Imagine that you are being pulled at 25 miles per hour behind a boat, trying to remain balanced atop two pieces of elongated footwear gliding over the smooth, gleaming water, with a slight breeze through your hair and mist ascending to your face. Do you ever stop to think that your entertainment could be the source of dangerous bad water quality? Now, imagine you are in your home on a hot summer’s day, thirsting for a tall glass of ice water. Most likely you lack the thought of expecting to have fresh, clean water pour from your faucet. Not only would contaminated water be unacceptable, but we fail to think of the possibility. We, as Coloradans and Americans, take drinking water and recreational water for granted, without the thought of water reclamation or the possible bad water quality consequences. Environmentalists do, and for centuries, environmental resource centers have sought the answers to many questions, like: Is water recreation a significant contributor to bad water quality? What are the water pollution sources? What are the water treatment options? What’s being done to cleanse our water and therefore, is water recreation safe and plausible? Compilations of their research, past and present, including opposing opinions develop ones own judgment, as well as the background information, statistics and facts.
I, like the environmental researches, see no significant water pollution caused by basic water recreation. This includes fishing, kayaking, boating, water-skiing/wake-boarding/tubing, swimming, etc. The most controversial of these comes from boat engine emissions. First, the main substances from boat emissions are “Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx), a potential contributor to photochemical smog and to ozone layer damage, Carbon Monoxide (CO), a toxic gas, Carbon Dioxide (CO2), the most significant cumulative 'greenhouse gas', Hydrocarbons (HC), a constituent of photochemical smog, Sulphur Dioxide (SO2), an element in acid deposition, Lead, a toxic heavy metal, Particulate matter, a potential carcinogen”; Hydrocarbon and lead in water are the most significant in damages. The type of engine accounts for the possible chemical emissions. There is a wide variety of engines emitting gases into water which consequently makes research of the specific polluters quite difficult. Instead, scientists must look at the type of engine and fuel to obtain generic effects of bad water quality potential. There are three basic engine types and two general drive systems: 2-stroke engine fuelled by a petrol/oil mix or converted to propane, 4-stroke engine fuelled by petrol or propane, 4 stroke engine fuelled by diesel and these are either outboard or inboard. The 2-stroke engines emit high HC and low NOx where as 4-stroke engines emit higher amounts of CO, CO2 and NOx and lower HC. Therefore, the 4-stroke engines are the water pollution-safe choice, and furthermore, the diesel fuel is the most efficient resulting in lower COx than petrol or propane. However, this exact type of engine is found mainly with inboard systems, meaning the ‘drive’ is inside the boat, sometimes using propellers and jets. This connotes a larger vessel, while most are choosing the smaller vessel. 2-stroke engines tend to be the smaller and cheaper ones, and thus, they are more popular. Unfortunately, choosing a boat usually comes down to size, weight, price and power, where 4-strokes only win in the power contest. Summarily, if these 4-stroke diesel powered water crafts were cheaper and advertised as the water pollution-safe choice, perhaps Americans would react righteously. As for banning the other types, I would argue against it since it would leave water recreation to the rich, and the bad water quality from them is not even of high consequence, at least not yet. Ultimately, water recreation is not a substantial form of bad water quality.
bad water quality from Recreation Continued... |
