....CUT...
removing it altogether...why store waste aboard if you can discharge it
legally AND with far less negative environmental impact than dumping a
tank?

just curious... Do you like to swim in your s**t?

Paolo

Paolo Zini wrote:
...CUT...

removing it altogether...why store waste aboard if you can discharge it
legally AND with far less negative environmental impact than dumping a
tank?

just curious... Do you like to swim in your s**t?

Every sewage treatment plant in the world discharges into somebody's
waters...so it's just a matter of how well treated you want it to be.

And fwiw, the negative impact from just ONE dumped holding tank is
greater on the surrounding waters than that from 1000 boats, all using
Lectra/Sans, in the same waters for 24 hours.


--
Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://69.20.93.241/store/customer/p...40&cat=&page=1

I always read with attention you post and I have learned a lot from youi;
but this time I can't agree with you.
just curious... Do you like to swim in your s**t?

Every sewage treatment plant in the world discharges into somebody's
waters...so it's just a matter of how well treated you want it to be.

I don't speak about what is legal.
I express my PERSONAL opinion about what is correct.
My personal opinion is that is uncorrect to dump anything in coastal waters,
also soapy water...

Please discarge your waste few miles away from coast... where currents and
large wather masses can dilute and dissolve it.
Or dump it at marina, where it will be sent to a serious (i hope...)
treatment plant...
If it isn't clear, drinkable water don't dump it in costal waters please.

And fwiw, the negative impact from just ONE dumped holding tank is
greater on the surrounding waters than that from 1000 boats, all using
Lectra/Sans, in the same waters for 24 hours.

I have read the lectra/sans manual.
I am not a specialist, like you, but, if memory helps, salty water
electrolisys produces clorine... (I am right?) this means that the s**t is
macerated and disinfected... But it remains s**t, nice dark s**t.
Maybe that is legal and safe, but is s**t. You would like it in your
swimming pool? No? don't dump it in our swimming pool, please.

This is ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION.

I will continue to read your posts with greatest consideration.

Paolo

Paolo Zini wrote:

I always read with attention you post and I have learned a lot from youi;
but this time I can't agree with you.

just curious... Do you like to swim in your s**t?

Every sewage treatment plant in the world discharges into somebody's
waters...so it's just a matter of how well treated you want it to be.


I don't speak about what is legal.
I express my PERSONAL opinion about what is correct.
My personal opinion is that is uncorrect to dump anything in coastal waters,
also soapy water...

Please discarge your waste few miles away from coast... where currents and
large wather masses can dilute and dissolve it.
Or dump it at marina, where it will be sent to a serious (i hope...)
treatment plant...
If it isn't clear, drinkable water don't dump it in costal waters please.

And fwiw, the negative impact from just ONE dumped holding tank is
greater on the surrounding waters than that from 1000 boats, all using
Lectra/Sans, in the same waters for 24 hours.


I have read the lectra/sans manual.
I am not a specialist, like you, but, if memory helps, salty water
electrolisys produces clorine... (I am right?) this means that the s**t is
macerated and disinfected... But it remains s**t, nice dark s**t.
Maybe that is legal and safe, but is s**t. You would like it in your
swimming pool? No? don't dump it in our swimming pool, please.

This is ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION.

To be consistent then, your opinion should include having a little chat
with all the fish ****ting in your pool, see if you can get them to stop.

Stephen

Don't forget ducks, seagulls, etc.
To add a little more confusion to the marine water pollution arguments, the

journal SCIENCE (29 Mar. 2002) reported on a study which tracked the

biological sources of fecal bacterial in Virginia watersheds. Only 15% of E.

coli bacteria had a human origin (i.e. septic runoff and boat discharge).
The

remainder came from other animal hosts, the largest contributor being

waterfowl with 32.5% of the total. Similar studies are being carried out in

California, Washington, and Oregon.



Whats next? Diapers for geese? What about whales and everything else in the
ocean? Who's gonna change them?

--


Keith
__
There are three simple rules for making a smooth return to your slip.
Unfortunately no one knows what they are.

You would like it in your
swimming pool? No? don't dump it in our swimming pool, please.

This is ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION.

To be consistent then, your opinion should include having a little chat
with all the fish ****ting in your pool, see if you can get them to stop.

Stephen

Keith wrote:
Don't forget ducks, seagulls, etc.
To add a little more confusion to the marine water pollution arguments, the

journal SCIENCE (29 Mar. 2002) reported on a study which tracked the

biological sources of fecal bacterial in Virginia watersheds. Only 15% of E.

coli bacteria had a human origin (i.e. septic runoff and boat discharge).
The

remainder came from other animal hosts, the largest contributor being

waterfowl with 32.5% of the total. Similar studies are being carried out in

California, Washington, and Oregon.



Whats next? Diapers for geese? What about whales and everything else in the
ocean? Who's gonna change them?


What is absolutely mind boggling is that there are people who worry
about that stuff. Anally fixated neurotic paranoia is as sick to the
mind as cholera is to the gut.

Get used to the idea that the top 3 feet of this entire planet is
covered in ****. It is what soil is. Fish ****, bird ****, mammal
**** are all good for you, essential ecological nutrients.

When you eat, what passes through is just not needed or used by your
G.I. tract, it is mainly inert, it is not inherently dangerous,
unless the "donor" is ill with a *pathological* bacterial
infestation, or worms or something. In which case, the afflicted
individual might know and in this day and age, should have emergency
public health assistance easily available, for the betterment of all
of the rest of us. That is what taxation and public health is
supposed to be all about. Public toilets are a big issue right now
in China, where the olympics are bound. Where does a homeless person
go in Noo Yak?

Or is it better to chase the sickos out into the countryside, so
they can die discreetly and fester quietly in a ditch somewhere,
hopefully not too near where the peasants grow our food or draw our
water?

Perhaps some of America's tax slaved military might could be
usefully employed tracking larger sea animals and bombing their
fecal trails with DDT or something? They could contract to get rid
of this offensive chemical.

It is suggested you should take care to ensure that your servants,
close aquaintances and intimate friends are healthy in mind and
body. Beyond that, get over it.

Poo is good for you.

War is dirty, a stupid waste designed to enrich arms dealers alone.

Fuel is a weapon.

Terry K

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:20:39 -0400, Terry Spragg
wrote:


When you eat, what passes through is just not needed or used by your
G.I. tract, it is mainly inert, it is not inherently dangerous,
unless the "donor" is ill with a *pathological* bacterial
infestation, or worms or something. In which case, the afflicted
individual might know and in this day and age, should have emergency
public health assistance easily available, for the betterment of all
of the rest of us.
///
Terry K


Hard to know where to start with this post.

The major component of human faeces is E Coli - that's an intestinal
bacterium.
If much of it gets into the upper digestive tract you are either in
trouble, or in deep trouble.

But I will leave it at that

Brian W

Paolo Zini wrote:
I express my PERSONAL opinion about what is correct.

And you're certainly entitled to it! But let's see what we can do to
make it a more informed opinion.

My personal opinion is that is uncorrect to dump anything in coastal waters,
also soapy water...

That would be a valid concern in many parts of the world where
detergents still contain phosphates and other pollutants, but here in
the US the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 required the
removal of all pollutants from all dishwashing liquids, laundry
detergents, etc--even bilge cleaners and degreasers--sold here. Even TSP
(TriSodiumPhosphate) no longer contains any phosphate...it's been
replaced by a synthetic non-polluting substitute. So the only
pollutants in soapy water are from whatever the soap was used to
clean...for instance, an oily bilge.


Please discarge your waste few miles away from coast... where currents and
large wather masses can dilute and dissolve it.

A flush at time is ok...but a tankful even at sea has a definite
negative impact on the immediate surrounding waters and its inhabitants
before it's diluted and dissipated.

Or dump it at marina, where it will be sent to a serious (i hope...)
treatment plant...

That may or may not overflow and dump it into the waters without
treating it. That's a major problem in some areas...in fact, the EPA has
granted more than 100 New England cities and towns exemptions from
federal standards because their sewage treatment facilities are so old,
or inadequate for an increased population, or in such disrepair--or any
or all of the above. Exactly one week to the day after RI's statewide
no discharge law went into effect, a massive sewage treatment plant
spill closed all the beaches and shellfish beds for several days.

I have read the lectra/sans manual.
I am not a specialist, like you, but, if memory helps, salty water
electrolisys produces clorine... (I am right?)

So far...but--

this means that the s**t is
macerated and disinfected... But it remains s**t, nice dark s**t.

No...that's a common misconception among "no discharge" proponents.
First, it assumes that every flush is fecal matter...when in fact,
unless someone onboard has a serious gastrointestinal problem, only one
or at most two flushes person do...the remaining average 4 toilet
visits/day/person are urine only. Second, the average person
output--including solids--is only about 8 oz...the average flush
including flush water is about half a gallon. So the treated discharge
is highly diluted to begin with. Third, the hypochlorous acid
(chlorine) created by the Lectra/San not only reduces bacteria count to
less than 10/100 mililiter, it also bleaches as it treats...so what
comes out is only about a half gallon that closely resembles skim milk
that's been cut about 2:1 with water....so "thin" and pale in color
that, unless the thru-hull is very close to the waterline, it's totally
unnoticeable to anyone who didn't happen to be diving under the boat
next the thru-hull at the time the toilet is flushed. In fact, I'd bet
real money that you've been moored next to boats using Lectra/Sans and
didn't know it.

Maybe that is legal and safe, but is s**t.

You remind me of the time I was aboard a friend's boat...we were tossing
stale crackers to a flock of about 20 Canada geese gathered off his
stern...doing what geese do whenever the urge strikes--which is often
and plentiful. He was most emphatic about how he didn't want to swim in
$*** and didn't want his kids swimming in it either. But he didn't even
bat an eye when, just after we'd exhausted our supply of stale crackers,
his son dove off the stern of the boat right into the flock of geese. I
managed not to say a word, although I nearly strangled on the effort it
took.

This is ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION.

Again...you're entitled to it! But my own personal opinion is that for
you, perception is 99% of reality...if you were in an anchorage where a
boat was using a Lectra/San and you didn't know it, you'd have no
problem happily swimming around them--and most likely have done so...but
if you found out, you wouldn't go back into the water...'cuz for all of
us, it's mind over matter...once the mind has firmly established its
prejudices, it's amost impossible for reason to overcome them.

I will continue to read your posts with greatest consideration.

And I will continue to respect your opinions. In fact, I doubt that I'll
succeed in changing any of yours...but that's ok...all I can do is try.

--
Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://69.20.93.241/store/customer/p...40&cat=&page=1

As usual your reply is informative and kind.

My personal opinion is that is uncorrect to dump anything in coastal
waters,
also soapy water...

That would be a valid concern in many parts of the world where
....CUT...
. So the only
pollutants in soapy water are from whatever the soap was used to
clean...for instance, an oily bilge.

You aven't got my point: disregarding the legal point or even the chemical
pollution, the soap can be safe and not chemically polluttant (maybe...)
But you can guarantee that the oil (only to remain with your example...)
that the soap as removed is also safe and not polluttant?
And even if it is safe, do you tink that a place full of soap bubbles and
oil and watermelon seeds floating around is nice place where to send the
boys to swim?

......

I have read the lectra/sans manual.
I am not a specialist, like you, but, if memory helps, salty water
electrolisys produces clorine... (I am right?)

So far...but--

this means that the s**t is
macerated and disinfected... But it remains s**t, nice dark s**t.

No...that's a common misconception among "no discharge" proponents.
First, it assumes that every flush is fecal matter...when in fact,
unless someone onboard has a serious gastrointestinal problem,

ROTFL...

only one
or at most two flushes person do...the remaining average 4 toilet
visits/day/person are urine only.

I do believe that your urine don't stinks... mine definitively do...
OK, only kidding.

Second, the average person
output--including solids--is only about 8 oz...the average flush
including flush water is about half a gallon. So the treated discharge
is highly diluted to begin with. Third, the hypochlorous acid
(chlorine) created by the Lectra/San not only reduces bacteria count to
less than 10/100 mililiter, it also bleaches as it treats...so what
comes out is only about a half gallon that closely resembles skim milk
that's been cut about 2:1

Another lesson learned: while swimming, stay away from that looks like
milk...

with water....so "thin" and pale in color
that, unless the thru-hull is very close to the waterline, it's totally

Maybe that the perfect arrangement is your lectra/san discarging into a
tank, to be dumped at marina or 3 NM away from coast. This would solve also
the odor problems... or not?

I would like a similar solution, but, it as obvious, it has down aspects:
1) it needs power. Power, in small sailboat, is a constant concern. You
aren't guaranteed to have it.
2) it needs maintenance. I don't bet on accuracy of maintenance, when, safe
or not, all is dumped overboard...

I have checked also the prices of lectra/san... and it is expensive...

I am building a cat and I was planning to install a Lavac head (manual, no
power requirements...) with tank.
But msd+tank appears interesting...
It is expensive and needs space, but in case of failure of msd the tank can
save the day.

Paolo

No, you should have no marine toilet whatsoever in order to protect the
environment. You should just hold it until you get back, or better yet,
don't boat in "our swimming pool" as you put it.

--


Keith
__
A husband is what is left of a man after the nerve is extracted.
"Paolo Zini" wrote in message
...

I am building a cat and I was planning to install a Lavac head (manual, no
power requirements...) with tank.
But msd+tank appears interesting...
It is expensive and needs space, but in case of failure of msd the tank
can
save the day.

Paolo