Because it's "politically correct". Has no basis in science however.

--


Keith
__
"History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political
freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition." - Milton Friedman
"Everett" wrote in message
...
So why doesn't Southern California allow Electra-San treated discharge??

Everett
Long Beach, CA

"Peggie Hall" wrote in message
...
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

wrote:
No, I don't **** in my sink, but then again, if you eat organically
grown foods, they are fertilized with feces.

If you avoid eating "organically grown foods" (is there really such a
thing as inorganically grown?) with the **** still clinging to it, then
maybe you begin to understand.

In the right place, in the right amounts, feces & urine do no harm to
the environment. When directly deposited in areas where it's not
currently part of the local ecology, then it changes (ie damages) the
local ecology.

Due to vastly increased human population, we either need to contain our
waste products in local ecologies that can handle it, or simply turn the
whole world into a cesspool.

Your call.

DSK

Everett wrote:
So why doesn't Southern California allow Electra-San treated discharge??

Everett

"Peggie Hall" wrote in message
...

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?

There is a movement afoot to ban chlorine as a deadly poison. We
should minimise or eleiminate poisonous chlorine. -tk

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

....For an area about twice the size of your boat, for about 20
minutes, after which the effect becomes the same as if there was
about one boat using the area for ten minutes per day. It's a
question of concentrations, not quantity. It's the same as peeing
over the side when you need to, or holding it for ten minutes or so,
then peeing over the side. It's a sin which boaters are incapable of
comitting on any scale comparable to any municipal government. Who
should be getting chased over this? Municipal taxpayers and feedlot
operators and agricultural producers and their customers. (That's
"us" folks!) We can't afford wars overseas, we got a war to win in
our own back yard.

And to add to the panic, just think of the devastation to the
ecology whenever a large fish dies. The rotting corpse, full of
deadly E.Coli, fairly explodes with pathogens and methane, wiping
out entire oceans of tiny aquatic phytoplankton victims, force fed
to death, and endangered further by feeding their most deadly
enemies. What is worse is that the local scavangers reproduce
freely as a result, which hugely increases the danger that their
population will overload the ecosystem of an entire region.

The reason they keep swimming in Shanghai harbour is, they got no
where else to go, murcury or no.

We need to do one of two things:

Improve health care for large fish, so as to improve the scenery for
tourists, our only hope for a viable economy, or,

Wipe out those fish which die too often, so as to clean up the
beaches and get rid of those nasty scavangers. Starve them I say,
just like killing the Bison got rid of the pesky native indigenous
primates that stood in the way of an effective economy here in North
America 400 years ago.

Tripe, anyone?

Nature has been looking after herself for a while, as she will
continue to do long after all of stupid humanity has rotted away and
the reptiles take over again. Oh, unless the globe is all
radioactive, in which case, it wil be the insects that take over.

The real question is how and when, not if.

We are being mislead by greedy fools, again, still.

A side of hubris with that?

Terry K

I support David Suzuki as this year's greatest Canadian, but what's
he gonna do for us next year? What are YOU gonna do? That will be
his real measure.

Eric Currier wrote:

I've been reading both sides of this argument and I'd like to add my two
cents....(IE, not worth much).

The arguement seems to waver around the FACT (bold type because it is a
fact) that fish and other animals defecate in the water.

The arguement is that if most people consider water that is full [? -tk] of natural
feces to be "clean", then a little of their own will not harm anything.

The water ways and oceans have a considerable ability to clean themselves
and not only does the natural feces exist, it can benifit the enviroment by
adding to the food chain.

The word "clean" offends, here. In nature here is no such thing as
clean, but only a lick and a promise, part of a process.


The problem starts when the natural balances get out of balance.

As an example, put the recomended amount of fertilizer on your garden and
your flowers and vegetables should grow and produce better, but put 10 or
100 times of the recomended amount of fertilizer on your garden and your
yield is not 10 or 100 times better, instead the ground is "burned",
nothing will grow. The plants that needed the fertilizer and used the
fertilizer can no longer live on the over fertilized soil and it will be
many years before it will be possible to use that soil again.

Water flowing down from a mountain top is very clean, even though fish are
crapping in it (lots of water, few fish), later it goes through a pasture
with some cattle in it and it is less clean (still lots of water, but now
more crap), it then goes by the Coors plant (not trying to pick on them) and
now it is even less clean (water, crap, and some beer), the water is still
considered almost pure because there are very small percentages of crap and
beer. It then goes to a town and after being treated with clorine, flourine
and other chemicals it is used as fresh water, it then gets more crap added,
more chemicals, some treatment and is discharged back into the stream. Many
towns and cities later it reaches the Ocean, I doubt if there are very many
people in this group who would be willing to walk down to the river bank
close to where it reaches the Ocean and have several large glasses of river
water.

So now the water has reached the Ocean, it is a much higher level of crap,
chemicals and other polution in it than the water did 200 years ago did, and
what do we find on the edge of the Ocean? Some of our biggest cities,
producing even more polution, crap and chemicals.

So if you look at the Ocean as a garden you can see that the natural cycle
would let it clean itself and even a little additional polution can be
tolerated, the problem is when the amounts get too high.

Early in WWII German submarines ravaged the East coast, this was even more
critical when you realize that at the time almost all of the oil for the
east coast was transported by ship. for years after WWII you could go to
most any east coast beach and dig down a few feet and find oil. Over time
all this oil has been cleaned up...by the Ocean, but it takes time, a lot of
time.

Have you ever driven down a highway and been disgusted by all the trash that
you see along the way? All that trash was not caused by one person (usually)
but instead was the product of a bunch of people thinking "there is already
some trash out there, one more piece won't matter".

"No one raindrop blames itself for the flood"

I wrote this because I want people to realize that the big question is "are
you adding to the problem, or are you adding to the solution" or
"a turd in the right place is fertilizer, a turd in the wrong place is
polution".

Eric



Good on ya, Eric. You are on the right track. So, now what? Do we
exterminate all coastal cities, or only those inland?

We need a better attitude and method of treating huge concentrations
of human waste. Not just excretia, but tin lids, old TV's and
Gutenburg's revenge, red glossy cardboard, which won't even burn good.

To preserve landfill, crude oil, natural gas and recycling
requirements, all packaging should be useable as a clean fuel or
recycled or refilled.

We also need catalytic or limestone converters for carbon dioxide
for industrial purposes and eventual home use. Better heavy ash
than carbon dioxide? We need photo voltaic shingles for our roofs,
hydrogen storage bags in our attics or two wat power meters, we need
domestic hot water and heating water preheaters on our roofs to keep
the photovoltaic cells cool and save energy production requirements,
we need better insulation to keep our houses cool in the summer and
warm in the winter and lots more.

There is a lot of room for new industry. Only the oil guys have the
capital to do it independantly. We need to outbid them for control
of the next big power industry. Only a people's government can do
anything, but who controls that?

Human manure needs to be treated as a valuable resource, which it
is. What can we mine from it (cellulose?), or mill from it
(fertiliser?), or refine from it (silica? drinking water?), or cook
it into with say, agriculural waste product like straw or hemp
leaves? Can we convert it into, dare I suggest, crude oil? How can
we do it with minimum impact on the potable water supply and on the
fishy sea? Why do we waste it by throwing it away, poisoning the
shoreline and the boating environment? We will need an honest, non
profit approach to some things.

Maybe some day a photovoltaic array big enough to shade a
significant portion of deserts, with greenhouses in the shade using
sewage to grow corn to feed livestock and distill alcohol for fuel?
That is a serendipitous synergy that could work. Too many windmills
could cause desertification and mass butchery of birds, let alone
the noise pollution.

Why do we not have seperate sanitary and runoff drainage systems in
new housing areas, with boglike discharge areas to grow shellfish
and clean our discharge for those downstream? What plans are made
for the eventual repair and replacement of present infrastructure
municipal sewers?

Where do you think fossil oil came from? Dead stuff, is where,
common dirt, squashed anaerobically. There is a process which can
use household waste food to produce crude oil. I bet the process is
poisoned by trace contaminents like, oh I don't know, paint, or the
fact that the profit centre for oil is right now located elsewhere,
and is infinitely more attractive to anyone with an oil well still
producing in his back yard.

Yes, this is on topic for better boating with fewer stupid restrictions.

Terry K

I support David Suzuki as this year's greatest Canadian, but what's
he gonna do for us next year? What are YOU gonna do? That will be
his real measure.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:08:16 GMT, "Keith"
wrote:

Oops, sorry. It's illegal to discharge even olive oil...
http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/vegoil.htm

Hmm...so if I put "bio-diesel" in my boat engine obtained by back-yard
distillation of Chinese deep-fryer cast-offs, will I be breaking the
law if a drop of wok leavings scented lightly with pork flies out the
stern?

There *is* a sensible middle ground here, but it's notoriously hard to
find middle ground on water, I find.

R.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:06:12 -0400, Terry Spragg
wrote:


We are being mislead by greedy fools, again, still.

rant

Always. How is the eco-scam different from the cigarette scam (4 out
of 5 Doctors Recommend Metholated Cigarettes for Colds!) of 50 years
ago?

The true, unbiased science and the real risks of human behaviour, or
sins of omission/commission, are always clouded by those interests
that stand to make a buck by minimizing or over-stating those risks.

There used to be such a thing as common sense, and sailors usually had
it more than most people because in part of the dangers of going on
the water.

If you plan your "lifestyle" of cruising or recreational boating with
this in mind, things become simpler. The fact that the average farm
craps into the water exponentially greater amounts of pollutants than
the average marina doesn't in my opinion let boaters off the hook. If
we are conscious and responsible people (who are privileged in world
terms to be lucky enough to go sailing in the first place), then it is
our positive self-interest to keep our waters as clean as possible,
particularly when the fix is behavioural...like choosing a toilet or a
bilge pump method.

I was going to mention how the dreaded zebra mussel has really cleaned
up Lake Ontario, but that clean up has come at the expense of the food
chain. A clear lake devoid of plankton is not healthy, but empty.
Bilge pump behaviours of humans directly caused those changes, and
have brought a ravenous goby into our waters. So long, salmon!

/rant

On 19 Nov 2004 06:25:24 GMT, (LaBomba182) wrote:

I see your points and agree.

Fair enough...G

It's just that I've seen and heard that "I'm an environmentally correct
superior sailor and all you stink potters are polluters" once to often.

Are you a stinkpotter? I am not against stinkpotters in the least,
particularly those who are bugged enough by thousand-dollar fill-ups
to rethink the whole topic G. Seriously, boating (slow-turning
diesels that can run on soya oil, room for lots of batteries for
electric units) has a lot of room for innovation. How practical these
technologies are depends on the price of oil. Like the price of
Picassos, that is going in only one direction unless we discover an
asteroid made of No. 1 Light Crude G

And like I said it was just a rant. :-)

Not a problem. I don't like the righteous, either in religion or in
ecology. I do feel it's what individuals do and choose (like my
decision to not own a car) that makes a difference.

By the way, I will *rent* a car occasionally. How else would I get the
canvas boat cover and frame to my club, and the Zodiac and the
outboard back to the otherwise empty garage? G

And the savings of not owning a car frees up about $5K a year on
average toward the next boat BEG!

See, ecology pays!

R.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:21:19 -0500, rhys wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:08:16 GMT, "Keith"
wrote:

Oops, sorry. It's illegal to discharge even olive oil...
http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/vegoil.htm

Hmm...so if I put "bio-diesel" in my boat engine obtained by back-yard
distillation of Chinese deep-fryer cast-offs, will I be breaking the
law if a drop of wok leavings scented lightly with pork flies out the
stern?

Looks like you just have to follow the same precautions you would with
ordinary diesel, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

There *is* a sensible middle ground here, but it's notoriously hard to
find middle ground on water, I find.

Check the charts of the St. Clair River just south of Port Huron /
Sarnia (and a bunch of other places) for something clearly labelled
"middle ground" that you very much don't want to find ;-)

Ryk

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:00:07 -0500, DSK wrote:


In the right place, in the right amounts, feces & urine do no harm to
the environment. When directly deposited in areas where it's not
currently part of the local ecology, then it changes (ie damages) the
local ecology.

And exactly where, prey tell, is a place in the ocean that is not a
fish bathroom? If you really want to be exact, most fish populations
are relatively close to shore so the rules limiting discharge in
coastal waters actually runs counter to what is natural.

Due to vastly increased human population, we either need to contain our
waste products in local ecologies that can handle it, or simply turn the
whole world into a cesspool.

Compared to the number of fish - compared to the amount of fish waste
discharged - human discharges into water are minor indeed.

Your call.

yep



Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

wrote:
And exactly where, prey tell, is a place in the ocean that is not a
fish bathroom?

Does the difference between humans and fishes pass right through your
mental digestive tract without leaving any thought residue?

DSK