| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
More head trip (plumbing issues)
This got lost in the sea clutter of someone changing the title of my
original post, and wasn't responded to. Having just returned from yet another trip to work on the boat, and getting to the point of installation on the new gear, this is pertinent anew: Date: Monday, October 18, 2004 8:30 PM OK, now having returned from my first plumbing expedition, I see that there are some responses. Peggie, my apologies for the paging - it wasn't I :{)) My title was "- Pipe down, you'se guys! he said Archly" - a Swiftie which was lost in the translation... (my prior) I went to check it out and found that the conduit is actually Schedule 40 grey pipe. So, my question is, would this work for the Schedule 40 pipe installations in sanitary service, (Peggie's prior) Ah...I did miss that part. Yes, it can be used in sanitation systems, but is only recommended for long straight runs. And it must be "soft-coupled" to anything fixed in the system--toilet, tank, thru-hull, y-valve, overboard discharge pump--with enough hose to provide shock absorption and protection from cracking due to hull flexing...so unless you have a long straight run of 10' of more (unlikely in any properly designed system on a boat under about 60') you'd have so many unions in the plumbing (potential leaks) that it's not worth doing. Plumb your system with AVS96 sanitation hose (the mfr's original name for the same hose SeaLand sold as the "OdorSafe" brand for a number of years, now sold direct for $5/ft cut to any length), PVC fittings are ok. I'm glad to see that it's available inexpensively (relatively speaking). Since our last exchange on the subject, what's happened about the SLOSafe replacement made in Italy? And, I was unable to find info about fittings. Do you know if aussiegroup handles that, as well? Back to the subject at hand, if getting them in is as easy as getting them out, I'm all for not doing it again. Granted, I had to take out something on the order of double, in that I removed the aft Lectra-San, with its attendant very long runs of hose, *plus* the very tall vented loop runs (seems just *asking* for trouble to have to pump it that high in order to get it out of the boat at the bottom! - you can see it in the /engine room/electrical panels of the boatpix from the below URL), but the wrestling match I had to go through isn't something I'm looking forward to duplicating! On the subject of the vented loop, it's *right* on the centerline, and, based on the lavatory in the aft head, considerably above the water line. On the center line, how far above the water line does it have to be for safety? Above any level of conceivable heel's waterline? Given that it's full of water and other crap (pardon the expression), all the time, against the duckbill, it makes me wonder. On the subject of joints, I'm of distinctly curious mind. While my current home isn't this way, my prior home had hundreds of feet of PVC pipe run, with all the necessary ells, Ts and other fittings, all successfully carrying high pressure hot and cold water. With the hot, there was notable deformation of the pipe as it expanded and contracted due to hot vs room-temp water, over long runs. No leaks, no failures, in 25 years. Properly supported, I am clueless as to how a no-pressure (well, aside from the 2.5' head) 1.5" line would be at risk of failure If I keep the existing height of the vented loop, that's about 2.5 feet each way, plus the elbows to and from. The "supply" is about 1.5 or so feet, and the waste out is another 3 feet or so (currently - I may have a thru-hull available closer when I'm through ripping out stuff in there). If it won't make the corners readily, I'd have to use ells, anyway, doubling my joints. The current vented loop has a screw-in couple of SeaLand connectors or the like. I'd see using a screw-in PVC with Teflon tape, and a coupler joint to the pipe (no corroding clamps - or, better, a nipple/joint, saving me one more glue-up on each side). If I had to redo it, I could just saw it off and start over (unscrew and insert new after sawing). I'd have two terminations of SeaLand PVC, and 8 clamps (two each at both ends of both terminations), and very little hose, and only two elbows plus the joints at the vented loop. So, I'd have the same number of clamps, and the same number of hose connections, but only a foot or two of hose, and the rest solid installation. Am I missing something? The forward head isn't as convenient in straight runs, so that one likely will have mostly hose. I'm glad for the savings with the lower prices... The stuff I took out of the aft head was either exhaust hose or very brittle and fully saturated white pipe. I rather suspect it was not the SeaLand OdorSafe :{/) L8R Skip (and Lydia, by proxy), champing at the bit to cast off, now that refit is actually under way! Morgan 461 #2 SV Flying Pig http://tinyurl.com/384p2 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain |
Skip Gundlach wrote:
Back to the subject at hand, if getting them in is as easy as getting them out, I'm all for not doing it again. Granted, I had to take out something on the order of double, in that I removed the aft Lectra-San, with its attendant very long runs of hose... There shouldn't be any long runs of hose in a Lectra/San installation. It should be installed within 6' of the toilet and also within 6' of the discharge thru-hull. Two toilets CAN be connected to the same unit, but only if the L/S can be within 6' of both. I think you made a mistake in removing it altogether...why store waste aboard if you can discharge it legally AND with far less negative environmental impact than dumping a tank? , *plus* the very tall vented loop runs... Necessary for any below waterline thru-hull connection...so you gained nothing there. On the center line, how far above the water line does it have to be for safety? Above any level of conceivable heel's waterline? Above waterline at any anglel of heel. Given that it's full of water and other crap (pardon the expression), all the time, against the duckbill, it makes me wonder. Any manual marine toilet that's working anywhere near factory specs can move bowl contents at least 6' in the dry mode...so if you learn how to flush your toilet correctly, there shouldn't be any water or waste in the line between the toilet and top of the loop to run back down into the bowl. On the subject of joints, I'm of distinctly curious mind. While my current home isn't this way, my prior home had hundreds of feet of PVC pipe run, with all the necessary ells, Ts and other fittings, all successfully carrying high pressure hot and cold water.... Am I missing something? What you're missing is: houses stay put...they don't get tossed around by wind and wave. Boats do. -- 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 http://shop.sailboatowners.com/detai...=400&group=327 |
....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 |
Hi, Y'all,
Well, things are progressing on the boat - I'll go back again, this time for two weeks, just after Thanksgiving week. Removal of the forward head plumbing, save the hoses to and from the holding tank (only pump up/out, can't dump), is on the list if I get the reefer done. However... "Peggie Hall" wrote in message ... Skip Gundlach wrote: Back to the subject at hand, if getting them in is as easy as getting them out, I'm all for not doing it again. Granted, I had to take out something on the order of double, in that I removed the aft Lectra-San, with its attendant very long runs of hose... There shouldn't be any long runs of hose in a Lectra/San installation. In our boat's case, the forward unit is well installed, I think, being in the lavatory, right next to the head. However, in the aft, there was over 6' of run both to and from the unit to the drop - and the intake had to clear the high vapor lock before heading downhill to it. Not a good location for it to be installed, I don't think, though, in that instance, short of having it on a shelf over the stool, I don't know where else they'd have put it. In any case, we'll be in clear discharge areas all the time, and for those exceptions which may occur, there's the forward head. It should be installed within 6' of the toilet and also within 6' of the discharge thru-hull. Two toilets CAN be connected to the same unit, but only if the L/S can be within 6' of both. I think you made a mistake in removing it altogether...why store waste aboard if you can discharge it legally AND with far less negative environmental impact than dumping a tank? Heh. I spoke with someone who told me they had a "super unit" of some sort, which LS maintained allowed them to dump (well, throughput) into no-discharge zones. They didn't have a holding tank aboard for that reason. In our case, we'll have one, should it ever be an issue - but until someone changes the ocean rules where we're going, it won't matter. As to the later poster wanting to know if we enjoyed swimming in our own effluvia, it's a fair question. However, I don't think there's nearly any place we'll be where folks are making an effort to be retentive, so to speak, so we'd be swimming in theirs, too. Of course, that doesn't acknowledge all the fish and porpoises and other things in addition to the shoreside impacts on anchoring areas. Ya pretty much gotta stay ashore and use municipal water if you want to avoid any contamination at all, or have, as one of the regulars here does, a distillation system for your own water. So, we'll just be prudent about where we stop and make sure there's some form of natural washing going on... , *plus* the very tall vented loop runs... Necessary for any below waterline thru-hull connection...so you gained nothing there. On the center line, how far above the water line does it have to be for safety? Above any level of conceivable heel's waterline? Above waterline at any anglel of heel. Given that it's full of water and other crap (pardon the expression), all the time, against the duckbill, it makes me wonder. Any manual marine toilet that's working anywhere near factory specs can move bowl contents at least 6' in the dry mode...so if you learn how to flush your toilet correctly, there shouldn't be any water or waste in the line between the toilet and top of the loop to run back down into the bowl. This has me very curious. You're saying that enough speed/pressure/whatever-moves-it is developed, in an anti-siphon environment (the vented loop), that I can clear a 1.5" line for what is (in the new installation) about 3.5-4 feet by dry flushing? I buy that I might be able to flush solids, with water, that far, if I'm aggressive enough with my volume (and the Raritans we have probably put in a cup per stroke or so), but I don't see how that pipe can empty, dry pump or not. I'd have to think the surface tension of the water would not be sufficient to prevent the water running past the bubble at the edges, as you recharge between strokes. I'd be thrilled to think I could really empty it, as that - with a straight discharge - would go a long way to keep odor down (should be only sea water to make odor, that way). Help me out with my physics, here? On the subject of joints, I'm of distinctly curious mind. While my current home isn't this way, my prior home had hundreds of feet of PVC pipe run, with all the necessary ells, Ts and other fittings, all successfully carrying high pressure hot and cold water.... Am I missing something? What you're missing is: houses stay put...they don't get tossed around by wind and wave. Boats do. Well, yes, of course. But if I secure a large pipe, in a short run, under next to no pressure, it's not going to move. In the house example, you could see the distortion of the hot water pipe from expansion vs resting state as hot water entered, and see it jump as the water was shut off and turned on - but it all stayed together. In the boat, we'll use hose as movement absorbers. Not trying to be argumentative - just understand why I shouldn't be doing as SeaLand recommends... 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" By the way, I promoted your book to several people complaining of stinky heads, and saw many of them being bought from the vendor table at the SSCA Gam in Melbourne the first weekend in November... L8R Skip (and Lydia, by proxy) -- Morgan 461 #2 SV Flying Pig http://tinyurl.com/384p2 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 12:47:28 GMT, "Keith"
wrote: 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. I believe Paolo's concerns are valid and his queries sincere. While it may be counter-productive to be obsessive on these topics, I believe that it is helpful that we as sailors consider clearly our options in regards to waste disposal and power management. Part of the attraction to sailing as a lifestyle is that it is relatively easy on the environment, as opposed to, say, driving a Hummer to Mexico. The continuing interest in marine heads, composting, windvane and wind turbines, solar panels, electric and/or fuel cell diesel replacements, and so on reflects a concern not only for energy "independence" to extend cruising, but also a desire to "sail lightly upon the earth (or sea, I suppose)". If forums like this can educate or elaborate on the options available, all to the good. Sarcasm, I find, is less helpful, unless it is directed at trolls. R. |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:36:05 -0500, rhys wrotf:
Part of the attraction to sailing as a lifestyle is that it is relatively easy on the environment, as opposed to, say, driving a Hummer to Mexico. The continuing interest in marine heads, composting, windvane and wind turbines, solar panels, electric and/or fuel cell diesel replacements, and so on reflects a concern not only for energy "independence" to extend cruising, but also a desire to "sail lightly upon the earth (or sea, I suppose)". Sailing lightly is good both for the sailor and the planet. As I progress with my own boat building project, much of my effort is in exploring and exploiting 'free energy' sources for all the basic needs and finding ways to do so without busting the budget. Many resources exist out there and its not a new concept. I like the idea that my voyaging can be less stressful on the planet than driving my car to the mall. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
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 |
Hi, Y'all,
Truncating this to a question or two: "Peggie Hall" wrote in message ... Any manual marine toilet that's working anywhere near factory specs can move bowl contents at least 6' in the dry mode...so if you learn how to flush your toilet correctly, there shouldn't be any water or waste in the line between the toilet and top of the loop to run back down into the bowl. This has me very curious. You're saying that enough speed/pressure/whatever-moves-it is developed, in an anti-siphon environment (the vented loop), that I can clear a 1.5" line for what is (in the new installation) about 3.5-4 feet (to the top of the loop) by dry flushing? I buy that I might be able to flush solids, with water, that far, if I'm aggressive enough with my volume (and the Raritans we have probably put in a cup per stroke or so), but I don't see how that pipe can empty, dry pump or not. I'd have to think the surface tension of the water would not be sufficient to prevent the water running past the bubble at the edges, as you recharge between strokes. I'd be thrilled to think I could really empty it, as that - with a straight discharge - would go a long way to keep odor down (should be only sea water to make odor, that way). Help me out with my physics, here? On the subject of joints, I'm of distinctly curious mind. While my current home isn't this way, my prior home had hundreds of feet of PVC pipe run, with all the necessary ells, Ts and other fittings, all successfully carrying high pressure hot and cold water.... Am I missing something? What you're missing is: houses stay put...they don't get tossed around by wind and wave. Boats do. Well, yes, of course. But if I secure a large pipe, in a short run, under next to no pressure, it's not going to move. In the house example, you could see the distortion of the hot water pipe from expansion vs resting state as hot water entered, and see it jump as the water was shut off and turned on - but it all stayed together. In the boat, we'll use hose as movement absorbers. Not trying to be argumentative - just understand why I shouldn't be doing as SeaLand recommends... 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" By the way, I promoted your book to several people complaining of stinky heads, and saw many of them being bought from the vendor table at the SSCA Gam in Melbourne the first weekend in November... L8R Skip (and Lydia, by proxy) -- Morgan 461 #2 SV Flying Pig http://tinyurl.com/384p2 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain |
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 |
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? No...soap or detergent is safe, and so is anything that goes down a sink or shower drain. But there is no soap, detergent or other cleaning product that can transform a pollutant--say, oil in a bilge--into an environmentally friendly product. Which is why it's such a mystery to me that boat owners are so concerned about organic matter in gray water or treated toilet waste, but give no thought at all to what their bilge pumps are discharging. 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? Don't confuse galley WATER with galley waste (garbage)--which is what watermelon seeds are. As for any oils (cooking or body), they're emulsified by detergents and soaps...and most of those are very low suds these days. You're far more likely to see suds and bubbles around a boat being washed than from any sink drains. If you're really sincere about protecting the ocean environment, concentrate your efforts on keeping oil and grease out of the bilges instead of worrying about what goes down a drain. -- 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 http://shop.sailboatowners.com/detai...=400&group=327 |
Skip Gundlach wrote:
This has me very curious. You're saying that enough speed/pressure/whatever-moves-it is developed, in an anti-siphon environment (the vented loop), that I can clear a 1.5" line for what is (in the new installation) about 3.5-4 feet (to the top of the loop) by dry flushing? Yes, Skip...that's what I'm saying. A siphon break (vented loop) has no impact on water being pushed through it...it only allows air into the line to break the flow of water being pulled through it. I buy that I might be able to flush solids, with water, that far, if I'm aggressive enough with my volume (and the Raritans we have probably put in a cup per stroke or so), but I don't see how that pipe can empty, dry pump or not. You can prove it to yourself by simply seeing what happens when you flush the toilet in the dry mode. -- 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 |
Apparently my arguments have stirred up the group intollerance.
If you agree I would restart the MSD discussion in a different thread and reformulate it. I am really interested... 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? No...soap or detergent is safe, and so is anything that goes down a sink or shower drain. But there is no soap, detergent or other cleaning product that can transform a pollutant--say, oil in a bilge--into an environmentally friendly product. Which is why it's such a mystery to me that boat owners are so concerned about organic matter in gray water or treated toilet waste, but give no thought at all to what their bilge pumps are discharging. I am interested only in small sailboat, i am building one 26' catamaran. The only oil that you can extract from my bilge will be olive oil... :-) 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? Don't confuse galley WATER with galley waste (garbage)--which is what watermelon seeds are. As for any oils (cooking or body), they're emulsified by detergents and soaps...and most of those are very low suds these days. You're far more likely to see suds and bubbles around a boat being washed than from any sink drains. I have trouble with the language, I don't explain clearly my mind. The watermellon seed is only one example of what can transform a clean peacefull place into something unpleasant, disgusting... I try with another example: if the bottom is mud, a small movement transform the water from cristal clear to something dark and unpleasant... it is safe, but I don't like it. In the same way the boat discarge: head, galley, ad bilge water can be safe, but doubtless aren't "cristal clear"... If you're really sincere about protecting the ocean environment, concentrate your efforts on keeping oil and grease out of the bilges instead of worrying about what goes down a drain. I agree: my engine is wind. But sometimes the actions have a "flag" value: over my roof I have photovoltaic panels, I do know that the energy balance (amount of energy used to produce the cell/ amount of energy generated in the life) of photovoltaic cells is largely debatable and my photovoltaic panels don't change my country energy balance... But I have put my money there because I want a greater attention to this type of problems. Paolo |
Subject: More head trip (plumbing issues)
From: Peggie Hall Which is why it's such a mystery to me that boat owners are so concerned about organic matter in gray water or treated toilet waste, but give no thought at all to what their bilge pumps are discharging. Now you've gone and done it. :-) Capt. Bill |
Subject: More head trip (plumbing issues)
From: "Paolo Zini" I agree: my engine is wind. But sometimes the actions have a "flag" value: over my roof I have photovoltaic panels, I do know that the energy balance (amount of energy used to produce the cell/amount of energy generated in the life) of photovoltaic cells is largely debatable and my photovoltaic panels don't change my country energy balance... But I have put my money there because I want a greater attention to this type of problems. Paolo While I'm sure you are sincere, you're thinking is classic environmentalist/sail boater hypocrisy. In that you think you are being environmentally superior but you seem forget that almost everything on you boat has been made with or from polluting products or processes. Will your boat have teak on it? Was it farm raised? If so how much natural vegetation was destroyed/displaced to grow it? Will you be varnishing or oiling it? What are you batteries made from? Environmentally friendly lead and acid? What fuel will power your stove? Any plastics on your boat? Aluminum? Stainless steel? How much oil/energy was used to process/make them? The list goes on and on. And by the way, what will you be doing with that black and gray water on your boat? Oh wait I see, you'll: "discarge your waste few miles away from coast... where currents and large wather masses can dilute and dissolve it." Classic, just classic. Do the coastal and inshore waters in your world never mix? No tides? Or is it just an "out of sight, out of mind" thing? When your boat comes to the end of it's life how do you intend to recycle it? Or will the: "currents and large wather masses" take care of that too? While I believe in doing all we can to keep the earth clean and I enjoy sailing, I can't see myself sitting in my plastic hulled, teak trimmed sail boat with toxic bottom paint on it reading by my lead/acid battery or genset powered light, while perhaps my Freon based aircon/ fridge units are keeping things cool, feeling all superior to next guy down the mooring field in his stink pot. God I love a good rant, Capt. Bill |
|
|
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 |
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 deficate in the water. The arguement is that if most people consider water that is full 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 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 |
Subject: More head trip (plumbing issues)
From: rhys It's not about feeling superior as much as it's about noticing even in my 40s how much the weather has changed. It's also about saving money in the long run, and mostly it's about wanting to do as little harm as possible to a planet my kid will eventually inherit. I see your points and agree. 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. And like I said it was just a rant. :-) Capt. Bill |
|
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:44:18 -0500, DSK wrote:
wrote: The reality is that feces and urine are perfectly natural substances and the most natural thing to do with them is to return them to the environment where their constituents can be recycled by the sea or earth. I guess that's why you take a big dump in your kitchen sink every night before dinner? Your reality seems to be a bit ignorant of basic ecology & biology. DSK No, I don't **** in my sink, but then again, if you eat organically grown foods, they are fertilized with feces. Weebles Wobble (but they don't fall down) |
Oops, sorry. It's illegal to discharge even olive oil...
http://www.epa.gov/oilspill/vegoil.htm -- Keith __ Don't let your mind wander -- it's too little to be let out alone. "Paolo Zini" wrote in message ... I am interested only in small sailboat, i am building one 26' catamaran. The only oil that you can extract from my bilge will be olive oil... :-) |
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 |
|
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 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) |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com