Can anyone give me an idea how daily waste discharged into water by an adult human compares with that caused by a full-grown dolphin in terms of volume and effect?
- Status
sorry only one cup of coffee
Dolphins have no effect on the environment in terms of nutrients. They eat fish and then poop out what they ate but there is no net change in the nutrients in the ecosystem. The problem is that men take fossil energy form oil,gas and coal and use that energy to mine nutrients such as phosphate and make nutrients such as nitogen fetilizer. These nutrients produce food in Iowa or where ever to feed a concentrated population near or on the water. When these excess nutrients reach the water they cause excess algea growth and when the algea die excess bacterial growth. The bacteria consume all of the oxygen in the lower layers of water and fish leave or die. In Chesapeak bay this lack of oxygen has almost destroyed the crab industry. This is a greatly simplified version of what happens. Again sorry about the previous post. Tom
Dolphins have no effect on the environment in terms of nutrients. They eat fish and then poop out what they ate but there is no net change in the nutrients in the ecosystem. The problem is that men take fossil energy form oil,gas and coal and use that energy to mine nutrients such as phosphate and make nutrients such as nitogen fetilizer. These nutrients produce food in Iowa or where ever to feed a concentrated population near or on the water. When these excess nutrients reach the water they cause excess algea growth and when the algea die excess bacterial growth. The bacteria consume all of the oxygen in the lower layers of water and fish leave or die. In Chesapeak bay this lack of oxygen has almost destroyed the crab industry. This is a greatly simplified version of what happens. Again sorry about the previous post. Tom
Civility reminder
Just a reminder that our forum policies require that posts remain civil, and personal attacks are phrohibited. Failure to comply can cause you to be banned from the site. That said, please assume you will encounter opinions you do not agree with. Argument is wonderful and the disagreements are what make the forum work. But debate cannot include personal attacks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and we want to maintain a safe environment for owners to ask questions. Tom, the re-post with your apology and civil, thoughtful answer are appreciated.
Just a reminder that our forum policies require that posts remain civil, and personal attacks are phrohibited. Failure to comply can cause you to be banned from the site. That said, please assume you will encounter opinions you do not agree with. Argument is wonderful and the disagreements are what make the forum work. But debate cannot include personal attacks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and we want to maintain a safe environment for owners to ask questions. Tom, the re-post with your apology and civil, thoughtful answer are appreciated.
man vs. dolphin II
I asked the question, but since I did not see the first response I am puzzled. My question was specific. One human, one dolphin. Tom's response suggests that the issue is broader, but the idea that a dolphin is just a big macerator does not answer. At any rate, I do not suggest that we ban dolphins.
I asked the question, but since I did not see the first response I am puzzled. My question was specific. One human, one dolphin. Tom's response suggests that the issue is broader, but the idea that a dolphin is just a big macerator does not answer. At any rate, I do not suggest that we ban dolphins.
Gunter what is the question???
I assumed that you wanted to know about the pollution effects of a man versus a dolphin. A dolphin is part of the ecosystem and doesn't introduce anything into that ecosystem. A man would do the same if he ate only stuff that came from the ecosystem. As far as physiology I am sure that a dolphin eats more food and produces more waste than a human. This waste is well dispersed in the ecosystem as dolphins poop whenever they feel like pooping. As far as total mass of poop there are hundreds of times more people than dolphins but more importantly we introduce new nutrients into the ecosystem as contrasted with the dolphin's recycling. You can think of an ecosystem as an aquarium. If you feed your fish a little food the system will take care of the waste. But if you try to put too much food in the system the water turns nasty and the fish die. This is the situation when too many people poop in the water. As Peggy mentions tidal flushing helps dilute the nutrients in the larger ocean. But even then there are limits. There is a huge dead zone near the mouth of the Mississippi River where there isn't enough oxygen to support fish. Think of how many times water goes through a toilet as it goes down the Mississippi and it's tributaries. Chicago,Memphis ,St Louis, Minneapolis , Knoxville,Chattannoga...just to name a few. It says a lot that the water still supports fish at all.
I assumed that you wanted to know about the pollution effects of a man versus a dolphin. A dolphin is part of the ecosystem and doesn't introduce anything into that ecosystem. A man would do the same if he ate only stuff that came from the ecosystem. As far as physiology I am sure that a dolphin eats more food and produces more waste than a human. This waste is well dispersed in the ecosystem as dolphins poop whenever they feel like pooping. As far as total mass of poop there are hundreds of times more people than dolphins but more importantly we introduce new nutrients into the ecosystem as contrasted with the dolphin's recycling. You can think of an ecosystem as an aquarium. If you feed your fish a little food the system will take care of the waste. But if you try to put too much food in the system the water turns nasty and the fish die. This is the situation when too many people poop in the water. As Peggy mentions tidal flushing helps dilute the nutrients in the larger ocean. But even then there are limits. There is a huge dead zone near the mouth of the Mississippi River where there isn't enough oxygen to support fish. Think of how many times water goes through a toilet as it goes down the Mississippi and it's tributaries. Chicago,Memphis ,St Louis, Minneapolis , Knoxville,Chattannoga...just to name a few. It says a lot that the water still supports fish at all.
Tom, in your analysis....
Tom: In your analysis I would like to know how wild animals and cattle grazing, peeing, and crapping in and near streams that flow into lakes, rivers and the ocean effect the eco system. They are eating the grass that grows on the range. So according to what you are saying these animals are just a natural part of the eco system and have no contribution to pollution. In the old days the farmers would take the manure from their cattle and put it on the crops. Their irrigation would then flow into the streams. Now our farmers use more chemical fertilzers which flow into the streams, lakes and rivers.
Tom: In your analysis I would like to know how wild animals and cattle grazing, peeing, and crapping in and near streams that flow into lakes, rivers and the ocean effect the eco system. They are eating the grass that grows on the range. So according to what you are saying these animals are just a natural part of the eco system and have no contribution to pollution. In the old days the farmers would take the manure from their cattle and put it on the crops. Their irrigation would then flow into the streams. Now our farmers use more chemical fertilzers which flow into the streams, lakes and rivers.
speeding up cycles
Steve; Man is fundamentally different than other animals when it comes to nutrients. We actually produce fixed nitrogen and mine phosphates. This has been very good for us!!! In a wild ecosystem if animals remove too many nutrients the plants produce less food and the excess aninmals starve. In a nutrient poor environment little escapes to water. When we fertilise we add excess and that escapes. All I am saying is that when you have a large group of people contributing nutrients to an ecosystem it is different than animals within the ecosystem. We also remove hundreds of tons of nutrients from the ocean when we catch fish and sell them to people who live far from the sea. We have the ability to control our wastes to have water as clean as we want it to be. Even the Mississippi river could be cleaned up but I doubt that we would want to pay for it. Chesapeak bay was once one of the most productive ecosystems on the planet. We have polluted and overfished until it is a pale shadow of what once was.
Steve; Man is fundamentally different than other animals when it comes to nutrients. We actually produce fixed nitrogen and mine phosphates. This has been very good for us!!! In a wild ecosystem if animals remove too many nutrients the plants produce less food and the excess aninmals starve. In a nutrient poor environment little escapes to water. When we fertilise we add excess and that escapes. All I am saying is that when you have a large group of people contributing nutrients to an ecosystem it is different than animals within the ecosystem. We also remove hundreds of tons of nutrients from the ocean when we catch fish and sell them to people who live far from the sea. We have the ability to control our wastes to have water as clean as we want it to be. Even the Mississippi river could be cleaned up but I doubt that we would want to pay for it. Chesapeak bay was once one of the most productive ecosystems on the planet. We have polluted and overfished until it is a pale shadow of what once was.
Words vs. turds
What amazes me is that man is so preoccupied with his presence that he thinks whatever he says or does makes any of difference regarding the outcome of this world we are guests of. We are not the beginning or end, but just the "in between". You gotta take a crap? So does the dolphin. The difference is that you can do it in an envelope and mail it to Peggy or the EPA or me; in the end what remains is that you feel better and it's off your boat. Essentially I've grown to be an environmentalist, but in that I've become a realist; shit happens, there are too many people shitting, and this is becoming a shitty world. I look at it this way; I'm offshore in a sea full of creatures, rarely any human, with organic waste. It's overboard, and I'm not more guilty than the dolphin, for I belong there as well. Take a load off; you're concious of your impact on the environment, which is more than most can account for.
What amazes me is that man is so preoccupied with his presence that he thinks whatever he says or does makes any of difference regarding the outcome of this world we are guests of. We are not the beginning or end, but just the "in between". You gotta take a crap? So does the dolphin. The difference is that you can do it in an envelope and mail it to Peggy or the EPA or me; in the end what remains is that you feel better and it's off your boat. Essentially I've grown to be an environmentalist, but in that I've become a realist; shit happens, there are too many people shitting, and this is becoming a shitty world. I look at it this way; I'm offshore in a sea full of creatures, rarely any human, with organic waste. It's overboard, and I'm not more guilty than the dolphin, for I belong there as well. Take a load off; you're concious of your impact on the environment, which is more than most can account for.
Continuum
Man's impact on the environment is insignificant if you look at it from an unselfish and broader perspective. Over the course of history this planet has undergone incredible changes way more dramatic than anything man has or could do!! Think ice ages, or what did the planet look like when life was first developing (poison gas atmosphere perhaps)? Now go one step further and think of man's impact in terms of the hubble telescope and the wonders of the universe. The impact of man on the environment is only of concern because it is a self inflicted wound...environmental damage impacts man himself ( granted along with some creatures) but the planet is relatively unchanged compared to the environmental effect of a comet or asteroid impact in the 1 mile diameter size range. Time will go on and species will adapt. The forces of nature are still so powerful as to make man insignificant in the continuum of time!! That said, I agree that every effort should be made to not pollute the environment. I do not want to have to dodge chunks of matter nor gaze into a field of brown sludge while I am scuba diving...SAVE THE REEFS!!! dave
Man's impact on the environment is insignificant if you look at it from an unselfish and broader perspective. Over the course of history this planet has undergone incredible changes way more dramatic than anything man has or could do!! Think ice ages, or what did the planet look like when life was first developing (poison gas atmosphere perhaps)? Now go one step further and think of man's impact in terms of the hubble telescope and the wonders of the universe. The impact of man on the environment is only of concern because it is a self inflicted wound...environmental damage impacts man himself ( granted along with some creatures) but the planet is relatively unchanged compared to the environmental effect of a comet or asteroid impact in the 1 mile diameter size range. Time will go on and species will adapt. The forces of nature are still so powerful as to make man insignificant in the continuum of time!! That said, I agree that every effort should be made to not pollute the environment. I do not want to have to dodge chunks of matter nor gaze into a field of brown sludge while I am scuba diving...SAVE THE REEFS!!! dave
Thin skinned
Our "environment" is only the thin outer skin of the earth. Although we can traverse the planet's surface thousands of miles a day, how many can live more than a mile above or have ever been more than a mile below the earth's surface? Man has never touched the remaining 3,962 miles down to the earth’s center and few have ventured more than 15 miles up. We tend to think that what we see is all there is. How many stop to think that the earth’s core is a radioactive iron fission reactor that generates a tremendous amount of heat? So much heat, in fact, that the continents (and ocean plates) are adrift on seas of molten lava. My point is that both land and sea are parts of our thin “environment”… our home. Whatever we do to one affects the other also. But, ultimately we will have little effect on the earth as a planet. The surface will continue to renew itself every few million years. Species will come and go. Life (not necessarily human) goes on. A certain amount of “poop” is a good thing. Some bottom feeders (including politicians and lawyers) depend on it and plants wouldn’t survive if the animals didn’t recycle the nutrients. I read yesterday that some species even survived the recent Columbia space shuttle disaster. (related link) Keep flushing the toilets in Memphis. Everyone south of Baton Rouge relies on the Mississippi River for their drinking water, especially New Orleans. My motto is: Leave it better than you found it. MArk
Our "environment" is only the thin outer skin of the earth. Although we can traverse the planet's surface thousands of miles a day, how many can live more than a mile above or have ever been more than a mile below the earth's surface? Man has never touched the remaining 3,962 miles down to the earth’s center and few have ventured more than 15 miles up. We tend to think that what we see is all there is. How many stop to think that the earth’s core is a radioactive iron fission reactor that generates a tremendous amount of heat? So much heat, in fact, that the continents (and ocean plates) are adrift on seas of molten lava. My point is that both land and sea are parts of our thin “environment”… our home. Whatever we do to one affects the other also. But, ultimately we will have little effect on the earth as a planet. The surface will continue to renew itself every few million years. Species will come and go. Life (not necessarily human) goes on. A certain amount of “poop” is a good thing. Some bottom feeders (including politicians and lawyers) depend on it and plants wouldn’t survive if the animals didn’t recycle the nutrients. I read yesterday that some species even survived the recent Columbia space shuttle disaster. (related link) Keep flushing the toilets in Memphis. Everyone south of Baton Rouge relies on the Mississippi River for their drinking water, especially New Orleans. My motto is: Leave it better than you found it. MArk
Man vs Dolphin
The difference between a man floating in the middle of the ocean and pooping vs. a dolphin floating in the middle and of the ocean and pooping is simple and basic... the dolphin is more likely to live long enough to do it again.
The difference between a man floating in the middle of the ocean and pooping vs. a dolphin floating in the middle and of the ocean and pooping is simple and basic... the dolphin is more likely to live long enough to do it again.
The Real Isue
I think the answer is a lot simpler and less controversial. As I understand it the laws applying to discharge of waste appply only in coastal and other constricted waters. Excessive waste in these areas does not disperse evenly around the oceans. It stays local. This causes unnatural nitrgogen build leading to oxygen depletion and lifeleass waters, and bacterial build-up from the breakdown of human waste. Of course shoreside sewage "treatment" plants are a much larger cause of the problem than boats, but in concentrated areas--the Chesapeake and LI Sound, and lots of bays and harbors in between, boat waste can make a difference. "Man v. dolphin" is not the issue at all.
I think the answer is a lot simpler and less controversial. As I understand it the laws applying to discharge of waste appply only in coastal and other constricted waters. Excessive waste in these areas does not disperse evenly around the oceans. It stays local. This causes unnatural nitrgogen build leading to oxygen depletion and lifeleass waters, and bacterial build-up from the breakdown of human waste. Of course shoreside sewage "treatment" plants are a much larger cause of the problem than boats, but in concentrated areas--the Chesapeake and LI Sound, and lots of bays and harbors in between, boat waste can make a difference. "Man v. dolphin" is not the issue at all.
Junk Science
Wow! I have never read such a mix of junk vs. real science in response to the orginal posting. One more bit of information. The greatest increases in coliform bacteria in our waterways, are seen following periods of rain. This is directly attributable to animal waste, especially from geese, gulls and other birds. The impact of treated and even untreated human waste is negligible by comparison.
Wow! I have never read such a mix of junk vs. real science in response to the orginal posting. One more bit of information. The greatest increases in coliform bacteria in our waterways, are seen following periods of rain. This is directly attributable to animal waste, especially from geese, gulls and other birds. The impact of treated and even untreated human waste is negligible by comparison.
The staright poop
This issue isn't about man crap or dolphin crap, its about the crap that comes out of Wash DC. Anyone with a baisc understanding of ecology knows that the number of boaters out there using the head will not affect the water quality one way or another. Butt, the EPA makes it look like the politicos are doing something about the environment while pissing off the smallest amount of people (i.e lost votes). The irony is, before the horrific attack of Sept 11, the EPA headquarters was in the twin towers. These buildings were owned by the NY Port Authority, a quasi NJ/NY agency that is not beholding to local buidling codes. It is my understanding that all of the sewage produced by the Twin towers was pumped raw into the Hudson River. Ans I can't take a pee off my boat in Lower NY Bay without getting a ticket. Talk about the short arm of the law.
This issue isn't about man crap or dolphin crap, its about the crap that comes out of Wash DC. Anyone with a baisc understanding of ecology knows that the number of boaters out there using the head will not affect the water quality one way or another. Butt, the EPA makes it look like the politicos are doing something about the environment while pissing off the smallest amount of people (i.e lost votes). The irony is, before the horrific attack of Sept 11, the EPA headquarters was in the twin towers. These buildings were owned by the NY Port Authority, a quasi NJ/NY agency that is not beholding to local buidling codes. It is my understanding that all of the sewage produced by the Twin towers was pumped raw into the Hudson River. Ans I can't take a pee off my boat in Lower NY Bay without getting a ticket. Talk about the short arm of the law.
ignoring the facts
While I agree with you that washington is the source of much poop. There are real problems in some areas such as the keys. Like the national debt some problems just keep growing until someone sees a way to get elected or re-elected by providing a solution. When our social security checks bounce or the river catches fire(Cuyahoga in the 70's) someone will use it for political gain. Try snorkling in a popular anchorage in the keys and you will see the problem floating past. Another problem not addressed here is the oyster beds. A lot of poop might make the oysters fatter but if they test positive for some types of bacteria then they are closed for harvest and this hurts some local economies. The oysters etc were badly affected by red tide around port st joe in Florida last year. They actually had to import oysters from appalachicola. There were dead and dying fish all over the bay. The scallop harvest was canceled. This isn't directly related to poop but many think that red tides are more common in polluted waters. In north carolina the red tides are supposedly related to pig and poultry farms. For some reason farms can dump huge amounts of untreated waste. It doesn't really matter if it's human or livestock a lot of poop in the water is a bad thing. I agree 100% that you taking a dump while several miles from land has no measurable effect. Especially in water that is already polluted by a nearby city. It's a lot easier to blame boaters than to address real problems.
While I agree with you that washington is the source of much poop. There are real problems in some areas such as the keys. Like the national debt some problems just keep growing until someone sees a way to get elected or re-elected by providing a solution. When our social security checks bounce or the river catches fire(Cuyahoga in the 70's) someone will use it for political gain. Try snorkling in a popular anchorage in the keys and you will see the problem floating past. Another problem not addressed here is the oyster beds. A lot of poop might make the oysters fatter but if they test positive for some types of bacteria then they are closed for harvest and this hurts some local economies. The oysters etc were badly affected by red tide around port st joe in Florida last year. They actually had to import oysters from appalachicola. There were dead and dying fish all over the bay. The scallop harvest was canceled. This isn't directly related to poop but many think that red tides are more common in polluted waters. In north carolina the red tides are supposedly related to pig and poultry farms. For some reason farms can dump huge amounts of untreated waste. It doesn't really matter if it's human or livestock a lot of poop in the water is a bad thing. I agree 100% that you taking a dump while several miles from land has no measurable effect. Especially in water that is already polluted by a nearby city. It's a lot easier to blame boaters than to address real problems.
- Status