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

4 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

This is obviously only my opinion but Bob has done a damn site more in presenting his case in a convincing and rational manner than anyone else here and I still disagree with his actually point on the legitimacy/ethics of dumping waste in the general bins

 

Would you not agree that when Bob posts and repeatedly quotes :

 

It's all very well Alan saying it is illegal to put the solids output from a composting loo in the bin but Alan this time you are not correct, regardless of what someone from the CRT says.

 

And, then HE posts the legislation explaining the restrictions on offensive waste, and the definition of offensive waste :

 

 

The government advice is

 

Examples

Waste status

Human healthcare

Animal healthcare

Healthcare offensive waste

Outer dressings and protective clothing like masks, gowns and gloves that are not contaminated with body fluids, and sterilised laboratory waste

Non-hazardous

18-01-04

18-02-03

Municipal offensive waste

Hygiene waste and sanitary protection like nappies and incontinence pads

Non-hazardous

20-01-99

20-01-99

You must segregate healthcare offensive waste from both clinical and mixed municipal wastes.

If you’ve produced more than 7kg of municipal offensive waste, or have more than one bag in a collection period, you must segregate it from any mixed municipal waste.

 

 

And then a few pages later after I have quoted the relevant sections of the Waste Transfer Regulations as applied to business, Charities etc etc I am told :

 

You dont understand the 'picking' line

 

Which is where the argument starts to go off track - it is NOTHING to do with the picking line, it is nothing to do with Bobs' chats with the refuse operators saying they cannot recycle it and it makes incineration 'difficult and is uneconomic'

 

IT is a DUTY OF CARE of the waste producer to ensure that the WASTE TRANSFER REGULATIONS are adhered to - you know, those that Bob pasted on page 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tree monkey said:

How often do I have to say...

 

I don't think dumping untreated waste in bins is a good idea.

 

The poll was obviously going to go the way it did, Bob was about the only person on here offering any support for the idea, the number of people who voted was tiny, it was almost a forgone conclusion.

 

This is obviously only my opinion but Bob has done a damn site more in presenting his case in a convincing and rational manner than anyone else here and I still disagree with his actually point on the legitimacy/ethics of dumping waste in the general bins

The number of people who voted *on both sides* is indeed tiny compared to the number of people who are members of CWDF.

 

But people were free to vote on whichever side they chose without anyone even knowing who they were, so anyone claiming they haven't posted because they didn't want to be persecuted can't use that excuse. There have been both supporters and opponents of poo-bagging on CWDF right from when this debate started, any or all of them were free to vote, and can't claim they didn't know about the poll given the amount of traffic it's caused.

 

So isn't saying "the poll was obviously going to go the way it did" basically -- unless you have any evidence of some kind of voter suppression -- saying that "we knew most boaters would be against poo-bagging if asked"?

 

If you disagree with the results, I've got an idea -- lets go out and bang the poo drum loudly and plead with as many CWDF members as possible to vote -- "It's your vote that counts!".

 

I'd *love* to hear from as many people as possible, because the more people you get votes from, the more reliable the results are.

 

Bob was rational and informative (and presumably accurate) about the legalities and commerce of waste processing.

 

On bagged-poo odour, nappies and dog poo -- well, the jury's still out, but it doesn't look good.

 

Blaming other people for the mess he created almost single-handedly is simply contemptible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, droshky said:

Answering in reverse order...we empty the poo bucket a couple of times a year into a toilet point. Slowly, adding plenty of water. If we’re on board a lot, it goes home to compost. So to answer no1, why would we expect to pay anything more than cassette emptiers? Actually thanks for bringing this up, I’d like a rebate please as we use much less of everything.

 

The wee bucket goes in a loo if we pass one (!) or on a patch of nettles or suchlike. 
 

Other than supermarket wrappings, we hardly touch black bins, nearly all is recycled, often we have to take it home to do so. There should be much more recycling bins, you can have half my rebate for that!

As an argument you could equally 'ask why less than pump out customers?'

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, droshky said:

I can imagine that careless dumping into small Elsan points would be problematic. Most of these would be in marinas and (comparatively) easily monitored.

What makes you think the marinas would want the problem of monitoring potential blockages (more than they have to now).

Just now, droshky said:

Have you any evidence that specifically composters are in crt units becoming a cause of blockages?

There have been a number of cases quoted on here.  

Just now, droshky said:

As opposed to the usual culprits of nappies, wet wipes, sts, cooking fat, and random rubbish, can we fairly be described as a “definite danger”?

Put that the other way round.   What evidence is there that nappies wet wipes etc  block elsan points.   I know it happens in domestic situation but most (all?) elsan points have associated bins who would go the the trouble and mess of ramming a used nappy down an elsan with a bin nearby.

Just now, droshky said:

A factor that hasn’t been mentioned much is that if you have any of the other systems, when you gotta go, you gotta go. We can wait till we get to an appropriate facility 

I am not sure what you mean by this.   When you have to go you use your on board dry toilet it is the disposal of the waste from that I am trying to come up with a solution to.

 

Your replies seem to suggest you think bag -n -bin will go on forever and there is no need to look for a solution.

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

 

Would you not agree that when Bob posts and repeatedly quotes :

 

It's all very well Alan saying it is illegal to put the solids output from a composting loo in the bin but Alan this time you are not correct, regardless of what someone from the CRT says.

 

And, then HE posts the legislation explaining the restrictions on offensive waste, and the definition of offensive waste :

 

 

The government advice is

 

Examples

Waste status

Human healthcare

Animal healthcare

Healthcare offensive waste

Outer dressings and protective clothing like masks, gowns and gloves that are not contaminated with body fluids, and sterilised laboratory waste

Non-hazardous

18-01-04

18-02-03

Municipal offensive waste

Hygiene waste and sanitary protection like nappies and incontinence pads

Non-hazardous

20-01-99

20-01-99

You must segregate healthcare offensive waste from both clinical and mixed municipal wastes.

If you’ve produced more than 7kg of municipal offensive waste, or have more than one bag in a collection period, you must segregate it from any mixed municipal waste.

 

 

And then a few pages later after I have quoted the relevant sections of the Waste Transfer Regulations as applied to business, Charities etc etc I am told :

 

You dont understand the 'picking' line

 

Which is where the argument starts to go off track - it is NOTHING to do with the picking line, it is nothing to do with Bobs' chats with the refuse operators saying they cannot recycle it and it makes incineration 'difficult and is uneconomic'

 

IT is a DUTY OF CARE of the waste producer to ensure that the WASTE TRANSFER REGULATIONS are adhered to - you know, those that Bob pasted on page 2.

Which I have read and understand repetition isn't going to change the point really

 

4 minutes ago, IanD said:

The number of people who voted *on both sides* is indeed tiny compared to the number of people who are members of CWDF.

 

But people were free to vote on whichever side they chose without anyone even knowing who they were, so anyone claiming they haven't posted because they didn't want to be persecuted can't use that excuse. There have been both supporters and opponents of poo-bagging on CWDF right from when this debate started, any or all of them were free to vote, and can't claim they didn't know about the poll given the amount of traffic it's caused.

 

So isn't saying "the poll was obviously going to go the way it did" basically -- unless you have any evidence of some kind of voter suppression -- saying that "we knew most boaters would be against poo-bagging if asked"?

 

If you disagree with the results, I've got an idea -- lets go out and bang the poo drum loudly and plead with as many CWDF members as possible to vote -- "It's your vote that counts!".

 

I'd *love* to hear from as many people as possible, because the more people you get votes from, the more reliable the results are.

 

Bob was rational and informative (and presumably accurate) about the legalities and commerce of waste processing.

 

On bagged-poo odour, nappies and dog poo -- well, the jury's still out, but it doesn't look good.

 

Blaming other people for the mess he created almost single-handedly is simply contemptible.

I never mentioned persecution, I never mentioned voter suppression, I never mentioned I disagreed with the result I said it was a forgone conclusion, I never mentioned odour either.

 

 

The discussion is fairly pointless tbh

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

As an argument you could equally 'ask why less than pump out customers?'

Because we don’t use pump out facilities 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, droshky said:

Because we don’t use pump out facilities 

And you have admitted to using elsan facilities in a manner for which they were not designed

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

What makes you think the marinas would want the problem of monitoring potential blockages #1 (more than they have to now).

There have been a number of cases quoted on here.  #2

Put that the other way round.   What evidence is there that nappies wet wipes etc  block elsan points.   I know it happens in domestic situation but most (all?) elsan points have associated bins who would go the the trouble and mess of ramming a used nappy down an elsan with a bin nearby.#3

I am not sure what you mean by this.   When you have to go you use your on board dry toilet it is the disposal of the waste from that I am trying to come up with a solution to.#4

 

Your replies seem to suggest you think bag -n -bin will go on forever and there is no need to look for a solution.

1. I mean by “monitoring” that the marinas could ensure that composters don’t use their facilities. Penalties if they want, I don’t care, I don’t empty there.

2. Sorry, I’m not very assiduously following the forum, haven’t seen these discussions, I’ll have a search...soon

3. I’m suggesting that canal facilities are blocked for the same reasons as domestic ones. I may be wrong 

4. Oh come on. I meant that when a pump out or cassette is full you really have to have an expensive facility provided here and now. Ours last for months so there’s no rush unless you’re extremely careless. It’s as easy to check as a cassette, no trusting to the red light

7 minutes ago, Dyertribe said:

And you have admitted to using elsan facilities in a manner for which they were not designed

I don’t think so

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dyertribe said:

And you have admitted to using elsan facilities in a manner for which they were not designed

 

Flushing poo down them with plenty of clean water?  I thought that was what they were for ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

Flushing poo down them with plenty of clean water?  I thought that was what they were for ...

What’s the point in drying it out first? It just vastly increases the chances of blocking the Elsan! You could just use a normal cassette or porta potty and save a load of hassle. 

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IanD said:

Of those who voted and expressed an opinion, 82% cared. Is that better?

 

I could just as well claim that more than 29000 members agreed with me. There's no evidence either way. Maybe they didn't read the poll. Maybe they do care but couldn't be arsed to vote. Maybe they really *don't* care -- who knows.

 

It's how all elections or polls work -- you can only take notice of the votes that are cast, not the ones that aren't.

 

Anyway the 82% isn't what matters, it's the 6:1 that is important.

What about the ones that didn't see the poll? After all it's not like its been posted through my door, I actually thought it was the continuing saga of the thread 

5 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

That is my take on it.

 

 

Yes, it should be banned in municipal waste. The use of doggy-bins is the answer with millions of them already available spread around the marinas, towns and cities and towpaths.

 

The forum survey (to date) is showing 70% against the practice and only 11.67% 'for' the practice of poop-bag-binning

Alan all our bins here allow dog poo been that way for years 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to have replaced the original topic rather than just being a poll, so I will respond here. There are different viewpoints but one thing I've noticed is that most people who have commented have either been against binning, don't bin but can see why that's not particularly bad compared with other options/ waste disposal practices, or against the sudden change in tack from crt. Not much from people who regularly bag and bin. That's not arguing one way or another, just that we seem to be missing voices from relevant people. Maybe they aren't on this forum or possibly feel uncomfortable commenting given the dynamic of the conversation. You might say they are wrong and should stop but will that make it happen? 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frangar said:

What’s the point in drying it out first? It just vastly increases the chances of blocking the Elsan! You could just use a normal cassette or porta potty and save a load of hassle. 

Well how about once every 2/3 months instead of days? Is that a point in favour? A bit of hassle but compared to finding a pot every week....

 

I’ve had a look for these “many reports of composter caused blockages” and all I can see is the same 3rd hand “news”. I can imagine stupid behaviour causing an issue, but considering the (as we’re often reminded) tiny number of composters and the very infrequent use we need to make of toilet points, well basically these reports are bx aren’t they? Not many blockages and not usually us, if at all.

 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frangar said:

What’s the point in drying it out first? It just vastly increases the chances of blocking the Elsan! You could just use a normal cassette or porta potty and save a load of hassle. 

Instead of repeating myself I’ll just ask: have you (or let’s not be shy, anyone) personal knowledge of a single blockage definitively caused by (what I’d call) misuse of a composting toilet? As opposed to a pile of nastiness which might include substances from various sources

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, droshky said:

1. I mean by “monitoring” that the marinas could ensure that composters don’t use their facilities. Penalties if they want, I don’t care, I don’t empty there.

So where do you expect dry toilet users to empty their waste?

3 hours ago, droshky said:

2. Sorry, I’m not very assiduously following the forum, haven’t seen these discussions, I’ll have a search...soon

3. I’m suggesting that canal facilities are blocked for the same reasons as domestic ones. I may be wrong 

4. Oh come on. I meant that when a pump out or cassette is full you really have to have an expensive facility provided here and now.

As our pump out is a dump through it is easy to check and we never allow it to get to the need facilities urgently.   I suspect eveybody who is sensible has their own way of avoiding emergency need apart from possibly in long freeze ups.

3 hours ago, droshky said:

 

Ours last for months so there’s no rush unless you’re extremely careless. It’s as easy to check as a cassette, no trusting to the red light

I don’t think so

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, droshky said:

Instead of repeating myself I’ll just ask: have you (or let’s not be shy, anyone) personal knowledge of a single blockage definitively caused by (what I’d call) misuse of a composting toilet? As opposed to a pile of nastiness which might include substances from various sources

 

No.

 

But neither have I seen a baby pigeon.......

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

So where do you expect dry toilet users to empty their waste?

not in a small marina elsan. If they are there longer term, as we are right now, make your way to a larger unit, as we will.

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

As our pump out is a dump through it is easy to check and we never allow it to get to the need facilities urgently.   I suspect eveybody who is sensible has their own way of avoiding emergency need apart from possibly in long freeze ups.

 

My point was that cassette and pump out facilities have to be available at short notice. Ok your system works perfectly but many don’t. And cassette users need very frequent points. Some people are sensible and well equipped and well done them, but lots of boats, using systems which have inherently frequent service requirements, necessitates an expensive infrastructure. 
Personally, I think dog owners and boaters are responsible for what they create. So for poll purposes I’m a personal no. But socially I accept that dog poo is an issue needing (excuse me) delicate handling. I’ll leave it at that.

4 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

No.

 

But neither have I seen a baby pigeon.......

Nah they’d never block it

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, droshky said:

Instead of repeating myself I’ll just ask: have you (or let’s not be shy, anyone) personal knowledge of a single blockage definitively caused by (what I’d call) misuse of a composting toilet? As opposed to a pile of nastiness which might include substances from various sources

It doesn’t take the brain of Britain to work out that pouring semi or completely dry faeces combined with sawdust, car litter or similar as the potential to create a blockage in a system not designed to take such items. Just because the members of this forum cannot, hand on heart or a sty of Bibles, you choose, cannot prove categorically that this has happened doesn’t mean that people abusing  the waste facilities wont (or haven’t already) caused a blockage. The chance of the culprit a) admitting to their folly, or b) hanging around to help Dynorod (substitute with appropriate drain clearance operatives as appropriate) are slim to bugger all. 

Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean we shouldn’t plan to avoid the scenario. 

Compare with a nuclear Holocaust, we haven’t had one but we should do all we can to avoid one. 

Edited by Dyertribe
Continuation of my rant
  • Greenie 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, droshky said:

Well yes chaps, taking in your reasonable points, I don’t think you’ve come near answering mine.

 

I think you will find we have. 

 

You might not agree with the responses but that is a different matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dyertribe said:

It doesn’t take the brain of Britain to work out that pouring semi or completely dry faeces combined with sawdust, car litter or similar as the potential to create a blockage in a system not designed to take such items.

 

Oh good we are getting there.

 

It's the cover material (sawdust, coir, whatever) you are objecting to then?  

 

Adding poo that you think is too wet to go in a bin with plenty water to flush should be fine in an elsan point then.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

 

I think you will find we have. 

 

You might not agree with the responses but that is a different matter.

You think I’ll find you have? 
 

it was a simple question, can you point to a single case? Not yet

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I bet there are no more than a couple of hundred members that could be remotely classed as 'active'

In other words, out of the thousands of boaters, there are a couple of hundred who like to argue about this stuff.  The rest genuinely don't care.  This is why the views of a forum like this should be taken with extreme skepticism.  CWDF views are not remotely representative of the wider views of the boating community.

  • Greenie 2
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.