Jump to content

Composting toilet waste disposal in CaRT bins


Composting toilet waste disposal in CaRT bins  

85 members have voted

  1. 1. Should CaRT continue to allow non-composted human waste from composting toilets to be disposed of in their waste bins (previous CaRT policy) or ban it (updated CaRT policy)?

    • Yes, they should continue to allow this in future
      15
    • No, this should be prohibited in future
      56
    • I don't care
      14


Featured Posts

Posted (edited)

As the starter of the thread, I would also request that it not be locked -- this is an important issue for boaters, and a lot of valid issues have been raised on it.

 

The recent post contents don't bother me personally -- I just saw a long stream of "You've chosen to ignore content by..." notifications, and *boy* was it long -- but if it's likely to put off new readers from reading and taking in the informative (as opposed to abusive) content in the thread, that would be a pity.

 

If there's a way of deleting/hiding the two-blokes-fighting-outside-a-pub posts and leaving the rest intact, I'm sure that's what the moderators will do.

 

If the moderators are reading this, it might also be useful (if it's technically possible) if they could add "POLL:" in front of the title "Composting toilet..." of the thread -- some people have said that they didn't realise it was a poll, just another ignorable thread on the same old subject, and I think it's important to get as many people to vote as possible.

Edited by IanD
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

If there's a way of deleting/hiding the two-blokes-fighting-outside-a-pub posts and leaving the rest intact, I'm sure that's what the moderators will do.

What Id give for a good fight outside an open pub right now....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IanD said:

It's like poo on the towpath, it's there and it's nasty but you don't have to step in it...

 

If only someone would bag and bin it ... :D

 

 

  • Greenie 1
  • Love 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Go on, keep arguing about which exact word I used all you want -- I'm sure you can find an error somewhere in the endless pages of tedious facts (and opinions, remember everyone's got one...) I've been churning out.

 

It's called arguing by distraction, like nappies and dog-poo, to divert attention away from the elephant in the room -- or in this case, the uncomposted poo in the bag.... 😉

 

BTW, saying a sample is not known to be representative (what I said) is not the same as saying it's known to be unrepresentative (what you're claiming) -- it's Donald Rumsfeld all over again. Neither of us knows if it's representative or not, there's no way to tell unless you can find a way to collect votes from 20000 boaters. There's a challenge for you...

Actually even that  is harder than might be imagined since compliance is difficult (even the census - see other thread - cannot get 100%) In most situations, those who fail to make a return, even a DK are a biased sample. Since most national elections are quite close (as you have pointed out) it is possible that the relatively small number of those who do not take the vote seriously make up the difference between the estimate and the reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Actually even that  is harder than might be imagined since compliance is difficult (even the census - see other thread - cannot get 100%) In most situations, those who fail to make a return, even a DK are a biased sample. Since most national elections are quite close (as you have pointed out) it is possible that the relatively small number of those who do not take the vote seriously make up the difference between the estimate and the reality.

This is the problem with all polls, trying to get a representative sample, or knowing how non-representative it is so you can correct the results, it's what pollsters spend a lot of time doing to try and get accurate results.

 

But to do this you need a lot more information about both the voters and the population, so you can adjust the distribution of votes to match. To resolve all the arguments in this case that would mean the people who vote filling in a survey form to say what kind of toilet they have, how they use it, whether they have a dog or a baby and how they dispose of their waste, whether they have a fixed mooring (and how much time they spend away from it) or CC -- and all the same census information would be needed from all 35000 boaters to allow matching of the distributions.

 

Which is of course totally impossible for this issue, even if it works for a general election. So the best that can be done is to put a poll up (or even multiple polls in different locations...) and encourage as many people as possible to answer it/them as possible.

 

The fact that we can't do any poll/population correction means that the results can't be taken as accurate, so if the vote is close it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

 

But if the results are massively one-sided, then it's very difficult to justify a claim that the poll result (voters on CWDF) doesn't represent the majority opinion of the population as a whole (boaters on the canals).

Edited by IanD
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IanD said:

This is the problem with all polls, trying to get a representative sample, or knowing how non-representative it is so you can correct the results, it's what pollsters spend a lot of time doing to try and get accurate results.

 

But to do this you need a lot more information about both the voters and the population, so you can adjust the distribution of votes to match. To resolve all the arguments in this case that would mean the people who vote filling in a survey form to say what kind of toilet they have, how they use it, whether they have a dog or a baby and how they dispose of their waste, whether they have a fixed mooring (and how much time they spend away from it) or CC -- and all the same census information would be needed from all 35000 boaters to allow matching of the distributions.

 

Which is of course totally impossible for this issue, even if it works for a general election. So the best that can be done is to put a poll up (or even multiple polls in different locations...) and encourage as many people as possible to answer it/them as possible.

 

The fact that we can't do any poll/population correction means that the results can't be taken as accurate, so if the vote is close it doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

 

But if the results are massively one-sided, then it's very difficult to justify a claim that the poll result (voters on CWDF) doesn't represent the majority opinion of the population as a whole (boaters on the canals).

Yes - it is important with any statistical analysis to determine a priori what is your null hypothesis - in this case you cannot 'prove' a particular opinion, but you can show that some other value is very unlikely. That is what you are doing - it is very unlikely that there is anywhere near a majority in favour. The use of he analysis is unaffected by whether the actual rate is 90% or 75% - the reaction will be the same anywhere in this range.

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Yes - it is important with any statistical analysis to determine a priori what is your null hypothesis - in this case you cannot 'prove' a particular opinion, but you can show that some other value is very unlikely. That is what you are doing - it is very unlikely that there is anywhere near a majority in favour. The use of he analysis is unaffected by whether the actual rate is 90% or 75% - the reaction will be the same anywhere in this range.

So I think you're agreeing that the poll results show that it's very likely that the majority of boaters who care agree with CaRT that bag'n'binning must stop -- correct?

 

That means the poll has served its purpose, which was to find out what boaters think about this practice.

 

Now we need to wait and see how the boaters doing it react, and what will happen if some of them don't stop doing it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe C&RT could ask a similar question in their next boaters survey (of 1/3 of all boaters).

 

10,000 respondees should give a reasonably accurate indication of the feelings of the wider boating community.

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IanD said:

So I think you're agreeing that the poll results show that it's very likely that the majority of boaters who care agree with CaRT that bag'n'binning must stop -- correct?

 

That means the poll has served its purpose, which was to find out what boaters think about this practice.

 

Now we need to wait and see how the boaters doing it react, and what will happen if some of them don't stop doing it...

The problem with polls is they are rarely correct, Brexit for one, Trump winning another and how many GEs has the result been wrong? The issue is the numbers polled are to small to count and then like myself who was asked outside a polling station who I had voted for? gave them the opposition name so much fun to be had.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Maybe C&RT could ask a similar question in their next boaters survey (of 1/3 of all boaters).

 

10,000 respondees should give a reasonably accurate indication of the feelings of the wider boating community.

...and wouldn't that be just rubbing noses in it! 

 

Joking aside, I would like to see a survey initiated by C&RT accepting that there is an issue and canvassing all boaters opinions rather than only the CWDF massiv.  The question needs to be more than Yes or No that it shouldn't be in the general waste. It could prove that many boaters might prefer a composting toilet if facilities were generally more available. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Chagall
too many issue words!
  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, peterboat said:

The problem with polls is they are rarely correct, Brexit for one, Trump winning another and how many GEs has the result been wrong? The issue is the numbers polled are to small to count and then like myself who was asked outside a polling station who I had voted for? gave them the opposition name so much fun to be had.

I guess you didn't read the analysis then...

 

Close result, polls are not reliable.

 

Huge majority (currently 4:1) one way or the other, poll is very likely to be reliable.

 

A CaRT survey of all boaters would be of course be far better. Doesn't alter the statistics, though... 😉

 

No point repeating this again after this -- those who don't like the result will continue to insist that the poll isn't valid, most people who understand how polls work will agree that the result is.

Edited by IanD
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IanD said:

I guess you didn't read the analysis then...

 

Close result, polls are not reliable.

 

Huge majority (currently 4:1) one way or the other, poll is very likely to be reliable.

 

A CaRT survey of all boaters would be of course be far better. Doesn't alter the statistics, though... 😉

 

No point repeating this again after this -- those who don't like the result will continue to insist that the poll isn't valid, most people who understand how polls work will agree that the result is.

The poll was valid, just set up to only consider the one aspect of the debate.  Job done!    

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chagall said:

...and wouldn't that be just rubbing noses in it! 

 

Joking aside, I would like to see a survey initiated by C&RT accepting that there is an issue and canvassing all boaters opinions rather than only the CWDF massiv.  The question needs to be more than Yes or No that it shouldn't be in the general waste. It could prove that many boaters might prefer a composting toilet if facilities were generally more available. 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure facilities could be available if composting toilet owners all agreed to pay more than the cost of pumpouts, and signed contracts to this effect to lock them in for several years to pay for the cost of rolling this out.

 

Otherwise it's a not-very-well-disguised "wouldn't it be nice if somebody else paid to dispose of the waste from the toilets of a small fraction of boaters".

7 minutes ago, Chagall said:

The poll was valid, just set up to only consider the one aspect of the debate.  Job done!    

Precisely 😉

 

If you want to open up another aspect of the debate, nobody's stopping you. But relying on unicorns isn't usually a good idea...

Edited by IanD
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm sure facilities could be available if composting toilet owners all agreed to pay more than the cost of pumpouts, and signed contracts to this effect to lock them in for several years to pay for the cost of rolling this out.

 

Otherwise it's a not-very-well-disguised "wouldn't it be nice if somebody else paid to dispose of the waste from the toilets of a small fraction of boaters".

Precisely 😉

 

If you want to open up another aspect of the debate, nobody's stopping you. But relying on unicorns isn't usually a good idea...

Shame you missed it, I'm so under appreciated!  🙄   Your level of satire relies on trotting out unicorns, yet again. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm sure facilities could be available if composting toilet owners all agreed to pay 

I asked how much dry toilet users would be prepared to pay and how much waste they would expect to be removed for that price.  Strangely I only git (I think) two replies one from somebody who composts and one which virtually said pay nowt.

 

Dry toilet users seem singularly disinclined to discuss how to solve the problem apart from the folk who say it should just carry on as it did.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I asked how much dry toilet users would be prepared to pay and how much waste they would expect to be removed for that price.  Strangely I only git (I think) two replies one from somebody who composts and one which virtually said pay nowt.

 

Dry toilet users seem singularly disinclined to discuss how to solve the problem apart from the folk who say it should just carry on as it did.

How about elsen use is charged for like pumpouts? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, peterboat said:

How about elsen use is charged for like pumpouts? 

A couple of thoughts.   

 

First it depends on how the elsan point is worked if it goes direct into a sewer then, no there should be no charge as the system has been set up for donkey's years and costs to maintain are minimal.   If it goes to say a tank and costs are involved emptying and disposing of the waste then yes a charge would be fair and sensible.

 

Second, pumpouts have expensive machines which require maintenance and replacement at times not to mention power supply.  I don't know how the waste is disposed of but there is enough IMO to justify a charge.  For the record I am a happy pump out user.

 

Now to dry toilets.   A whole new system if going to be needed which will have costs of setting up and very probably costs for disposal.   Therefore in my opinion a charge would be justified.  When you choose the type of toilet (or any thing for that matter) you accept any known and unknown costs into the future.   If you have something (and I am not just talking about toilets here) and costs change to an extent you don't want or can't justify then you make a decision and do something else e.g. change system.

 

A final thought.  It isn't unreasonable to charge for a service whatever that service may be.

Edited by Jerra
  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

How about elsen use is charged for like pumpouts? 

 

Not a problem with that, but, the problem is that anything that is 'pay-on-use' is going to result in some folks getting around the system - maybe cassettes being emptied into standard toilets, self-pump out going into standard toilets, bags of poop being dumped into the bins or, 

 

Are toilets going to be charged - where do you stop ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

A couple of thoughts.   

 

First it depends on how the elsan point is worked if it goes direct into a sewer then, no there should be no charge as the system has been set up for donkey's years and costs to maintain are minimal.   If it goes to say a tank and costs are involved emptying and disposing of the waste then yes a charge would be fair and sensible.

 

Second, pimp outs have expensive machines which require maintenance and replacement at times not to mention power supply.  I don't know how the waste is disposed of but there is enough IMO to justify a charge.  For the record I am a happy pump out user.

 

Now to dry toilets.   A whole new system if going to be needed which will have costs of setting up and very probably costs for disposal.   Therefore in my opinion a charge would be justified.  When you choose the type of toilet (or any thing for that matter) you accept any known and unknown costs into the future.   If you have something (and I am not just talking about toilets here) and costs change to an extent you don't want or can't justify then you make a decision and do something else e.g. change system.

 

A final thought.  It isn't unreasonable to charge for a service whatever that service may be.

 

Just now, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Not a problem with that, but, the problem is that anything that is 'pay-on-use' is going to result in some folks getting around the system - maybe cassettes being emptied into standard toilets, self-pump out going into standard toilets, bags of poop being dumped into the bins or, 

 

Are toilets going to be charged - where do you stop ?

Currently it's on the license fee surely?  So if more people go composting less will be using the other methods? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jerra said:

A final thought.  It isn't unreasonable to charge for a service whatever that service may be.

 

 

Which is already written into law, so the only problem will be "we didn't know you'd do that, you cannot do it without consultation"

 

Section 43(3) of the Transport Act 1962 ("the 1962 Act") provides "... the [British Waterways Board and the Strategic Rail Authority] shall have power to demand, take and recover [or waive] such charges for their services and facilities, and to make the use of those services and facilities subject to such terms and conditions, as they think fit."

 

 

5 minutes ago, peterboat said:

 

Currently it's on the license fee surely?  So if more people go composting less will be using the other methods? 

 

 

In effect, yes.

It is an overhead to offering the service, however non cassette users will say "we are paying for elsans in our licence fee but we don't use them so we want a reduction" or "the facilities we need should be included in everyones licence fee, the same as elsans are"

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, peterboat said:

How about elsen use is charged for like pumpouts? 

I would just fit a sea toilet and pump it into the river😱

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

In effect, yes.

It is an overhead to offering the service, however non cassette users will say "we are paying for elsans in our licence fee but we don't use them so we want a reduction" or "the facilities we need should be included in everyones licence fee, the same as elsans are"

It would IMO depend on how much the infrastructure and costs of disposal were.   Pumpout isn't included in licence fee so if there are costs associated with dealing with dry toilets it isn't unreasonable to charge.   Elsan disposal is again my opinion a different matter as  I suspect the vast majority merely go straight into a sewer of the cost of setting up and maintaining was trivial and done in most cases years ago.

 

If whatever the resulting solution for dry toilets isn't composting  it defeats the main object of having a composting toilet.   So I would expect fairly considerable  expense involved in collect and moving to a composting site and then dealing with the stuff on site.   Under those circumstances not unreasonable to charge.

 

The argument about wanting it included in the license fee falls down when compared to pumpouts.   Pumpout users chose their style of toilet which isn't included in the licence fee.  Composting toilets users chose their style of toilet when there were no facilities for composting so why shouldn't they pay for those facilities as a pumpout user does.  They can't really claim thata they thought binning was a form of composting and they knew they had bought a composting toilet.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

You'd be one of many.

But its legal where my boat is 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Loddon said:

But its legal where my boat is 

 

Its legal on most rivers (including the Thames if you are a pleasure boat, but it is illegal if you are a liveaboard)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.