eco friendly products

[awatsonbcp]

has anyone out there looked into the use of shampoo, shower gel, washing up liquid or soap powder, bearing in mind that most of us flush this stuff straight into the canal almost every day?

i was in the coop the other day and noticed they sell Ecover products and wondered whether they make a difference to how much pollution we all discharge into the water.

 

there are perfunes etc in all sorts of products we use to wash up ,together with antibac stuff colouring etc etc

 

or does it all biodegrade in a short time anyway?

[DHutch]

has anyone out there looked into the use of shampoo, shower gel, washing up liquid or soap powder, bearing in mind that most of us flush this stuff straight into the canal almost every day?

i was in the coop the other day and noticed they sell Ecover products and wondered whether they make a difference to how much pollution we all discharge into the water.

 

there are perfunes etc in all sorts of products we use to wash up ,together with antibac stuff colouring etc etc

 

or does it all biodegrade in a short time anyway?

22341[/snapback]

We use Ecover for our washing machine/dishwasher/handwashing at home all the time, it works fine, and is more envirmentaly freindy.

- So if we where doing that on the boat, we'd use it there too.

 

For doing the dishes by hand we use fairy tho, just use it sparingly/

- Also, on the boat we get though a lot of Gritted hand cleanser, steam oils a real bugger!

 

 

Daniel

[roger]

I am sure it all bio degrades over time. Ecover would be better than other stuff though as the chemicals used are not so irritant to the environment. remeber we are dumping chemicals into the habitat of other living things!! There are concerns about using washing machines on canal boats so more friendly the stuff used the better!

 

You can get various other environment freindly stuff such as shampoos etc from health shops or fairs.

 

I do remember reading BW information that asks people to think about what they are pouring down the drain into a canal!

Edited June 8, 2005 by roger

[DHutch]

I do remember reading BW information that asks people to think about what they are pouring down the drain into a canal!

Yeah, where very carefull with oil, paint cleaners, and white sprit (which we use for cleaning oil etc)

- In the engine room we have oil seperating tin. The bilge water is pumped into the tin by hand, left to settle out for a bit, and the bilge pump pumps the water off the bottom of the tin, but with switched off by a float switch before it gets to the oil (on the surface) - when a fair bit has built up it is skimed of the top and later desposed of.

- I personally feel it is every human beings duty and responsibility to be as environmentally freindly as is conviently possible, as all times.

 

 

Daniel

Edited June 8, 2005 by dhutch

[dor]

As I went past a boat near Barbridge last weekend, one of the moorers was pumping out his engine bilge and it looked like about 50% oil.

 

After the pump stopped, he reappeared with a bottle of washing up liquid and squirted a couple of squirts in the general direction of the oil slick that ws now floating alongside his boat!

[DHutch]

Well that not very good, tbh.

- Although if you do accidently put some oil into the cut, the fairly liquid is good.

 

But it certainly does not make it right again

 

 

Daniel

[John Orentas]

I have often wondered about this, all we can probably say is that we have not come near to the point where the natural systems can't cope with the amount of pollution that boats discharge. Some of the cleanest canals are also some of he busiest, the Llangollen for example, if boats where having any appreciable impact on the water quality there we would soon know about it given that it serves as a water supply.

 

A canal is an eco-system in it's own right the living organisms seem to be able to gobble their way through everything we can pass on to them. Also a fully functioning canal with boat movements and water flow can only be beneficial all round.

Edited June 8, 2005 by John Orentas

[awatsonbcp]

john

 

isnt the point that the Llangollen is effectively a watercourse and actually flows? most canals dont so the impact might be more marked in "stagnant" water?

[John Orentas]

Alan.

 

All canals have a flow, thats how the locks work. I fact some have a greater flow than the Llangollen. Every time a boat leaves a summit level a lock full of water heads off down to the sea. I can never remember how many gallons that is.

[DHutch]

All canals have a flow, thats how the locks work.  I fact some have a greater flow than the Llangollen.  Every time a boat leaves a summit level a lock full of water heads off down to the sea.  I can never remember how many gallons that is.

The llangollen does have a good flow, espacially at night.

 

 

Daniel

[Khayamanzi]

What might make a difference is if those boats that are polluting the waterway also help aerate it with their prop! I like to feel that although I may dump some un-natural material into the eco-system, I at least help the natural process of breakdown by assisting the oxygenation of the water. If a boat never moves then I expect they are a much greater pollutant.

[MattandAmy]

I thought I would jump in here if thats ok on the subject of canal ecosystems and pollution as I have some experience of these things.

 

Obviously, canals have their own ecosystems and ecological dynamics, but these vary widely depending on the nature of the canal, its environs and its structure. Those canals with reinforced, almost vertical banks, limit the scope and variety of ecological niches which can be filled by organisms, especially due to the fact that many aquatic organisms rely on areas of shallow water, particularly macrophytes (submerged aquatic plants) which require sunlight in the same way as any other plant.

 

The aeration effect of the prop will be beneficial as long as that effect is strong enough to move water from the lower regions into the upper regions. Surprisingly, there can be quite a difference in the levels of dissolved oxygen in water, depending on the depth. At the bottom of the water, where the air/water interface is not present, the conditions can be much less favourable to aquatic organisms.

 

One of the biggest causes of aquatic pollution comes from organic matter. Nowadays, we don't empty our toilets over the side, but any organic pollution, such as faeces, urine, vegetable matter, meat, bones etc, is degraded by bacteria which 'use up' the dissolved oxygen in the water, further damaging the ecosystem.

 

Canals and navigation requirements in general can have a detrimental effect, in that there is pressure (rightly so to ensure navigability) to have as much depth as possible over the widest area possible, meaning that in some places, the depth will be uniform across the width of the canal, right up to the banks, meaning there are no marginal habitats in which these communities can thrive. This means less submerged plants, meaning less aquatic invertebrates, meaning less fish, birds, mammals etc, right on through the food web.

 

So, the effect that boating has on the environment is principally a second hand effect. Having said that, canal systems were designed and constructed for the purposes of navigation and we can't go backwards. The solution to this, which obviously costs a lot of money, is to incorporate 'slacks' into canal systems, effectively 'lay bys' which are not used by boats and have shallow marginal areas allowing for the growth of marginal vegetation such as reed beds without impeding the navigability of the canal.

 

Pollutants from boats are evidently a problem, particularly as some of the more noxious particulates found in diesel fuel exhaust are not readily biodegradable and can contain chemical/heavy metal toxins absorbed by the combustion process. There is no real solution to this problem except by the use of alternative fuels and/or engine technology, such as using rape oil, vegetable oil. The effect however, taken into context, is not that great in comparison to the fact that airborne particulates, from rainfall and atmospheric pollution, can be absorbed into the water and thence into the ecosystem, causing some pretty nasty effects.

 

It should also be noted that most of our water treatment systems are pretty ineffective at dealing with chemical and some biological pollutants, so a lot of pollution comes into the canals and rivers from there. There's been a lot of press about the effect of Oestrogen on fish populations, whereby excess oestrogen in the ecosystem 'changes' the fish population into an all female population, meaning no breeding etc.

 

Detergents, oils and other compounds released from boats will also have a detrimental impact, which is why biodegradable detergents and lubricating oils should be used where possible.

 

If you do have a small oil spill, it can be effectively mopped up using a fairly simple device. Get an old pair of tights, or similarly fine mesh material, and fill it with hair, gathered from hairdressers or wherever and tie it up into a ball. If you use this as a mop, either inside the boat, or on a floating slick, the oil bonds to the hair and removed. Simply squeeze the oil out into a safe container and dispose of at a recycling plant.

 

So, in summary, the effects of boating on the environment can be significantly reduced by the use of eco friendly products, alternative fuels, not depositing organic matter into the water and by introducing 'slacks' as described earlier. Also, by not running the engine when stationary where possible, as this concentrates the pollutants into a smaller area.

 

I'm sorry for the length of this post, I just felt I could jot down a few points which some people might not be aware of.

 

Cheers

 

Matt

Edited June 21, 2005 by MattandAmy

[Guest st170dw]

No need to apologise for an informative post on a subject you are well qualified to tackle.

[Alan Saunders]

I thought I would jump in here if thats ok on the subject of canal ecosystems and pollution as I have some experience of these things. . . .

23817[/snapback]

Thanks for that Matt, some new ideas for me, especially the 'hair oil absorber', I assume other animal hair would work as well? There is no way I would discharge faeces but I did not realise urine could be a problem.

 

Long? A screenfull of good info is very welcome; should be copied into the 'articles' section.

 

Alan

[John Orentas]

Hi Matt.

 

All of that sounds valid to me, I would question however your image of the steep sided uniform depth canal, whether by design or accident canals are not like that, they invariably have a graduated depth with lots of very shallow stretches and inlets. The 2 or 3 meters on the off side will always be less that 18 inches deep.

[MattandAmy]

Hi Matt.

 

All of that sounds valid to me, I would question however your image of the steep sided uniform depth canal, whether by design or accident canals are not like that, they invariably have a graduated depth with lots of very shallow stretches and inlets.  The 2 or 3 meters on the off side will always be less that 18 inches deep.

23867[/snapback]

 

Agreed, but if you think on a smaller scale, that 18inches of water at the bankside is still pretty deep. Imagine for a minute that you are a hatchling frog, or an aquatic plant which needs water no more than 2-3 inches deep. The best, most productive banksides (in general ecological terms) are those which enter the water at a very shallow gradient, creating a continuous spectrum of habitats varying from totally indundated to totally dry.

 

Think of a beach on a small scale, how the beach comes out of the water at a very shallow angle, leaving lots of exposed mud/sand at low tide.

 

This means that in summer, when the water level is slightly lower, the mud at the bankside is exposed, like a mini mud flat. These areas which are sometimes indundated and sometimes exposed, are valuable, important parts of aqautic ecosystems. We used to have a lot more areas like this, particularly on river sides, but most of them, and the flood meadows and side arms, have been filled in, drained and 'agriculturalised' resulting in bank erosion (we've all seen banks falling in to the rivers) and urban flooding as the natural ability of the river system to absorb flood events is significantly reduced.

 

So whilst I agree, that canals are not entirely "uniform" in depth, they, and rivers, are nonetheless engineered so as to allow the greatest width of navigable water and areas which we consider 'shallow' in our terms, may not be 'shallow' at a smaller scale.

 

With regard to rivers, you only have to look at the original course of rivers like the Trent, compared with the current course, to see how things have been changed and altered over the years. Meanders, slacks, backwaters, riffles, pools, natural weirs etc have been either removed, straightened or modified for the purposes of navigability. All those things are bad news if you are trying to get a boat down the river, but they are very good (vital) news for wildlife.

 

I'm not trying to lambast boating though, just popping some ideas out there about what the impacts are. I personally feel that with a bit of imagination, the needs of boaters and the needs of wildlife can be balanced very effectively without significant detriment to either.

 

This is why I would love to work for BW or the EA, to see if I could implement some of these ideas and get rid of the "boaters vs conservation" conflict that occurs in some places.

 

Cheers

 

Matt

[maffi mushkila]

Surely the ecosystem in a canal is there by accident not by design. Whilst I would not advocate purposely polluting the canals, going about your normal day-to-day boating activities has enabled the ecosystems to be come proliferate. The ecosystem has to live with the canal and its activities not the other way around.

Edited June 22, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[MattandAmy]

Surely the ecosystem in a canal is there by accident not by design. Whilst I would not advocate purposely polluting the canals, going about your normal day-to-day boating activities has enabled the ecosystems to be come proliferate. The ecosystem has to live with the canal and its activities not the other way around.

23872[/snapback]

 

Dead right, and I am not saying that boating should come secondary to environmental concerns, as you say, the ecosystem exists because the canals were constructed for the needs of boating. All I am saying is that we could enhance the environmental benefit of canals and rivers, thereby mitigating to some extent any negative impacts from boating activities and ensuring the biodiversity of the countryside is maintained.

 

IMHO, as a species, we have destroyed an awful lot of habitats, so where we have enabled new ones to occur, we have a duty to ensure that those habitats are as valuable to wildlife as practically possible without detriment to the original purpose.

 

In a similar way, the prime purpose of Forestry plantations is to provide timber, but in many areas now, as much scope is given to providing habitat for wildlife as possible, due to the fact that mans activities have lead to the loss of the previously existing habitats.

 

Our rivers are not what they were, they have been altered and changed for the purposes of navigation, my point is, that given that fact, there is an oppurtunity to replace that lost habitat without affecting the navigability of rivers or canals.

 

Cheers

 

Matt

[dor]

One of the most significant differences between canals and rivers is the turbidity of the water. This has a major impact on plant growth, from the algal level up to macro plants. This then has a knock on effect on the planktonic fauna with its own knock-on effect on larger animal life.

 

I think some people overestimate the biological content of many of our canals that are in use.

 

Go to the top of the Llangollen canal and the water is clear, go downstream and it is completely different for most of the year (it does clear somewhat in the winter).

 

Sections of canal that are not used by boats are a different matter. This is why there are many arguments going on over the restoration of the Montgomery canal, where some groups don't want the boats to return. (Now remind me, what was the canal built for?). One idea they had was to partition off a side section, by putting in posts and having lengths of wood to separate the boats from the "layby". Old telegraph poles were obtained to do this, but BW's ecologist said they couldn't possibly be used due to the creosote. However, as the poles were decades old, the creosote in them would be pretty benign, but they had to be replaced with tanalised wood. Now I wouldn't have thought that newly tanalised wood would be any better for the water quality than old creosoted wood, especially when put into context. I understand that not far from where this project was going on, sections had been piled with old sleepers, with no ill effects.

 

What we need to do is keep a sense of reality over these things. Remember the shell oil platform that greenpeace stopped being sunk out at sea? After it had cost Shell millions to bring it back and cut it up, probably not a very environmentally beneficial process, Greenpeace did finally admiit that it would have benefitted the environment as it would have formed an artifical reef.

 

Live & let live. Don't abuse your environment, but remember that that environment has developed and adapted to work in the situation in which it was built.

[MattandAmy]

I think perhaps my views have been slightly misinterpreted in some ways. I am totally in favour of canals being used (and restored) for their original purpose, I think that a lot of 'disused' canals, such as the Grantham, would benefit enormously from being returned to navigable status.

 

Turbidity is a complex issue, which has many causes and effects. The principal effect being that light does not penetrate the water sufficiently to allow photosynthesis of aquatic plants. The causes can be varied however, I have personally conducted significant research which suggests that, in still waters especially, the fish population density has a marked effect on turbidity, particularly Carp populations. But turbidity can also be caused by disturbance of sediment, bank erosion, eutrophication (explosions of algae and bacteria due to increased fertility in the water arising from organic pollution) and a myriad of other causes. So, thinking about the Llangollen. It is probable that the reason the water is clear at the top and less so further down, is that there is an increase in organic content in the water further down (run off from agriculture, fertiliser, urine, milk, dairy washings etc) yielding much more vigourous vegetation growth.

 

With regard to the Montgomery, I think that you are right in terms of tanalised timber. Tanalising solution isn't particularly nice stuff, but my choice would be to use natural materials as a barrier, this could be done with willow/hazel hurdles just as effectively, over time, sediment fills in the gaps in the hurdle and creates an effective barrier.

 

Creosote on piles will have an effect, because aquatic organisms which attach themselves to it will absorb the creosote, which will then be passed into the food chain. Therefore, it is better not to use treated wood, but having said that, as you say, railway sleepers and old telegraph poles can be used as structural members, as the benefits would outweigh the 'costs'.

 

Also, any measures of this kind have to be funded, so making use of recycled material where feasible, is a good idea.

 

but remember that that environment has developed and adapted to work in the situation in which it was built

 

Thats very true, and I agree, but there is no reason why we cannot seek to enhance the environment where practical, conservation in the 21st century has to change, for too long, there has been a conflict between the "fence it off and keep everyone out" brigade and the "I'll do what I like and the environment can like it or lump it" brigade. What we need is a holistic approach to waterways management that seeks to enhance the use of the waterways for recreation, navigation and so on, whilst also seeking to enhance the ecological benefit of those waterways wherever it is practical to do so.

 

Cheers

 

Matt

[maffi mushkila]

Dead right, and I am not saying that boating should come secondary to environmental concerns,

Then you are one of the few ecologist that do not think the boating should be curtailed.

as you say, the ecosystem exists because the canals were constructed for the needs of boating. All I am saying is that we could enhance the environmental benefit of canals and rivers, thereby mitigating to some extent any negative impacts from boating activities and ensuring the biodiversity of the countryside is maintained.

Since the first canals were built 200+ years ago the country side has been enhanced a great deal. Flora and fauna now exist in parts of the country where previously they did not.

 

Now, me being new to all this boating malarky and not really giving ecology enough thought, would you like to outline the impact that boating has on the environment so that I, and possibly others, are more aware?

IMHO, as a species, we have destroyed an awful lot of habitats, so where we have enabled new ones to occur, we have a duty to ensure that those habitats are as valuable to wildlife as practically possible without detriment to the original purpose.

I doubt that, Matt, every environmentalist I have ever heard says the same thing and so they should of course, it's their job.

Our rivers are not what they were, they have been altered and changed for the purposes of navigation, my point is, that given that fact, there is an opportunity to replace that lost habitat without affecting the navigability of rivers or canals.

Unfortunately there are those who would stop the boats altogether. That in itself would be devastating for the 'bio diversity'. Fish can't swim in muddy ditches. With no boats there would be no point dredging the canals and eventually they would silt up and be turned into car parks and housing estates where the is little or no bio diversity.

 

Given that canals are high sided waterways how are these shallows dwelling plants surviving at the moment? Are you saying that these plants are not there at this time but we should make it possible for them to be there at a later date?

 

The prime function of BW is the Navigation. Which ecology orgs are funding these 'improvements', or is BW being expected to pay for it out of their pocket?

Edited June 22, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[Richard Bustens]

In the 60s when there was little on no traffic the Chesterfield canal was as clear as tap water, i us to go on it most w/ends with a canoe and travel for miles, there was a boat moored up by the mill but i dont ever remember seeing any other boat.

Edited June 22, 2005 by Richard Bustens

[MattandAmy]

All I am saying, and all I have said, is that in my opinion, there is scope for the inclusion of environmental improvement schemes within the naviagble network. Who pays for it, and who does it, I don't know, I don't have all the answers, I was just stating my opinion.

 

Yes, my opinion flies in the face of some ecologists opinion, but I prefer to take a more realistic stance, in that I don't think boating should be curtailed, but I do think that more could be done to enhance the ecology of the navigable system.

 

Are you saying that these plants are not there at this time but we should make it possible for them to be there at a later date

 

Absolutely, I'm not saying that they don't exist anywhere, but that it would in theory be possible to provide areas within the network for such communities to exist without compromising the navigability of the system.

 

As I said, I don't know who would pay, or who would do the work, its just that I think there is scope for it to happen, because some people seem to think that you can either manage for wildlife, or manage for navigation, but not both. I disagree, I think you CAN do both. The hows and wheres would require further research which I don't have the resources to do.

 

If someone like BW or the EA were interested, then it would be interesting to conduct a feasibility study and cost/benefit analysis on these ideas.

 

If I could afford to, I would be interested in doing it myself as a MSc or PhD thesis.

 

So, I am just floating ideas and views and listening to the feedback, if anything is to come of any idea, I need to know what all the interested parties think about it. Its the folks out there on the boats that keep our waterways going, without the boating community, there would be no impetus for BW to maintain navigability and the waterways would be no more.

 

I hope I can clear up the fact that I am not anti-boating, otherwise I would not be engaged in investigating living aboard myself. I just have a rather strong environmental 'bent' and it interests me to think about how that can co-exist harmoniously with the needs of navigation.

 

Cheers

 

Matt

[maffi mushkila]

In the 60s when there was little on no traffic the Chesterfield canal was as clear as tap water,I used to go on it most w/ends with a canoe and travel for miles, there was a boat moored up by the mill but I dont ever remember seeing any other boat.

 

Very likey, Richard, though that was not the case on parts of the K&A. And the canal from Trowbridge up through Swindon has suffered greatly to the point I can't even find parts of it.

Edited June 22, 2005 by maffi mushkila

[maffi mushkila]

Matt please don't think I am having a pop at you. I, like you, am just putting my points across. And asking questions.

 

You may have missed my edit so I will repeat it.

 

Now, me being new to all this boating malarky and not really giving ecology enough thought, would you like to outline the impact that boating has on the environment so that I, and possibly others, are more aware?

Edited June 22, 2005 by maffi mushkila