Reply With QuoteGee, I wonder how much money Lake Havasu City paid these consultants? Anything more than a buck-45 would be a ripoff. Obvious recommendations that were all talked about on this and other boating forums. Some consultants.
This was in the News-Herald
Council to discuss CO options
By Brian Wedemeyer
A private consultant has given Lake Havasu City many options to reduce carbon monoxide emissions and exposure in Bridgewater Channel.
The city released a draft summary report Monday by Sonoma Technology, Inc., hired last April to conduct summer-long air quality evaluation in the Channel. Attracting hundreds of boaters and partygoers on busy summer weekends, the Channel has been the subject of growing concerns about potential carbon monoxide poisoning.
During tonights work session, the City Council is expected to receive recommendations from the consultant on which options should be carried out. The work session begins at 6 p.m. at the police facility, 2340 McCulloch Blvd.
I was pleased they found so few days with so few hours that theres a problem, said Mayor Bob Whelan. It makes this much more easier to deal with.
Whelan said he is confident the city will be able to carry out any recommendations before the start of the summer season. The report was originally scheduled for completion last October.
Using a variety of test methods, the consultant determined that carbon monoxide concentrations in the Channel and nearby shore were very high on holiday weekends when many boats were gathered. Those concentrations were highest when wind speeds were low and temperatures were hot.
Carbon monoxide levels were considerably lower on most non-holiday weekends and on weekdays when fewer boats operated in the Channel, according to the report.
Since boat exhaust is the source of CO emissions in the Channel area, CO concentrations drop significantly with increasing distance from the Channel, the report stated.
Air sampling and breath tests indicated that many city employees were over-exposed to carbon monoxide when working extended shifts.
Visitors to the Channel area were also significantly exposed to CO, the report stated. That exposure increased as the day progressed.
The options listed to reduce public exposure included distribution of spot monitors to warn people if concentrations are too high. The cost per 1,000 monitors is estimated at $2,400.
Another option is keeping people out of the water in the Channel. According to the report, carbon monoxide levels were highest just above the water surface.
The consultant also suggested an on-site warning system to inform people if carbon monoxide levels are becoming dangerous.
To reduce emissions in the Channel, the options included reducing space for boat parking and strict enforcement of no engines running while beached.
Another option included eliminating or reducing boat traffic on holiday weekends, restricting the number of people allowed on shore or in boats.
The consultant also suggested the use of wind machines to reduce high concentrations. The machines could turn on automatically if concentrations reached dangerous levels. Standing about 35 feet tall, the machines would cost $15,000 to $24,000, plus as much as $50,000 to set up and operate for one summer.
To reduce exposure for city employees, the options included rotating shifts and electric-powered patrol boats.
The family of a Southern California man who drowned in the Channel last Memorial Day weekend has threatened a lawsuit after the city rejected a $2 million wrongful death claim. An autopsy listed carbon monoxide as a secondary cause of death.
My own reply to the reporter was to suggest the banning of two stroke PCW and outboards on days of no wind where the haze hangs over the channel as a start.
Gee, I wonder how much money Lake Havasu City paid these consultants? Anything more than a buck-45 would be a ripoff. Obvious recommendations that were all talked about on this and other boating forums. Some consultants.
no kidding. we have all put in our 2 cents and probably could solve the problem ourselves if allowed.
i still think the LE driving airboats would help circulate the air.
Originally posted by 91nordic29
no kidding. we have all put in our 2 cents and probably could solve the problem ourselves if allowed.
Very true, but it wouldn't happen. Too many idiots that don't give a damn.
Originally posted by Havasu_Dreamin
Very true, but it wouldn't happen. Too many idiots that don't give a damn.
well, we would have to "run 'em out"
Both 2 stroke and 4stroke put out carbon monoxide. 2 strokes just let you see what you are already breathing. Don't blame the outboards, you won't see an outboard at idle with the stereo playing to keep the batts charged. As for the PWC's they need to be banned. My .02, Gary.
I was probably to harsh on the ob's since they can carry a lot for the engine size, and cleaner, unlike the the cursed PCW's. Plus they can carry more beer, blenders, and ice.
I don't think much of those "options".
What a set of tools. We are going to end up with no channel because of our inability to self regulate as a group.
We suck...
Posting Permissions