[Rhodes22-list] Marine Glurge Was Confused and Stupid

Fri Jul 18 16:10:55 EDT 2003

Glurge is the sending of inspirational (often supposedly "true") tales that conceal much darker meanings than the uplifting moral lessons they purport to offer, and that undermine their messages by fabricating and distorting historical fact in the guise of offering a "true story."" -snopes.com

Roger--

The marine engine industry has concocted this glurge and you keep repeating it.  They are trying to sell more motors, they don't give a damn about marine pollution.  2-cycle engines have not been banned.  More stringent regulations have been established.  The marine engine industry has now developed 2-cycle engines that are cleaner than most 4-cycle engines.

People on this list have constantly complained about the reliability of their 4-cycle engines--we read, year after year, elaborate rituals performed before and after every use by 4-cycle engine owners--what's more, the engines exhaust raw fuel into the water every time they fail to start; owners dump multiple "additives" directly into their fuel; they run their engines twice as long as they need them to drain all the fuel after every use; they dump the old oil into the water with every oil change; their engines leak oil directly into the water...

The population density of wretched excess conspicuous consumption boats is amazingly high wherever there is money.  Here on Long Island Sound I see 100 multi-engine gas guzzlers in operation for every PWC.

I know you are genuinely concerned about the environment, and your engineering background concentrated on removing pollutants emitted by internal combustion engines.  No one questions your competence in the technical aspects of this conversation.  However, with regard to the larger point of swapping in a reliable 2-cycle engine (which will be sold to and used by someone else) for a less reliable, brand new 4-cycle engine (which exacted additional environmental costs in its manufacture) to be used occasionally on a sailboat, I think you have allowed your technical expertise to cloud your common sense judgment.

Bill  

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Roger Pihlaja 
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list 
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 6:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People Tricks)

Steve & Rummy,

Look, I'll be the 1st to agree that double & triple engined muscle boats are
one of the most glaring examples of conspicuous consumption & wretched
excess in the world today.  But, they mostly run with 4-cycle engines & they
run mostly in deep water, far from shore, & their population density is
usually pretty low.  Small 2-cycle outboards & PWC's tend to be much more
numerous, used near shore, in estuaries, small bays, rivers, etc.  In other
words, the small 2-cycle marine engines tend to be emitting their pollution
into the waters that are the most productive & most vulnerable in terms of
fish spawning grounds, insect larvae, crustaceans, plant life, etc.  Make no
mistake, there is some BAD SHIT in 2-cycle exhaust smoke & the oily film
that these machines lay down on the water; materials like dioxins,
tetrahydrofurans (THF's) & other materials that are biologically active at
parts per billion concentration & also tend to bioconcentrate up the food
chain.  Gentlemen, this is a really bad deal!

Hey guys, I'm a sailor, just like you.  I'm also a professional chemical
engineer, not some tree hugging environmentalist.  I've seen the water
quality & biological sampling data & the supporting analysis.  These reports
have convinced me that marine 2-cycle engines are a problem.  Certainly the
small, low use, 2-cycle outboards used on our R-22's are not the biggest
contributor to the problem; BUT, they are part of the problem & not part of
the solution.  It's counterproductive to point your finger at muscleboats &
say those folks should be banned until your own house is in order.  The
environmental threat from 2-cycle marine engine exhaust emissions is real &
not going away any time soon.  Which side of this issue do you want to be
on?

Roger Pihlaja
S/V Dynamic Equilibrium

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Alm" <salm at mn.rr.com>
To: "Rhodes" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People Tricks)

> Rummy, I'm with you.  The heavy machinery is a much bigger problem.  I
doubt
> I burn more than fifteen gallons a season.  It's a goddang blowboat for
> chirstsake!  If they ban 2 cycles, I would hope that they would put a cap
on
> it--like over 25 or something.
> Slim
> P.S. You're partying with the wrong people.
>
> On 7/17/03 6:54 PM, "John Tonjes" <johntonjes at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Roger,
> > If 2 cycle engines are outlawed, there are going to be a lot of unhappy
> > loggers, tree trimmers, grass maintenance compamies and homeowners who
use
> > them for everything from blowing leaves to mowing the lawn. Personally,
I
> > would prefer to see the 1000 hp cigarette boats with blowers outlawed
long
> > before the 2 cycles are done in. I talked with a guy a few weeks ago at
a
> > party with just such a boat. He can go in excess of 100mph on the water.
I
> > didn't bother asking about fuel consumption, but he did mention he
carried
> > 110 gallons of high test.
> >
> > Rummy
> >
> >
> >> [Original Message]
> >> From: Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net>
> >> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> Date: 7/17/2003 5:22:54 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People Tricks)
> >>
> >> Steve,
> >>
> >> Since 2-cycle engines are currently still legal to operate on most
bodies
> > of
> >> water in the United States, everyone must decide for themselves what
they
> >> want to do re this issue.  Certainly, PWC's & large 2-cycle outboards
> >> generate lots more pollution & waste much more fuel than the relatively
> >> small & infrequently used outboards on our R-22's.  I realize replacing
an
> >> outboard engine is an expensive proposition.  I myself did not switch
over
> >> to 4-cycle engines overnight.  The 2-cycle Evinrude 6 came installed on
> >> Dynamic Equilibrium when the boat was purchased in 1987 & we ran with
that
> >> engine for 9 years.  I replaced the 2-cycle Evinrude 6 on Dynamic
> >> Equilibrium with the 4-cycle Honda 8 in 1996.  However, in that same
> > year, I
> >> converted the long shaft Evinrude 6 back to a standard length shaft &
ran
> >> the 2-cycle engine on our 10 foot inflatable sport dingy until 2000,
when
> > I
> >> purchased the 4-cycle Honda 9.9.  I finally sold the 2-cycle Evinrude
at a
> >> yard sale in the summer of 2001.  By that point, the Evinrude was
getting
> > a
> >> little tired & looked pretty scruffy, but it still ran reasonably well.
> >>
> >> The nearly 2X greater fuel consumption & more than 10X greater exhaust
> >> emissions issues with 2-cycle marine engines are real & well
documented.
> >> Their continued use does not represent good stewardship of the planet.
> > The
> >> real question everyone must ask themselves is, "Do you want to be part
of
> >> the problem or part of the solution?"  Long term, I think 2-cycle
marine
> >> engines will either be saddled with so much emissions control
technology
> >> that the cost, simplicity, & weight advantages over 4-cycle engines
will
> > go
> >> away or the 2-cycle engine will be banned altogether.  There is already
a
> >> small but steadily growing list of bodies of water wherein it is
illegal
> > to
> >> operate 2-cycle marine engines.  That's something to ponder when it
comes
> >> time to replace your current outboard.  If you wait until 2-cycle
engines
> >> are outlawed; then, your current outboard won't have much resale value.
> >> I've already voted with my checkbook.
> >>
> >> Roger Pihlaja
> >> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Steve" <rhodes2282 at yahoo.com>
> >> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 2:37 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] I'm Confused Was (Stupid People Tricks)
> >>
> >>
> >>> Well, Roger, I am sure you saw this coming but I like
> >>> my little 2 cycle motor.  Pollution & all:-)
> >>> Steve
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- Roger Pihlaja <cen09402 at centurytel.net> wrote:
> >>>> Richard,
> >>>>
> >>>> I can usually follow your line of reasoning; but,
> >>>> this time I'm confused.  The discussion was about
> >>>> the relative merits of 2-cycle vs 4-cycle marine
> >>>> engines.  What do alcohol burning model airplane
> >>>> engines have to do with gasoline burning marine
> >>>> engines?
> >>>>
> >>>> Roger Pihlaja
> >>>> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> >>>> __________________________________________________
> >>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> >>> www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> __________________________________
> >>> Do you Yahoo!?
> >>> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> >>> http://sbc.yahoo.com
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>

__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list