chengkp75

But they are chlorinated.

Recreational Water Features recycle their water, typically only draining and refilling once a week.

On the Norwegian Sky, we had two evaporators that produced 600 metric tons of water per day each, and two RO units that generated 200 metric tons per day, for a total production of 1600 tons/day. Because they can't run all the time (can't make water within 12 miles of land, or slow steaming not allowing both evaporators to run), they will normally match the ship's consumption of about 1000 tons/day (counting about 150-200 tons of condensate). That's a ship with 2400 pax and 900 crew. And, every drop of that 1000 tons/day of water used, has to go through the wastewater treatment plant before it goes back to the sea. Most cruise ships have "advanced wastewater treatment plants" that produce clear "near drinkable" water from the wastewater.

That's about 1700 metric tons of water, which I think might be a little low for a ship the size of Symphony. I would expect closer to around 2000 metric tons. But, most ships "save" on water by using the condensate from the AC system in the ship's laundry, so they may not be reporting that. That can reach 200+ tons/day in the summer. 60-65 gallons/day/person is an industry standard.

Cruise ships are not allowed to have poor quality water. With both the evaporators, and the RO units, if the water produced has a residual salinity above a certain limit (10ppm for evaporators, 20ppm for RO units), the water produced is automatically dumped to sea, until the salinity falls below that level again. The water produced onboard is sent through a "rehardening filter" to neutralize the slightly acidic distilled water, where calcium carbonate (Tums) is added to the water. The water is chlorinated before it gets to the storage tanks. Then, when the water is recirculated around the ship, it is again continually monitored and chlorinated to maintain a residual chlorine level of 0.5ppm at the furthest point (typically the bridge) from the engine room. Water that is loaded in port, must have a water quality certificate, taken at the hydrant at the dock, not just the generic municipal water test certificate, dated within a month of taking water. It is tested prior to loading to ensure it has a residual chlorine content, then the hoses and fittings are sanitized in chlorine, and the water is chlorinated again before it gets to the tanks. As noted before, it is then tested for coliform bacteria contamination, and cannot be used or mixed with other water onboard until that test comes back negative.

The only difference between the stateroom tap and the buffet, or any dining/bar venue is that these venues have carbon filters on the water dispensers to remove the chlorine from the water, as the chlorine can cause scale buildup in the dispensers. This can change the taste for some folks.

Most ships will use both RO and flash evaporation to produce water. The RO units allow the ship to produce water when steaming slowly (not much waste heat from the diesels), and when steaming at higher speeds, both RO and evaporators can be used. Even RO water production is relatively cheap compared to the water price for loading in ports. There are also restrictions on water from ports, where it cannot be mixed with other water onboard, or used, until a coliform bacteria test comes back negative, and this requires 18-24 hours.

There are almost no steel or iron pipe or fittings in the potable water systems, most are plastic, and have been for decades. Actually, it is very cheap to desalinate sea water on a ship, as the heat source is the cooling water from the diesel engines. If not used to boil sea water in the evaporators, this heat would just be transferred to sea water and sent over the side, so the heat source is "free". Flash evaporators require minimal maintenance, since the evaporation temperature is kept low (in a full vacuum, water boils at 100-120*F) to reduce scale formation. The reason ships take on water in ports is when the itinerary doesn't allow enough hours of operation for the evaporators to match the ship's consumption, i.e. port intensive itineraries tend to load water in port, while transatlantics will not.

Bingo. This is the solution. The "universal" outlet on the "end" of the adapter doesn't look like it would accept a type F plug, but it will.

The problem is that due to international conventions like the STCW and MLC, which all signatory nations pass into law based on the conventions, ships are prohibited from having drug use onboard. THC is not allowed on any ships, even those flagged in Holland (HAL), where marijuana and CBD products are legal. Ships are considered a separate case from the general population. Carnival does not have "autonomy" in choosing what to enforce, but it is the "flag state's" laws that would be enforced, not "port states" like the US. The Captain is the legal representative of the flag state onboard, and therefore he can decide to enforce the law or not, but then must assume responsibility if the flag state disagrees with his decision.

I am not making accusations, I'm stating facts. Donald was personally liable for the past violations by Carnival, and any revocation of probation. In addition, he was facing contempt charges at the end of last year: https://www.floridabulldog.org/2022/01/carnivals-arison-donald-faced-criminal-contempt-before-signing-probation-deal/

Carnival's problems go so far beyond plastic, that the organization they are joining is only addressing one of many violations they have had over the years, and the plastic problem has been dogging Carnival for over 2 decades. Whether this converts to actual action on the ships, and an environmental compliance division that actually has the authority and budget to make compliance an actuality is yet to be determined. If you want ships that don't have a "greasy slick" behind them, Carnival has not shown any real commitment to doing this. Their violations have continued into this very year, with being found in violation of their probation again in January this year, which is later than your link about the plastics organization. And, by obfuscating, I was being generous, referring to actual acts done by crew, and condoned by corporate to specifically violate regulations and hide the violations from the regulators. That is not "legal positioning", it is a violation of the law itself, and the regulators are enforcing the laws of the US and international conventions, that every other ship in the world also have to abide by. Has Carnival appealed any of the violations noted both that caused the original convictions, and also the probation violations? Nope. They know they are wrong, they didn't even bother to appear in court until ordered to do so by the judge. Frankly, I feel Arnold Donald retired because he saw the possibility of criminal liability for Carnival's continued lack of compliance.

What? I'm assuming you refer to the "last administration" as Arnold Donald's tenure? During his tenure, their "environmental stance" was to promote and nurture a culture of non-compliance, and obfuscating with regulators for decades. Their new ships are not significantly more energy efficient than older ones. Are you referring to the LNG ships? Maybe read up on "methane slip" and natural gas' effects on the environment compared to carbon dioxide (hint, it is about 200 times as damaging). They switched to LNG for cost, and accepted an environmental benefit as a good PR move. As for "waste disposal", the only reason that they are making any progress on this at all, and it is extremely limited, is because they are required to do so by the courts, under penalty of further fines. When a line is under probation for environmental violations, and then continue to have over 200 violations found by auditors two years later, there is no corporate culture at the Executive level towards environmental compliance. The recent announcement about "upgrades" that Carnival has announced for their ships, most of these were adopted by other lines decades ago.

I wouldn't put much faith in the problem being resolved, completely, in a drydock. To renew these pipes, you have to tear a whole lot of cabin and passageway walls down, and this can be near impossible after the cabins are installed originally. As I've said in previous threads, I would bet the problem is urine scale closing off the pipes, they could do a serious acid cleaning while in drydock to remove the scale, but this can also lead to leaking pipes (and loss of vacuum) in older ships, as the pipes are very thin steel to begin with.

That would assume I send laundry out while cruising.

LOL. My mom stopped putting name tags in my clothes about 60 years ago.

True. Some of the vacuum lines go up from the toilet to the main line, so s**t doesn't always run downhill.

I know you are being humorous, but this would only work if people were flushing "readily identifiable" non-flushable items from their cabins. The things we have found in the pipes: face cloths, hand towels, cloth dinner napkins, underwear, swimwear, crack pipes, coke spoons, ammunition, bones, food from room service. Would each of these items need a sign? Also, if a numbered ball is sent down the pipe every time the toilet is flushed, if there is no clog, what happens to the balls when they get to the vacuum pump? Do we have to take the whole system down to get the balls out every hour or so?

The locks in Antwerp and Amsterdam are not primarily for changing the level of the ship, like the Panama canal locks are. They are there to prevent salt water entering the rivers and canals during high tides and storms, and low river levels, to keep the salt from the soil.

If you look under all the other piers, in Portland and elsewhere, there will be a similar "convention" of piles that hold up those docks. You wouldn't tie a ship to a single pile like those, mooring "dolphins" tend to be clusters of piles supporting a small deck structure, or tilted towards each other ("teepee" style) to form a structure that can withstand lateral loading (pull from ship's lines) better than just a single pole sticking straight up.

While this may be true of land toilets, with a vacuum toilet, there is an airflow that flows into the toilet, not a spray of water, and the water introduced into the toilet is at a much lower pressure than a land toilet. Just to clarify, the lid does not need to be down for the toilet to work, any more than the end of your vacuum cleaner needs to be closed off to suck cheerios off the floor. There is no "seal" when the toilet lid is down, you can witness this by closing the lid, flushing the toilet, and feeling the air flowing into the bathroom around the door jamb. The only real reason to close the lid on a vacuum toilet is to keep anything you may drop from going down the drain with the "product".

And, if I may quote from your linked article, and the statement by the USCG: "Regarding this Safety Alert, USCG sent a notice stating: “In our recent safety alert we referenced a “UL Marine 1449” standard. It has come to our attention that the SPD standard is UL 1449 and is not characterized as “marine.” An initial review has revealed many SPDs available on line advertised as UL Marine 1449 products." If you read UL 1449, it makes no mention of standards for use of surge protective devices in marine wiring systems. And, the USCG Safety Notice, which I have known about for years, conflates the problem of surge protector failure with the problem that US consumer based power strips only have single pole circuit breakers, and that given that the ship's circuit breaker for the cabin circuit, has a two pole breaker, an MOV in thermal runaway can get to that state with much less current than the circuit breaker is rated for.

And, if you look these up, they are not "consumer" power strips, and run in excess of $100 each. But, yes, they are safer than the consumer type surge suppressor power strips, in that they have a double pole breaker (because both legs are hot compared to ground, so you need to open both legs to prevent all current flow in the appliance, unlike land where "neutral" is the same as "ground"), and dual thermal fuses. Virtually no consumer surge suppressor has thermal fuses. What happens in the MOV semi-conductors in a surge suppressor is that the MOV provides a high resistance circuit between the hot lead and ground at all times (it doesn't shut off current flow from hot to ground, it only limits it severely by being a very high resistance. But, this resistance builds up heat in the MOV. If an MOV is rated for 120v, it can handle 120v power supplied to it indefinitely, and still be able to cool itself off and not fail. If, however, that MOV sees a higher voltage, say 1 million volts from a lightning strike, it will "open" (switch to a low resistance circuit) to allow the current to flow to ground, and can "survive" this if the surge is milliseconds or seconds long (higher the voltage, lower the time), before it heats up and fails. This overheating is called "thermal runaway", and is what causes the surge suppressor to catch fire. The problem with shipboard wiring, is that a 440v motor may develop a partial ground, and now the surge suppressor sees a continuous 300-400v across it (from the ground wire to the hot leads). This 300-400v is not dangerous to you, since normally nothing that you are touching is connected to ground, but that voltage hits the surge protector, which is connected to ground, and it cannot cool itself off from a continuous high voltage, so it goes into thermal runaway, and melts the casing of the power strip. The thermal fuses that the navy requires, will open the circuit, taking the surge protector MOV's out of the circuit, when they get too hot. Sorry, probably a lot of yada, yada, but wanted to say why there are marine approved power strips, but none of the ones anyone would buy for a cruise is one of them.

Bit surprised that this amount of water would come from a cabin branch pipe. Last time I saw this much water in the passageway (and I thought I saw it coming from a cabin in waves in the video), was when someone decided that the sprinkler head would be a good place to hang a hanger, and broke the bulb. This sends vast amounts of water into that cabin, and is even more difficult to shut off than a potable water pipe, for obvious reasons as it is a firefighting system.

Whether this should have been confiscated or not, this is not a "converter plug" as the poster you are responding to referred to. This is an "outlet extender" or "outlet multiplier" which allows multiple plugs to be plugged into one outlet. A "converter plug" or "outlet adapter" merely has a single plug (of one shape pins) on one side and a single female plug (of another shape pins) on the other side. This is a "converter plug":