Intercoastal dumping

[flagold]

I tend to fall in the camp that most of that stuff will be in the water no matter what we do. If humans were removed, there'd be an explosion in other populations which would simply dump their duty right in the water unimpeded and certainly untreated. The ducks are an excellent example, they've certainly made my little pond out back unihabitable for anything beyond mosquitos.

Six of one . . .

[teflonmom]

I have said it before-put it in a porta-potty and carry it home with you. Dump it in your sewer. Easy and cheap plus you sace the job of rebuilding a marine head every other year.

[Alasgun]

Remember ole what's his face the E=mc**2 guy? You know, he was the one who had that mass-energy conservation law stating the universe's total matter plus energy is constant-- you can convert matter into energy and energy into matter? Think about that for a minuite and realize that you are merly relocating the turds no matter where you place them in disposal! Whether or not you include chemicals, grinding or what ever a turd is a turd! Now about this dumping thing, where & when legal, I say dump it, we are so small in the overall scheme of things that it really is not going to matter one way or the other. I was once told by a retired navy waste water treatment fellow, "Dillution is the solution". Mike on Huda Thunkit.

[DaveS]

[Sea Wolf]

There certainly is a range of opinions on this issue, as one might expect, considering the sensitivity of the topic, the size of the ocean, the restrictive nature of some waterways, and the expected differences of point of view.

With these differences, it's necessary to realize that there will be those who dump, so long as it's legal, and probably a few who will anyway until they get caught or are forced to re-plumb their boats so that overboard dumping would be impossible.

Thus if you feel that dumping should be more restricted, at least in certain areas, the only solution is to seek tighter regulations and enforcement.

Here in Shasta Lake, a resevoir, and admittedly a more sensitive body of water to health concerns, the U.S. Forrest Service has sequentially tightened regulations until the following prevail:

1. No discharge of black or grey water is permitted, anytime,, anywhere.

2. All black and grey water must be disposed of through a pumpout station, which all marinas must provide to their customers.

3. All boats using the lake with USFS Permits (31 ft and over) must have their water disposal systems modified so that all waste water is held in holding tanks for pump out.

4. Overboard discharge tubes and vents must be permanently blocked through plumbing modifications. (My larger boat has had this done.)

This approach might seem too radical for open ocean or limited size waterway application, but dumping by some will continue until government regulations and enforcement force those who don't believe there's any problem to put the plug in the hole.

I'm usually not one to suggest more government involvement, but in some areas like this, voluntary compliance will not result in too much change in the status quo.

It's too bad there isn't some easy middle ground in this, but that's the way things are now with fairly open regulations and pretty much voluntary compliance, considering the difficulty of enforcing anti-dumping regulations because of the vastness of the area to be supervised.*

I honesty wouldn't be pleased with such radical changes, but where can we find some practical agreed upon middle ground?

Realistically, it's a big world out there, and we'll never stop the cruise ships and others from dumping in international waters, but we can have some control over our near home waters, particularly those waterways in front of our homes and others that need special protection.

Some obviously don't see any problem, others definiely do!

* grey water coluld be excepted from tighter regulation in many areas.

Joe.

[flagold]

[Sea Wolf]

flagold-

I would agree with much of your assessment.

We have created a generation of more than enviornmentally conscious radicals that feel that the world is already overpopulated, polluted, and on the verge of total self destrution to the degree that they will tolerate no accomodation of man's infrastructure needs, and will stop at nothing to defeat any threat they see to their enviornmental priorities, and to promote those priorities by any means.

This is particularly sad to me as a science educator, as we always sought the use of reasonable means to protect the enviornment and at the same time, to accomodate man's needs.

I do not, however, believe that the radicals were born out of the mainstream of ordinary high school and other secondary education, but out of their own fraternization with other radicals and students at the higher levels of education and independent discourse.

What's paradoxical about the whole situation, is that they have become so out of the mainstream in some cases, that the reaction to them and their causes renders their efforts counterproductive as more mainstream folks react to their outrageous stratagedies and political maneuvering.

Your position that all of us should just mind our own business to keep the radicals from stiring up the pot may well be the simplest solution.

Joe.

[flagold]