[pct-l] TP decomposition - 3 P's

[Will Hiltz]

We are talking about TP in the woods, not about the larger metaphysical
green purity of various human waste disposal methods.  I would hasten to
agree with you that these are complex issues.  But these issues, however
tangentially related to wilderness concerns in general, are not particularly
pertinent to backcountry LNT practice. You're correct to point out some
places you are required to pack out solid human waste, and I've traveled in
places like that before.  But of course there are reasons those areas are
particularly protected.  We're talking about TP in the woods.  There is
nothing political about this: I posit that the "more LNT" method would be to
leave... nothing behind. You seem to think a poo slurry is just as good.
Agree to disagree, I guess....


Easy




ps- cocaine on money?  what?! If there's cocaine on money-- its there on
purpose


On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Ken Murray <kmurray at pol.net> wrote:

> "My data and statistics are this-- the idea behind LNT is to leave as
> little
> trace as you can.  Surely introducing something into the woods that wasn't
> there before (even in slurry form) is less desirable than leaving nothing
> at
> all?"
>
> And there you have it.  Your advocacy is sort of like a washington
> lobbyist, whose job is to convince someone of something, even if it is
> hidden in other terms.
>
> Your point is that it is not about safety, health, visual impact, or
> anthing else, it is about your political agenda.....except that you get to
> define it as you wish for the rest of us. What I mean by that is as follows:
>
> You say "Surely introducing "something" into the woods that wasn't
> there before...is less desirable than leaving nothing at
> all?"
>
> So, why are you not advocating the removal of solid AND liquid waste? Is it
> inconvenient for you? Disgusting to you? We do solid on Whitney, Shasta, and
> Rainier.
>
> Or the real issue many worry about: Why not prohibit humans (what you
> describe as "something")?
>
> My take:  Carting around contaminated toilet paper is very problematic from
> a health standpoint.  You may think that you have the perfect system, but I
> guarantee you that it won't work 100% of the time for everyone.  So now you
> have a serious health hazzard on one's back.  Who knows how many people are
> exposed, without knowing?  When was the last time most people washed their
> pack?
>
> If you think stuff doesn't get around, you might consider cocaine.  I'd
> imagine that people treat it with more care and concern than feces.
>  However, you may be surprise to find that the entire US money supply is
> contaminated. Stuff gets around.
>
> This brings up the very real issue of hazardous waste....a category that
> human waste falls into.  I don't hear people talking about how one deals
> with the transported contaminated TP, once one has left the trail.  It is
> NOT LEGAL, ETHICAL, or reasonable, to dispose of a plastic bag of
> contaminated toilet paper into garbage cans.  They are NOT hazardous waste
> containers.  One MIGHT dispose of the paper into a toilet of some sort, but
> what do you do with the plastic bag, which is CONTAMINATED?  You should not
> place this into a garbage can, either!
>
> You can see that this starts to become complex stuff.  Personally, I think
> the PPP method is probably the best solution for most situation.  Nothing is
> perfect everywhere, but packing out has many more problems that one might
> think on the first pass.
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>