Composting toilet waste disposal in CaRT bins

[GUMPY]

10 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

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

Misinformation again

Upstream of Teddington lock it is not legal for any discharge from toilets to enter the watercourse.

Upstream of Teddington is what most people refer to as the Thames and is managed by the EA

Downstream of Teddington is tidal waters and is managed by the PLA where I believe you are correct.

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

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.

And regarding who should pay for what, why don't we look at some numbers?

 

IIRC there are something over 30000 boats on the UK canals. I don't know if there are any exact numbers, but my guess is that something like 20000 use cassettes/Elsans, maybe 10000 (including almost all the hire boats) use pumpouts. Both are approved by CaRT.

 

CaRT provide "free" waste disposal facilities for cassette users, paid for out of CaRT income -- some of which is the license fee, but this charge is not hypothecated -- which seems reasonable since this is what most boaters use, and there's little direct cost since they exist and connect to the mains sewers.

 

Pump-out waste is dealt with by a network of facilities at boatyards marinas and hire bases, who charge for this -- typically £15 -- because they have costs for the equipment, people to do the emptying, and disposing of the sewage. I don't know exactly how many of these there are but given the size of the network and the distances between them my guess is a couple of hundred (does anyone know?), because like water points they have to be close enough to get to in a reasonable time. These costs are effectively shared by maybe 10000 boaters or hire boats, say a fiver a week for liveaboards (£250 a year) but more for hire boats which are emptied every week but only for half the year -- I suspect most pumpouts are on hire boats. Put all this together and the total cost of installing and running the pumpout network is a few million pounds a year. With a couple of hundred service points, this is something like £10000 each income, which includes some margins for doing it.

 

Now to composting toilets. IIRC another blog said that in 2018 there were estimated to be 600 users on the canals. Let's assume that this has gone up 50% since them (driven by vloggers promoting them and CaRT allowing bag'n'binning) to around 900 -- and still rising before CaRTs announcement, which is what the poll was about. The Facebook survey results said that 30% composted their waste properly, so that leaves about 600 bag'n'binners -- which is about 2% of the total number of boaters.

 

For compost toilet disposal to work for these boaters, there would have to be enough "compost points" close enough together that they can get to them when their buckets/bins are full -- let's assume a couple of hundred (same as number of pumpout stations) are needed. Which means on average each one has to be paid for by around 3 boaters, compared to maybe 50 boaters per pumpout station. Even if we assume the equipment costs (lockable bins?) are much lower than pumpouts, somebody has to deal with actually composting the waste (heaps, turning, shovelling, for something over a year), which almost certainly means doing this somewhere off-site to stop people dumping cr*p into their nice heaps. I tried guesstimating the cost of doing this (as did Alan) and we both came up with a few hundred thousand quid a year. Depending on exactly what numbers you assume, this ends up as something in the region of £500-£1000 per bag'n'binner, which is around 2x - 4x the cost of pumpouts.

 

Now given that we know that one of the reasons people install these toilets is to avoid paying for pumpouts -- because they tell us so! -- it seems very unlikely that most of them would be willing to pay this, even the committed eco-warriors. Even if some of them said they would, for any system-wide compost network to be put in place there would have to be a way of getting the money back, for example (like broadband) enough boaters signing binding contracts that commit them to using them -- at a high price! -- for at least a couple of years. Does anyone seriously think this would happen?

 

As Chagall said, the numbers would be very different if most people used composting toilets, but that's not where we are today, and it's difficult to see how we could ever get there from where we are now because of chicken and egg -- no affordable compost network without enough boaters, not enough boaters until there's an affordable compost network. Again, you have to live in the world as it is, not an ideal one that you'd wish for.

 

So if making bag'n'binners pay doesn't work financially, maybe CaRT (meaning, all boaters) should pay for this as a service to bag'n'binners?

 

Regardless of how people feel about the disgustingness or not of bag'n'binning as a way of waste disposal, I think it's guaranteed that most of the 98% of boaters will be pretty disgusted at the suggestion that they should pay to dispose of the waste from the 2% of boaters who are composting toilet users who aren't using them properly i.e. to make compost.

 

None of this argument is based on heated opinions about what should or shouldn't be allowed, it's just looking at what would be needed to allow bag'n'binners to carry on as they are today, and -- more importantly -- who should pick up the tab.

 

If anyone disagrees with these numbers -- and I'm 100% sure somebody will -- then feel free to come up with your own, but to be believable they have to be realistic not pie-in-the-sky -- as does any alternative way of dealing with the waste.

 

P.S. A challenge to anyone coming back saying "Blah blah numbers, you just keep repeating the same stuff over and over again" -- go on then, tell us your workable solution ?

 

P.P.S. And not "we should just carry on the same as today", because that's not an available option...

Edited March 6, 2021 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

12 minutes ago, Loddon said:

Misinformation again

Upstream of Teddington lock it is not legal for any discharge from toilets to enter the watercourse.

Upstream of Teddington is what most people refer to as the Thames and is managed by the EA

Downstream of Teddington is tidal waters and is managed by the PLA where I believe you are correct.

 

 

 

 

Sorry - yes PLA Bylaw 96 exemption under section 124 (except liveaboards cannot dump black water into the river)

[Mike Todd]

5 hours 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...

Yes, but only if it is possible to assume that the forum members are not an unduly biased sample of all boaters. After all, forum memberships is a kind of self selection which notoriously skews samples.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Yes, but only if it is possible to assume that the forum members are not an unduly biased sample of all boaters. After all, forum memberships is a kind of self selection which notoriously skews samples.

Agreed, the forum members would need to be unbiased if the result was close.

 

For such a huge majority, unless they were unbelievably non-representative the result would stand.

 

In this case the forum includes both composters and non-composters, and "proper" composters and bag'n'binners -- it's not a forum for "non-composters only".

 

So there will be some self-selection, but not like the famous Heinz example ?

 

[for those who remember those tins of beans-with-cocktail-sausages that they used to do, they decided to do a survey of whether people liked them or not, and carefully chose an area with demographics (age, hoiuselhold size, number of children, income...) that was a good match to the population as a whole. They were terribly surprised when the feedback was terrible. Maybe they shouldn't have picked Golders Green...]

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Yes, but only if it is possible to assume that the forum members are not an unduly biased sample of all boaters. After all, forum memberships is a kind of self selection which notoriously skews samples.

Basically a reasonable suggestion, however I am having difficulty in trying to think of what might have skewed forum membership to be biased against composting toilets.

 

Had you suggested that being a canal based forum the membership might be skewed against lumpy water boating or dog walkers etc I could wholeheartedly agree but I can't see how it might be skewed about toilets. 

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

Yes, but only if it is possible to assume that the forum members are not an unduly biased sample of all boaters. After all, forum memberships is a kind of self selection which notoriously skews samples.

This is true, very few here would move far away from what might be considered traditional, just look at electrical propulsion, Radical design of a new boat like Whitfield or even Lithium batteries against asking the same question on somewhere like Facebook

[LadyG]

Where I am I don't think the Elsan and the pumpout are connected to main sewerage, even if they are, there will be a charge levied.

Edited March 6, 2021 by LadyG

[Mike Todd]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Basically a reasonable suggestion, however I am having difficulty in trying to think of what might have skewed forum membership to be biased against composting toilets.

 

Had you suggested that being a canal based forum the membership might be skewed against lumpy water boating or dog walkers etc I could wholeheartedly agree but I can't see how it might be skewed about toilets. 

But the point with statistics is not, generally, to make such assumptions. They are very different from the null hypothesis which is being tested.

 

As has been pointed out, surveys can go horribly wrong for quite unanticipated reasons.

[IanD]

17 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

But the point with statistics is not, generally, to make such assumptions. They are very different from the null hypothesis which is being tested.

 

As has been pointed out, surveys can go horribly wrong for quite unanticipated reasons.

Indeed they can, but there isn't any evidence that this is the case here, just speculation by people who perhaps don't like the result. I could equally well suggest that there are too many compost enthusiasts on CWDF to be representative, and that a poll of all boaters would show a 10:1 majority, and this is just as likely or unlikely -- which is to say, very unlikely.

 

Going by comments that I've read elsewhere -- from people on both sides of the debate -- the anti-BNB sentiments certainly seem to be in the majority, with much stronger justifications given for why it should stop than why it should continue.

Edited March 7, 2021 by IanD

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

Indeed they can, but there isn't any evidence that this is the case here, just speculation by people who perhaps don't like the result. I could equally well suggest that there are too many compost enthusiasts on CWDF to be representative, and that a poll of all boaters would show a 10:1 majority, and this is just as likely or unlikely -- which is to say, very unlikely.

 

Going by comments that I've read elsewhere -- from people on both sides of the debate -- the anti-BNB sentiments certainly seem to be in the majority, with much stronger justifications given for why it should stop than why it should continue.

You may well be right - and I suspect you are - but in the red phrase you are really trying to prove a negative which is here not possible. If you could then a sample survey would not be needed!

 

The more likely cause of 'error' (aka invalid conclusion) is that of many 'amateur' surveys conducted  in the context of a strongly contested debate - the respondents react to the immediate presenting issue, jump to a conclusion, and fail to examine the consequences. Once the latter become apparent, the initial opinion can change quite quickly.

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

You may well be right - and I suspect you are - but in the red phrase you are really trying to prove a negative which is here not possible. If you could then a sample survey would not be needed!

 

The more likely cause of 'error' (aka invalid conclusion) is that of many 'amateur' surveys conducted  in the context of a strongly contested debate - the respondents react to the immediate presenting issue, jump to a conclusion, and fail to examine the consequences. Once the latter become apparent, the initial opinion can change quite quickly.

I don't think anyone in this particular debate can claim to be unaware of the consequences, given the amount of heated discussion there's been... ?

[Mike Todd]

16 hours ago, IanD said:

I don't think anyone in this particular debate can claim to be unaware of the consequences, given the amount of heated discussion there's been... ?

The best assumption in life is that everything has unintended/unanticipated consequences!

[IanD]

2 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

The best assumption in life is that everything has unintended/unanticipated consequences!

True indeed, but I'm not convinced that's what's happening here. A small minority of boaters are trying to hide the fact that they're doing something (BNB) that most boaters want them to stop doing.

 

So let's just look at the numbers of boaters, not poll results -- I note that nobody has provided any better numbers, in spite of being invited to do so. The estimates I gave were:

 

-- there are over 30000 boaters (35000?) on the UK canals and inland waterways

-- about 1000 boaters (3%) currently have composting toilets installed

-- about 30% of these (1%=300) compost their waste properly as intended

-- about 70% of these (2%=700) don't, and BNB as CaRT used to allow but now don't

-- this means about 97% of boaters don't have composting toilets so use cassettes or pumpouts

 

Now you can argue about the exact numbers until the cows come home, but the inescapable fact is that BNBers are massively outnumbered -- by about 50:1 if you use these numbers. Even if there were significantly more BNBers than I've estimated this might come down to 30:1 or even 20:1, but this doesn't really make any difference.

 

I think we can take it for granted that 100% of the BNBers (2%) want to be allowed to continue doing this. The "good composter" 1% might go either way, either showing solidarity with their fellow (non-)composters or decide that BNB is unacceptable and should be stopped. It's difficult to guess how the non-composting 97% would vote, some might think it should continue because they're in favour of boaters doing what they want, some might not care, but what is certain is that a lot of them definitely don't like BNB.

 

Given those numbers, I think it's actually surprising that there's only a 4:1 majority in this poll in favour of stopping BNB, given the numbers who do and don't do it, and it's likely that if the opinions of most boaters were canvassed (e.g. by a detailed CaRT poll/survey) the majority would be even higher -- reasons for this probably include CWDF not being a representative sample, BNBere being much more likely to vote (and tell others to) because they have skin in the game, boaters who aren't on the Internet, and many others.

 

As you keep saying the only way to prove this is to do it, but that's what the numbers of boaters say would happen -- if you can see any valid argument against this apart from theory which bears little relation to the facts, please feel free to provide it.

 

The same logic applies to the idea that a better solution -- at least, "better" according to the BNBers -- would be to keep this as SEP (Somebody Else's Problem) but avoid the CaRT bin issue by building and maintaining/emptying a network of compost disposal sites, maybe in places like marinas/boatyards, maybe at CaRT waste bin points. Now ask the question "Who should pay for this?", bearing in mind that only about 2% of boaters want/need this to happen to avoid them having to use their toilets properly or replace them. I would say that it's a racing certainly that a massive majority of boaters would say that since the BNBers created the problem and want this solution, they should pay for it. Nobody expects cassette users to pay for pumpout stations, so why should both these toilet users pay foe a much smaller numner of BNBers?

 

Then it all comes down to how much this would cost -- because in the end, that's what will determine if this ever happens. If the BNBers are willing to pay enough to cover the costs then it might be possible, but they'd have to guarantee that enough of them did pay for log enough and didn't rip out their now-expensive toilets for anyone to consider setting up such a network. And this is not going to be a cheap option even compared to expensive pumpouts, because these have at least 10x more users to spread the cost.

 

None of this is anything to do with revulsion about BNB as a method of non-composted human waste disposal, or questioning the morals or irresponsibility or green credentials of those who do it, or whether nappies or dog-poo can be used to justify it. It's just looking at the number of boaters who are causing this problem ("the 2%") compared to the number ("the 98%") who aren't, and either don't like the consequences or don't care either way -- but are certainly unlikely to want to pay for it to be solved for "the 2%".

 

Arguing about the exact numbers or poll results doesn't change anything; whether it's 2%/98% or 5%/95% and how many of the majority don't care doesn't change the fact that a small minority of canal users are causing a problem for a large majority (and CaRT).

 

The responsibility for disposing of their waste in a legal and acceptable manner lies with the BNBers.

 

There are only 3 realistic options for them (unless they want to become boater pariahs by continuing to BNB after CaRT have banned it):

 

1. Stop BNB and start composting their waste properly -- which means actually doing it, not just ticking a box that says "I'm doing it"

2. Devise and agree to pay for a workable non-compost disposal network, and persuade somebody to build and maintain it

3. Remove their composting toilets and replace them with pumpouts or cassettes

 

No amount of throwing abuse at me (which I probably won't read) or accusing me of running an anti-BNB campaign (opinions may vary) will change any of this -- it's time to sh*t or get off the pot ? 

 

I'm sure that the people who hate what I keep pointing out will be glad to know that I've now got nothing more to say on this subject ?

Edited March 8, 2021 by IanD