Marina Hose Removal for H&S?

[Mel]

Simple -- let the Institute of Electrical Engineers (or equivalent)decide on the fate of Marina hoses and pass all the pipes in the street to the National Grid so that anyone can supply you with your water at a good price !

 

[Hydrozoan]

The water companies in England are all private companies and they like to protect their local monopolies. They are able to pass on to us, their trapped customers, all the costs of regulations - so they have a vested interest in making the Regs. as onerous as they can dream up. It is interesting to note that in the electricity supply industry the regulations are set by a totally independent professional body.

We need proper competition and independence in Water supply !

The basic water quality regulatory regime is set by the DWI and (particularly) by the EU, not by the water companies. Professional bodies make inputs, of course.

I'll leave other posters discuss with you the electricity supply industry, concerning which I probably know less than they do.

EDIT

Simple -- let the Institute of Electrical Engineers (or equivalent)decide on the fate of Marina hoses and pass all the pipes in the street to the National Grid so that anyone can supply you with your water at a good price !

Regrettably for that view, the distribution of water through pipes is not quite like that of electricity through wires - for one thing, water quality differs from place to place (whereas electrons tend to a commendable uniformity ), and different waters interact differently with different types of pipe. Thus, just to give one example, water is treated differently in different places to control the dissolution of lead from lead pipes (the consumers' pipes as well as the water companies'). Don't get me wrong - I'm very much in favour of properly regulated competition in any industry, but please don't label as 'simple' something which is evidently not quite as simple as you seem to think. And yes, there is a watery equivalent of the Institution (not Institute, please note) of Electrical Engineers, and it does make inputs on regulatory issues.

 

[Mel]

[



Regrettably for that view, the distribution of water through pipes is not quite like that of electricity through wires - for one thing, water quality differs from place to place (whereas electrons tend to a commendable uniformity ), and different waters interact differently with different types of pipe. Thus, just to give one example, water is treated differently in different places to control the dissolution of lead from lead pipes (the consumers' pipes as well as the water companies'). Don't get me wrong - I'm very much in favour of properly regulated competition in any industry, but please don't label as 'simple' something which is evidently not quite as simple as you seem to think. .[/QUOTE]

Electricity is not simply electrons any more than water is H2O.
The water industry enjoys putting up arguments like yours rather than facing the chemical/engineering challenge of water quality control issues - if separate companies can control as at present there is no reason why a single entity cannot do the same. They just do not want to let go of their cosy monopoly position.

 

[BlueSkyNick]

No, they're not "paranoid" - pathogenic micro-organisms are really out to get us. Protecting the public drinking water supply from their entry has long been a cornerstone of public health policy, and rightly so given the ravages that waterborne diseases can cause, do cause in many less fortunate parts of the world and did cause here even in our grandfathers' or great-grandfathers' eras. Whatever the rights or wrongs of your specific concerns (as a marina manager, I believe) you are mistaken in ascribing paranoia about the drinking supply in general to the companies (or, for that matter, to their regulator the Drinking Water Inspectorate).

Of course I dont want any water supply to be contaminated. However, I have also witnessed first hand the volume of management time, legal and consultancy fees, cost of changes to infrastructure, inconvenience to customers, and time spent by staff doing work which adds no value all to mitigate against risks of negligible probability.

 

[Mel]

Of course I dont want any water supply to be contaminated. However, I have also witnessed first hand the volume of management time, legal and consultancy fees, cost of changes to infrastructure, inconvenience to customers, and time spent by staff doing work which adds no value all to mitigate against risks of negligible probability.

Well said --- If we humans keep overreacting to Bugs then before too long the resistance to antibiotics etc will mean that we will need to go about in a wrap of sterilised cling film with a bottle on our backs feeding purified oxygen mix !!

It does seen to be a major earner in some industries to aim for no-risk strategies

 

[Hydrozoan]

Well said --- If we humans keep overreacting to Bugs then before too long the resistance to antibiotics etc will mean that we will need to go about in a wrap of sterilised cling film with a bottle on our backs feeding purified oxygen mix !! It does seen to be a major earner in some industries to aim for no-risk strategies

I don't disagree in general that relative risks are often poorly understood, and that that can lead to wasted/mis-allocated resources. But I don't think it simply originates in the regulated industries. Public and media understanding of relative risks is often very poor, and that can carry through into the political process and policy making.

EDIT

I did add a smiley - and if you say "let the Institute of Electrical Engineers (or equivalent) decide on the fate of Marina hoses and pass all the pipes in the street to the National Grid", please don't blame me for a bit of simplicity in my turn. I repeat, I am in favour of properly regulated competition, but I don't care to see an industry accused of general "paranoia" about its product, when there is good reason for its (and its regulator's) vigilance.

 

[colhel]

second girl I ever slept with was called Marina Hose

I drain my hose fully after every use, and run bleach through it now and then.

So would I if I had Dylans sloppy seconds.

 

[Bandit]

We treat water in the boats tank with chlorine although it has been stated that silver hydrogen peroxide is better.

I empty the tank at the start of the season and fill with fresh and chlorine.

We don't drink water from the tank we use a two gallon can filled from the pontoon standpipe that we fill before every trip for hot drinks and either drink bottled water , beer or wine.

We all need to wash the boat down from time to time and fill our tanks from a hose, the only difference is now that will be the boat owners hose that sits in a warm sweaty mildew stained locker with water in the locker and inside the hose, the locker is it in the sunshine and occasionally it is weeks between use or even so the same or more risk for the boat owner.

So at the end of the day one has if one uses a boat use a hose and fill a water tank from it if one spends time on the boat.

If one bans hose nozzles and direst connection of a hose to any boat or equipment under pressure one removes the risk of back pressure and contamination of the water supply that way .

Back siphoning and contamination of the water supply in Guernsey by marina water or water from the hose being sucked back into the mains in Guernsey is highly unlikely as pontoon taps are the lowest point of the mains water system and one way check valves would stop that either before serving the pontoon or on each spur.

Is one aware of high levels of sickness from contaminated water in marinas for normal nasties and legionella I have not heard of high numbers or even low number risks in fact until the poster above he is the only incident I have ever heard of.

I know there re requirements for commercial premises and hotel establishments but what about every house that has a dirty hose lying in the garden, statistically that must be a much greater risk to mankind.

If simple double check non return valves were fitted, there were simple rules in place, a higher awareness campaign by education was used the risk to mankind would be reduced from very low to extremely low numbers.

 

[Mel]

I totally agree with you Bandit and a good common sense approach would be great, if only the water companies didn't want to make a meal of it and make loads of money along the way. Hiding behind regulations is a fine way of avoiding competition !

 

[BruceDanforth]

No, I didn't - the accommodation on a Moody 31 means that there is only one cockpit locker, and the forward part of that is occupied by the fuel tank. I also keep my inflatable in it. So, external storage is at a premium, and until it became necessary under the new regulations, a hose was the last thing I wanted cluttering up an already full storage area. I regard hoses as malign objects anyway, which conspire to tangle unless rigidly controlled!

A Moody 31 must be a very poorly designed boat then as there is plenty of room for a hose pipe under one of the bunks in my Hurley 22...

 

[markhomer]

It is believed by experts in the field that there are a lot more deaths through legionella than are recorded, its symptoms are very similar to pnuemonia and those with compromised immune systems are most at risk, lots of people die with pnuemonia on their death certs , but how many were tested for legionella , I suspect few if any unless suspected , as tests are lengthy , the pour soul is interred before any results would be available .

Water born legionella is passed on through ingestion through the lungs where an aerosol is created with infected water ,showers , hose sprays etc etc .

Approved Code of Practice L8 which is mandatory is a driving force alongside water regs , HSE acts and regulations , folks have been jailed for infringements.

Im not saying right or wrong , but the law is the law .

 

[Grumpybear]

[



Regrettably for that view, the distribution of water through pipes is not quite like that of electricity through wires - for one thing, water quality differs from place to place (whereas electrons tend to a commendable uniformity ), and different waters interact differently with different types of pipe. Thus, just to give one example, water is treated differently in different places to control the dissolution of lead from lead pipes (the consumers' pipes as well as the water companies'). Don't get me wrong - I'm very much in favour of properly regulated competition in any industry, but please don't label as 'simple' something which is evidently not quite as simple as you seem to think. .

Electricity is not simply electrons any more than water is H2O.
The water industry enjoys putting up arguments like yours rather than facing the chemical/engineering challenge of water quality control issues - if separate companies can control as at present there is no reason why a single entity cannot do the same. They just do not want to let go of their cosy monopoly position.[/QUOTE]

I am baffled. You seem to be pointing both ways. The water industry, in which I worked for twenty years, has its faults, but: it was set up to spend money on improving a service which had scarcely been touched since the 19th century due to political reluctance to raise taxes to maintain and upgrade a publicly owned system to meet drastic EU mandated quality and security improvements. The chemical and quality challenges were the major head of expenditure in the first ten years after privatisation, since when the waste water treatment challenge has taken over (don't get me started on why 3% of the population in the West Country have to pay for cleaning up sewage discharges near 30% of the beaches so that tourists can enjoy them for nothing - especially as much of the pollution comes from agricultural runoff anyway).

You seem to be both bitterly opposed to one monopoly and in favour of another.....

 

[sailorman]

Electricity is not simply electrons any more than water is H2O.
The water industry enjoys putting up arguments like yours rather than facing the chemical/engineering challenge of water quality control issues - if separate companies can control as at present there is no reason why a single entity cannot do the same. They just do not want to let go of their cosy monopoly position.

I am baffled. You seem to be pointing both ways. The water industry, in which I worked for twenty years, has its faults, but: it was set up to spend money on improving a service which had scarcely been touched since the 19th century due to political reluctance to raise taxes to maintain and upgrade a publicly owned system to meet drastic EU mandated quality and security improvements. The chemical and quality challenges were the major head of expenditure in the first ten years after privatisation, since when the waste water treatment challenge has taken over (don't get me started on why 3% of the population in the West Country have to pay for cleaning up sewage discharges near 30% of the beaches so that tourists can enjoy them for nothing - especially as much of the pollution comes from agricultural runoff anyway).

You seem to be both bitterly opposed to one monopoly and in favour of another.....[/QUOTE]

Those tourists bring in their hard earned £s to give locals employment

 

[AntarcticPilot]

A Moody 31 must be a very poorly designed boat then as there is plenty of room for a hose pipe under one of the bunks in my Hurley 22...

I undoubtedly could keep it under a bunk, but I prefer to keep thing like hoses conveniently available for use in a cockpit locker. I don't store routinely used deck equipment below decks if at all possible; only things like the tiller-pilot and my rarely used (but invaluable) Deffee mast ladder are stored below.

For those who don't know the Moody 31, the aft cabin is basically where the starboard cockpit locker would have been, with the berth extending beneath the cockpit floor. Clearly, a design decision was made to provide extra sleeping space at the expense of cockpit lockers. As I like the aft cabin, I think it was a good design choice!

 

[Mel]

Electricity is not simply electrons any more than water is H2O.
The water industry enjoys putting up arguments like yours rather than facing the chemical/engineering challenge of water quality control issues - if separate companies can control as at present there is no reason why a single entity cannot do the same. They just do not want to let go of their cosy monopoly position.

I am baffled. You seem to be pointing both ways. The water industry, in which I worked for twenty years, has its faults, but: it was set up to spend money on improving a service which had scarcely been touched since the 19th century due to political reluctance to raise taxes to maintain and upgrade a publicly owned system to meet drastic EU mandated quality and security improvements. The chemical and quality challenges were the major head of expenditure in the first ten years after privatisation, since when the waste water treatment challenge has taken over (don't get me started on why 3% of the population in the West Country have to pay for cleaning up sewage discharges near 30% of the beaches so that tourists can enjoy them for nothing - especially as much of the pollution comes from agricultural runoff anyway).

You seem to be both bitterly opposed to one monopoly and in favour of another.....[/QUOTE]

You seem to be confused !! Surely you are aware that ---- Water is a local monopoly whereas electricity supply has a large number of competing companies available and they do not tell us how to wire up our homes

 

[snowleopard]

Our yard replaced all the threaded taps with plain ones so that it was difficult but not impossible to attach a hose. They said they had been told they had to do that or install a break tank. It didn't make any difference to the system, just made it a pain to use a jubilee clip and lots of string to stop the hose coming off. Sense seems to have prevailed and my nearest tap now has a threaded connection.