoff. there is a lot more than farming to consider when you talk of agriculrtural runoff. it doesn't get mentioned a lot but lawncare (a profession i used to have- as a certified pesticide applicator) ad landscaping creates a lot of runoff. in the DC and Baltimore areas, for instance, a lot of the street drainage dumps right into local waters. you even have warnings about this on storm drains. yet, fertilizer is applied to a lot of lawns, especially in more afluential areas like Northwest DC. rain hits the lawn right after application and, depending on how hard it rains, some fertilizer gets absorbed into the soil and some runs right into the gutter. even what gets absorbed can end up in the water. fertilizer commonly used by lawncare companies contains a high amount of nitrogen. the company i worked for used 29-6-10. 29 being nitrogen.

then, there is also road salt to consider. in a bad winter a lot of that goes down on the roads. where do you think it ends up? road salt and fertilizer both have simlar chemistry. they can both green up grass or burn it.

so, the question is, what percentage of these nutrients that enters the water is from land based sweage? what percent from pleasure boating? what percent from industry? and what percent from the various agricultural sources?

a responsible and effective solution can only be found if you know this information. anything else will simply be hit or miss knee jerk reaction based on intuition...or, more often, based on who has more money to grease the palms of the EPA. a lot of EPA regulation is nothing more than croney capitalism (read: socialism) where a rich, powerful industry pays the agency to enact regulations in it's favor and call it environmentalism. that's whay they often seem to crack down on stuff with much less impact yet do nothing about very serious matters. monet talks and.....well, you know the rest.

pleasure boaters are easy to pick on. we don't have a lot of power to throw around. industry and big agriculture haas a lot of power. so, if you want to make it look like you are doing something about polution but, you can choose to face a heavy hitter or a little leage player, who do you think it's easier and more profitable to face?


----------



## captain jack

danvon said:


> It occurs to me that the birdseed in your yard is acting somewhat like a limiting nutrient for the squirrel population.


you can't act in any way without having some effect. the only way to eradicate human impact is to eradicate humans.


----------



## danvon

I agree that ag runoff and municipal sewage discharges are likely the biggest problems (far bigger than joe boater & his daily crap; see the "dead zone" at the mouth of the Mississipi) but that doesn't mean that what the rest of us do don't matter. In particular, ag runoff tends to get flushed out through large river systems and muni sewage outflows are deliberately sited some distance offshore. My concern in anchorages/harbors is that, for very good reasons, we tend to anchor in small protected inlets which are the kind of place that is susceptible to local concentrations of whatever gets dumped out. 

No question that lawn food is a big part of the problem. I don't really know about road salt - if it is mostly sodium chloride than it would be almost instantly swamped by the salt in seawater (unlike N and P, which are limiting nutrients, Na and Cl are very abundant in the water already so its hard to see how a small increase would matter). Now, if the road salt is running off into a body of fresh water, I can see things being very different. Personally, I'd prefer they stop salting the roads and destroying my car anyway.

and to be honest, I don't see a requirement that I pump out the holding tank instead of dumping it near shore is much of an oppressive regulation.


----------



## SVAuspicious

captain jack said:


> science is tainted, often with fraudulent data or tweaked standards, to prove the outcome desired by one side or the other. then a good bit of emotional BS is added in to sell it to the public.


Science is only tainted because people use the label in ignorant and uninformed or deliberately misleading ways.



captain jack said:


> then, there is also road salt to consider. in a bad winter a lot of that goes down on the roads. where do you think it ends up? road salt and fertilizer both have simlar chemistry. they can both green up grass or burn it.


I'm sure different material is used in different places. The jurisdictions I am familiar with use sodium chloride or potassium chloride.



captain jack said:


> so, the question is, what percentage of these nutrients that enters the water is from land based sweage? what percent from pleasure boating? what percent from industry? and what percent from the various agricultural sources?


A reasonable question but that hasn't been the way that law is written. Boaters are a visible target that make the politicians look like they are doing something. So we have law to deal with and there is little controlling agricultural or residential run-off or of waste treatment overflow.


----------



## captain jack

danvon said:


> I agree that ag runoff and municipal sewage discharges are likely the biggest problems (far bigger than joe boater & his daily crap; see the "dead zone" at the mouth of the Mississipi) but that doesn't mean that what the rest of us do don't matter. In particular, ag runoff tends to get flushed out through large river systems and muni sewage outflows are deliberately sited some distance offshore. My concern in anchorages/harbors is that, for very good reasons, we tend to anchor in small protected inlets which are the kind of place that is susceptible to local concentrations of whatever gets dumped out.
> 
> No question that lawn food is a big part of the problem. I don't really know about road salt - if it is mostly sodium chloride than it would be almost instantly swamped by the salt in seawater (unlike N and P, which are limiting nutrients, Na and Cl are very abundant in the water already so its hard to see how a small increase would matter). Now, if the road salt is running off into a body of fresh water, I can see things being very different. Personally, I'd prefer they stop salting the roads and destroying my car anyway.
> 
> and to be honest, I don't see a requirement that I pump out the holding tank instead of dumping it near shore is much of an oppressive regulation.


the chesapeake bay, and it's tributaries, was on my mind when i listed road salt.

but, again, no one is suggesting no regulations. obviously, small, enclosed areas should be no dump zones.


----------



## captain jack

SVAuspicious said:


> Science is only tainted because people use the label in ignorant and uninformed or deliberately misleading ways.
> 
> I'm sure different material is used in different places. The jurisdictions I am familiar with use sodium chloride or potassium chloride.
> 
> *A reasonable question but that hasn't been the way that law is written. Boaters are a visible target that make the politicians look like they are doing something. So we have law to deal with and there is little controlling agricultural or residential run-off or of waste treatment overflow.*


of course, but that's what we are discussing. regulations can change. supposedly, the idea behind the law is to protect the environment, reduce negative human impact, and promote human safety. arbitrary, poorly informed laws aren't going to be as effective in accomplishing those goals as regulation based on actual science and fact.

and you are right; boaters are an easy, visible target. we don't have the pull of agriculture and industry. the perfect victims. which is what i already said. but, that doesn't make it right, or environmentally effective, to regulate the crap out of boaters while letting the big guys do what they like.

i believe, that's the point of the call for accurate science.


----------



## Minnewaska

danvon said:


> ....My concern in anchorages/harbors is that, for very good reasons, we tend to anchor in small protected inlets which are the kind of place that is susceptible to local concentrations of whatever gets dumped out.


No one has suggested permitting dumping in small protected inlets. That's typical pushback, when one doesn't have any scientific basis for their desire.



> and to be honest, I don't see a requirement that I pump out the holding tank instead of dumping it near shore is much of an oppressive regulation.


And there you have it. We all want the same environmental outcome, but we have regulation, not due to scientific justification, but rather because some don't find it oppressive. The Tories didn't find King George oppressive either.


----------



## PorFin

Rehashing what's probably been said earlier, but...

Targeting recreational boaters is picking the low hanging fruit -- on the surface it looks like you're doing something ("Yea!"), and it has no adverse impact on the majority of voters ("meh.") Whether or not it is having any appreciable impact on reducing the levels of pollution makes no difference.

I don't resent discharge rules, and I've been encouraged by the growth of municipal programs that fund pump-out services both ashore and afloat. 

What DOES bug me is the differing enforcement. The really big violators (farmers, failing sewer systems and sewage treatment facilities) get away with basically a slap on the wrist after discharging MILLIONS of gallons of effluent, while boaters who don't have their Y-valves secured get hefty fines levied by the boat posse (even if there's no indication of actual discharge; i.e. assumption of guilt as opposed to assumption of innocence.) 

Again, we (rec boaters) are the easy targets. 

Oh, and about squirrels -- ever tried to walk under a pine tree that's supporting a healthy squirrel population? Better not try it barefooted.

And "squirrel-proof" bird feeders are a myth.


----------



## mr_f

Much of this conversation seems to have revolved around the fact that an individual boat's effluent is of little consequence. Some of it seems to at least allude to the fact that a million gallons of effluent is meaningful. So, without staking any claim on what the right balance is, I will point out that according to this, better pump-out facilities and education have increased pump-out usage by nearly a million gallons per year in Maryland in around 8 years time (it does not provide information on what percentage was caused by change in number of people using boats):



> O'Neill estimates that 1 million gallons of human waste a year are now being pumped out of boats in the state and sent to wastewater treatment plants. In 1994, less than 65,000 gallons were pumped out.


Bay Journal - Article: Bay?s first ?no discharge? zone established

(I will conveniently side-step the fact that over 3 million gallons of sewage leaked into the bay in a single storm near Baltimore)
https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2014/...sewage-flowed-into-harbor-during-record-rain/


----------



## Minnewaska

I would still like to see a study in the Chessy, but it's less likely a candidate for no detection. Albeit, even one million gallons over the course of a year is an infinitesimal quantity, compared to the water volume of the Chessy. Nevertheless, it may lack circulation to properly distribute and timely degrade the waste. 

Up here, our Bay fully changes its water every couple of weeks and I believe the lower Bay does so every couple of days. Something like that. Still, I'm looking for a study that looks at the impact of a recreational boat discharge at or near the opening to the ocean, not deep in the Bay. Although, that would also be fascinating.

For those that just can't get their heads around any environmental change, caused by any animal or natural event, Narragansett Bay was originally a fresh water lake. When the ocean level rose (yes tens of thousands of years before we had carbon emissions), the salt water from the ocean invaded the lake and it became the Bay we know today. You can bet that any fresh water living creature died as a result. Could you imagine the modern outrage at this natural occurrence?

In order to hopefully avoid the uninformed pushback, I'll repeat myself. I'm not advocating the elimination of restriction. I only wish its boundaries were based upon science and not ignorant intuition. It's altogether possible that a boat dumping its waste at the mouth of the Bay is entirely better for the environment than concentrating it ashore and occasionally finding it's way spilled back into the Bay in great concentration.


----------



## FarCry

My waste will be my income stream and helpful to others!!! At least it could be according to this article. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...d-help-save-lives-heres-how-you-can-do-it.htm


----------



## PorFin

Minnewaska said:


> For those that just can't get their heads around any environmental change, caused by any animal or natural event, Narragansett Bay was originally a fresh water lake. When the ocean level rose (yes tens of thousands of years before we had carbon emissions), the salt water from the ocean invaded the lake and it became the Bay we know today. You can bet that any fresh water living creature died as a result. Could you imagine the modern outrage at this natural occurrence?


And to take this thread in ANOTHER direction...

The Black Sea was also once an inland lake. According to one hypothesis, When the Med finally breached a path through the Bosporus in c. 5600BC, it raised water levels ~500'. The shore line was shifting inland as much as 1 km a day in some areas, and displaced communities (think TVA relocation, but on a larger scale and with no compensation.) Some attribute this event as the source of the Great Flood myths that exist in religious histories.

Now THAT would have raised some voter anger today.

No data indicating whether or not squirrels also suffered as a result...


----------



## appick

You guys really don't know what you're missing by throwing all those dead squirrels away! Squirrel-B-ques are great and delicious, every time open season on small game around here me and some friends will get together for a hunt a make a batch. Sure they aren't the most efficient way to get a meal what with the miles of walking and time spent skinning, but they are good.


----------



## ccriders

Minnewaska said:


> MSDs are clearly required in many circumstances. The discussion is about scientifically determining where the proper boundary lies.
> 
> Understand how this process works in the government. They pander for votes to the uninformed. Both parties. You do know that the EPA is actively discussing having no-discharge requirements on boats for your grey water too (sinks, showers, etc)? Do you think the boundary will be based on science or intuition?


I think you have proposed an impossible task - determining scientifically where one can empty a holding tank without negative impact on the local environment. Even if you could make these determinations, how would you identify them and then enforce them? Three miles was easy, a concept already in existence even though it is not always measurable.
Yes I'm aware of the move to control gray water and that is much more problematic than sewage for existing boat owners. It should also be easier to demonstrate scientifically that gray water does not pose an invironmental risk simply by analyzing typical gray water. 
Once I received a photo shot from an airplane cockpit of Naragansat Bay on what must have been a glorious Sunday afternoon. The bay was wall to wall boats. I will never see such a large number of sailboats in one small body of water. If they were all discharging sewage, then the volume would be significant.
And lastly, politicians pander to the uninformed using money from vested interests. Data, methods and conclusions are all subject to collusion, leaving one to rely on personal observation and healthy dialogue. It is difficult to not become a tool of a vested interests.
John


----------



## danvon

Minnewaska said:


> "No one has suggested permitting dumping in small protected inlets. That's typical pushback, when one doesn't have any scientific basis for their desire."
> 
> "And there you have it. We all want the same environmental outcome, but we have regulation, not due to scientific justification, but rather because some don't find it oppressive. The Tories didn't find King George oppressive either.


"

I'm not "pushing back" at all, and there is plenty of scientific evidence that says nutrient enrichment in bodies of water that don't flush out the same way as the open ocean does is a large problem. This thread started because charter companies in some places in the Caribbean apparently don't use holding tanks at all, meaning that EVERYTHING gets sent directly overboard whether or not you are in a harbor or anchorage. My point was that that's exactly the situation where the extra nutrient load in the sewage would be expected to have the most effect, and that whether you can see/smell the sewage is not the best indicator of whether you are contributing to the problem.

I certainly agree that at least using a small holding tank until you get back to open water is a huge improvement. Others have pointed out that some of the islands down there may not have good systems to deal with pumping out large tanks so maybe that is a best practice in those spots. However, here in the US we DO have systems to handle the waste that gets pumped out. Given that the best practice would be to use at lease a small holding tank, why not just use it for everything & pump it all out instead of discharging onto the inland waters most of us boat in (Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, etc.)?

Yes, the ag people are worse polluters. But saying "the other guy is worse so leave me alone" is a poor way to set standards. It is not like a significant expense is being imposed on us (pumping out does not cost me a dime).

Not quite sure I see the parallel between requiring proper waste disposal and King George's edicts, by the way. I suppose if i were required to quarter troops on my boat I'd agree with your analogy (warrantless searches of boats IS a significant infringement on civil rights, IMHO, but that's another issue for another thread of course).


----------



## Minnewaska

danvon said:


> ......why not just use it for everything & pump it all out instead of discharging onto the inland waters most of us boat in (Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, etc.)?.....


We should use holding tanks where appropriate. The argument that 3 miles makes sense, with no useful data to back it up is difficult to accept.

I think you also missed the point that municipal treatment plants are routinely dumping waste, in overwhelming concentrations, into our waterways every single day. In other words, your pump out! Ironic.


----------



## Minnewaska

danvon said:


> ..Not quite sure I see the parallel between requiring proper waste disposal and King George's edicts, by the way......


It referred to you being okay with our government's edict, despite having no evidence that the specifics make any difference. Many of us are not. I would like to protect the environment, but know that what I'm spending time and money to do even matters.


----------



## Minnewaska

ccriders said:


> ...Once I received a photo shot from an airplane cockpit of Naragansat Bay on what must have been a glorious Sunday afternoon. The bay was wall to wall boats.....


Total BS. At best, you would see such a sight from the air, directly in front of Newport in the East Passage. The West Passage might have a couple hundred boats from Quonset to Beavertail on a busy day. That's 8 miles long!!

The proposition that you saw wall to wall boats from Providence to the the Atlantic, especially considering they would actually look further apart from above, is fabricated.

Again, for goodness sakes, I do not object to limitations on waste discharge. It's a matter of determining where.


----------



## captain jack

Minnewaska said:


> No one has suggested permitting dumping in small protected inlets. That's typical pushback, when one doesn't have any scientific basis for their desire.
> 
> And there you have it. We all want the same environmental outcome, but we have regulation, not due to scientific justification, but rather because some don't find it oppressive. The Tories didn't find King George oppressive either.


it's like the people who say they don't care if the government spies on them because, they aren't doing anything wrong.


----------



## captain jack

appick said:


> You guys really don't know what you're missing by throwing all those dead squirrels away! Squirrel-B-ques are great and delicious, every time open season on small game around here me and some friends will get together for a hunt a make a batch. Sure they aren't the most efficient way to get a meal what with the miles of walking and time spent skinning, but they are good.


my grandfather used to hunt squirrels and i have eaten many a fried squirrel. tasty but really boney. you work less picking steamed crabs.


----------



## Group9

captain jack said:


> my grandfather used to hunt squirrels and i have eaten many a fried squirrel. tasty but really boney. you work less picking steamed crabs.


My father used to make a really good squirrel stew (and we would throw some rabbits in to when we had them).


----------

