Anti social behaviour

[blackrose]

It doesn't bother you then?

 

I don't think I ever implied it didn't bother me - at least I didn't mean to, so I'm sorry if that's how it came across.

 

Yes, it bothers me, especially since we are but a stone's throw from the elsan point and I see it as pure laziness. I did mention it to another moorer but the response I got was "You can't go accusing people of that sort of thing, perhaps they go at work..." In fact it's quite obvious what they're doing. I manage to crap at work or college as much as possible but eventually the cassette needs emptying.

 

The thing that made me laugh was that one of these people was an eco-warrior woman with dreadlocks who used to make a big deal about growing vegetables on her roof and judged me for going to Tescos. She said she used a bucket (I took that to mean bucket and chuck it.) She's since left to pollute pastures new.

 

BW sent a letter out to everyone in the marina about the subject a couple of years ago after a complaint.

[magpie patrick]

www.hydrology.org.uk/Publications/imperial/4_20.pdf

 

An interesting paper, obviously more concerned with water quality, however, I can't find where it says that canal flows but I can find these two statements under hydraulic issues

 

"unlike rivers, canals have a ... lack of longitudinal bed slope" and "unlike rivers, canals do not lose water by longitudinal flow". It also contains a table with flows on the Union canal, the highest they found across four sites was 0.168 mph (I've converted their 75 millimetres per second figure), this was near the feeder where the paper admits the flow will be highest. The lowest at three of the four sites was zero, and at the fourth it was 1 millimetre per second, or 0.002 miles per hour.

 

And the paper seems to have a running theme of just how awful the water quality in a canal can be due to the lack of flow

[Chris Pink]

I don't think I ever implied it didn't bother me - at least I didn't mean to, so I'm sorry if that's how it came across.

 

Yes, it bothers me, especially since we are but a stone's throw from the elsan point and I see it as pure laziness.

 

No it didn't come across like that, i was more curious as what how or your other moorers coped with it.

 

Laziness is my impression as to motivation - as I say this was less than half a mile from an Elsan point and in an emergency a bucket would have done - and it has made me wonder how wide spread the practice is.

[Mac of Cygnet]

www.hydrology.org.uk/Publications/imperial/4_20.pdf

 

The only quoted velocity figures in that publication that I could find were For the Union Canal where the fastest rate recorded by the author was 30mm per sec. This works out at 0.07 MPH.

[choogh]

Well interesting though this reference is, firstly it directly contradicts your assertion that canals have built in flow gradients, secondly on a brief reading it implies that one of the main problems with canal ecology is oxygen depletion caused by eutrophication.

 

Given this, i assume that now you agree with the consensus view that throwing shit in the canal (or even s**t = what on earth is s**t Alan?) contributes to low water quality and is therefore Not a Good Thing.

 

I cannot recall that I ever implied that it was "A GOOD THING", I did say that raw sewage is a fertiliser, and that given the volume of water in the OP's pound, the alleged deposit was insignificant., I then went on to say that canals were designed with a "flow" to avoid stagnation.. I will revert with C&V later. But to state that there is NO flow on the canals is quite frankly stupid.

[NB Alnwick]

Well interesting though this reference is, firstly it directly contradicts your assertion that canals have built in flow gradients, secondly on a brief reading it implies that one of the main problems with canal ecology is oxygen depletion caused by eutrophication.

 

Given this, i assume that now you agree with the consensus view that throwing shit in the canal (or even s**t = what on earth is s**t Alan?) contributes to low water quality and is therefore Not a Good Thing.

 

Although no one has yet reported your language to the moderators (so far) you could have chosen a term that sounds more polite to describe the contents of the cassette. in any event your colourful description is unlikely to be entirely accurate unless you carried out a scientific examination of the ingredients so as to be certain of your facts - for example it may have contained a percentage of water or urine.

 

So why not describe the contents as 'waste' ? Then nobody will be offended . . .

[Chris Pink]

But to state that there is NO flow on the canals is quite frankly stupid.

 

Did I do that? Funny thing age. I have no recollection of bringing flow into the equation.

 

Why exactly would you like the canals to be fertilised? I can refer you to an interesting paper on eutrophication if you need a reference.

 

www.hydrology.org.uk/Publications/imperial/4_20.pdf

 

 

Ummmm..... Graham

 

The word **** has a long and well-documented history, far older than any large-scale organized sea-trade in northern Europe. Anglo-Saxon leechdom books use scittan in reference to cattle having diarrhea. A Latin text from 1118 refers to "Lues animalium, quæ Anglice Scitta vocatur, Latine autem fluxus interaneorum dici potest."

 

There are many examples of the verb from the 14th century [e.g., from 1387: þey wolde ... make hem a pitte ... whan þey wolde schite ...; and whanne þey hadde i-schete þey wolde fille þe pitte agen."]. The noun is attested from the 16th century, both in reference to excrement and to contemptible people.

 

[...] related words in other languages, such as German Scheiss, Dutch schijt, Old Norse skita, and Lithuanian sikti, which come from the same prehistoric root.

 

When did it become rude?

 

But i do like to be polite (since I started taking the medication) so can we agree on 'excrement'? Perhaps you'd be so kind as edit my posts.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Chris Pink

[NB Alnwick]

Sorry,

 

I've no idea what books you have read, (perhaps you'd like to tell us), but that statement is frankly piffle.

 

Other than where explicitly doubling as water supplies, or where they are actually canalised rivers, most UK canals flow not a single jot, beyond the mild movement caused by normal use of locks, and leakage.

 

Even if they flow, (which they don't), wouldn't it just mean s**t passing along at 1 mph, rather than just staying were it got tipped ?

 

For more than two centuries, most canals when in operation do have a modest flow and I know of at least one example where water is extracted from a canal to serve as a public water supply. Certainly I have often noticed a slow but fairly constant flow past our boat when tied-up - perhaps Alan is always in too much of a hurry to notice these minimal flows. Also, and I am not advocating the disposal of such waste into the canal but there is already a great deal of animal, bird and fish waste (and more than a few of their corpses) rotting away in the murky water.

Edited March 26, 2010 by NB Alnwick

[Laurie Booth]

Aside from anything else this means the guy tipping his turds into the cut will find them hanging around his own boat for a while

I always tip the shit over the back and run the engine in gear to chop all the bits up.

[magpie patrick]

I will revert with C&V later. But to state that there is NO flow on the canals is quite frankly stupid.

 

The paper you quoted had three "lowest recorded flow measurements" of zero.

 

But perhaps if I say negligible flow, and that which does occur isn't by design but a feature of their operation, I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

There are exceptions, the Tavistock Canal has a gradient of 1 in 6000 and a significant flow, while the Glamorgan Canal had a flow as a result of the round-the-clock operation of it's lock, this was a nuisance as it mean boats going upstream could carry less than boats going downstream

[David Schweizer]

I cannot recall that I ever implied that it was "A GOOD THING", I did say that raw sewage is a fertiliser, and that given the volume of water in the OP's pound, the alleged deposit was insignificant., I then went on to say that canals were designed with a "flow" to avoid stagnation.. I will revert with C&V later. But to state that there is NO flow on the canals is quite frankly stupid.

After nearly forty years experience of the canals, suddenly I learn that they have a flow, despte the fact that there is little visible evidence, to support this stupid notion. Apart from canalized river sections, the only places where any movement is visible is close is to locks, back pumps, and by wiers.

 

I also remember the days, referred to by Alan Fincher, when it was normal for toilets to be discharged straight into the canal, and when one passed a line of moored boats, the evidence was visible from the number of (stationary) floaters around the boats.

 

Perhaps you would like to return to those days when anyone who felt like it could discharge their toilet into the canal. After all, if you believe it to be inconsequntial for one person to do it, then we can presumably all claim the same right.

Edited March 26, 2010 by David Schweizer

[Keeping Up]

After nearly forty years experience of the canals, suddenly I learn that they have a flow, despte the fact that there is little visible evidence, to support this stupid notion. Apart from canalized river sections, the only places where any movement is visible is close is to locks, back pumps, and by wiers.

 

I also remember the days, referred to by Alan Fincher, when it was normal for toilets to be discharged straight into the canal, and when one passed a line of moored boats, the evidence was visible from the number of (stationary) floaters around the boats.

 

Perhaps you would like to return to those days when anyone who felt like it could discharge their toilet into the canal. After all, if you believe it to be inconsequntial for one person to do it, then we can presumably all claim the same right.

In those times I remember that hire companies were much more responsible than to suggest anything so crude. Anglo-Welsh gave us a shovel along with the porta-potti, and instructed us to dig a hole as near to the hedge as possible and empty the cassette into it.

[Smelly]

Old hat now but I'd've gone straight for the jugular, once he'd put the sh*tty bucket down anyhoo.

 

I was just watching this thread but the sheer comedy of Patrick getting a lecture in canal design has inspired me to post, between the giggles...

[alan_fincher]

I will revert with C&V later. But to state that there is NO flow on the canals is quite frankly stupid.

 

But probably still a lot closer to any typical case than posting.....

 

the canal were built with a 1 mph flow, to stop them stagnating,

 

I can't find anything in the document that you have provided a link to that says that, so think it's a bit rich to be calling people "stupid" when your own point is clearly not substantiated.

 

Do you have anything that actually talks about English canals, which is where most people on this forum's greatest interest will lie ?

[Albion]

The French canals are largely pump out free... Do they have a problem ? NO..

 

That depends whether you consider the cappuccino froth that builds up around your bows on the river sections (where there is flow) to be a pleasant thing or not.

 

Actually they do have a problem which is why you are required to have a holding tank, if cruising the French canals, now.

 

You still dispose of your black tank into the water as there are so few pump out stations. On the Nivernais there are three pump out stations to my knowledge and none of them are in use. The French have, I am told, had legislation in place for some time but, like all things French, actual application of the law doesn't necessarily coincide with the legislation. I've boated in France for three years and never done anything other than pump overboard..........no chemicals obviously.

Roger

[carlt]

You still dispose of your black tank into the water as there are so few pump out stations. On the Nivernais there are three pump out stations to my knowledge and none of them are in use.

Roger

I know and I did say that the actual provision of pumpout facilities is still inadequate.

[nb Innisfree]

I believe the French authorities don't like holding tanks emptying into rivers as it overwhelms the local ecology but individual flushing overboard is ok?

[deletedaccount]

I think that one should mind their own business.... literally. Untreated sewage is a fertiliser, the canal were built with a 1 mph flow, to stop them stagnating, calculate the amount of water in your pound. The sewage is miniscule.. Yes, but what if everyone did it.!! .Well you and yours don't and wont. but the very few "caught out" can do little harm.

 

The French canals are largely pump out free... Do they have a problem ? NO..

 

They're litterally shitting on my doorstep. So yes, I think it is my business.

[magnetman]

People in glass houses, shouldn't throw shit:

 

WELL POTTED SIR

 

(Can't work out how to quote you and myself in one go)

Edited March 26, 2010 by magnetman

[carlt]

WELL SPOTTED SIR

 

(Can't work out how to quote you and myself in one go)

 

People in glass houses, shouldn't throw shit:

 

I clicked "reply" in my post then copied the quote, went back to your post and clicked "reply" again, then pasted my quote in.

 

If that makes any sense??

[Keeping Up]

(Can't work out how to quote you and myself in one go)

Click "Quote" on both, or as many as you like, then click on "Add Reply"

[magnetman]

Thanks

 

And just to clarify, I was talking about the use of obscene words in a letter which was what the OP was about. I don't mind it at all and am free with this sort of word myself but somehow using it in a letter lowers the credibility of the writer of that letter.

imo

Edited March 26, 2010 by magnetman

[NB Alnwick]

After nearly forty years experience of the canals, suddenly I learn that they have a flow, despte the fact that there is little visible evidence, to support this stupid notion. Apart from canalized river sections, the only places where any movement is visible is close is to locks, back pumps, and by wiers.

 

I cannot accept the argument that there is 'no' flow on our canals. Admittedly, the flow will be very slow and perhaps almost impossible to see on some sections but I spent many years living near the three reservoirs that feed the summit level of the GU Leicester line and in the 1950s - a hot summer would see those reservoirs almost drained - that water must be going somewhere! Every time a boat goes through a lock, a lockful of water must flow downhill - sometimes some of it may run over an overflow but most of the time it flows gently toward the next lock - if this didn't happen we would have long sections of canal without water.

 

Similarly there is a flow past our boat - it increases when a boat has just come through Cropredy lock but most of the time it is just water from the summit level reservoirs filtering its way down - elsewhere streams and field drains run into the canal and these must also create a modest flow - where else can it go?

[Keeping Up]

I'm sure I can remember reading somewhere that one of the early canals was designed for a water flow of 0.2mph, with the objective of ensuring that there would always be a gentle flow through the by-washes to keep the pounds topped up should they become unbalanced with use - but I can't remember which one it was, Staffs & Worcs perhaps?

[sueb]

I always tip the shit over the back and run the engine in gear to chop all the bits up.

 

So it was you doing a pump out in that manner on the Trent & Mersey last year

I am not accusing you but someone was, just below a lock as well.

Sue