Readers challenge etiquette guide on urinating in the sea
Andreas Swadlo, Andrew Wardrop, and Tony Coghan have written letters responding to a recent Guardian article on summer etiquette, which claimed that swimmers should dash ashore rather than relieve themselves in the water. The original piece, titled "Summer etiquette: 47 essential rules – from sex to sunloungers to shopping in swimming trunks," published on 14 July, included a rule against urinating in the sea.
Environmental argument: a drop in the ocean
Swadlo argues that the environmental distinction between peeing in the sea and using a lavatory is elusive. He points out that the contents of a lavatory are treated and eventually discharged into rivers and seas, so "the ocean merely cuts out the middleman." He notes that the Atlantic Ocean can cope with a few hundred millilitres of highly diluted human urine, and has been dealing with whale urine for much longer. He also highlights that the morally superior toilet flush requires several litres of drinkable water to dispose of something the sea has been recycling since life first crawled out of it. Swadlo concludes: "Perhaps our discomfort is not with the act itself, but with imagining it. As so often, etiquette proves less a matter of science than of psychology."
Personal experiences from readers
Andrew Wardrop shares that some of his happiest memories are of swimming in the sea off the Connemara coast, on deserted beaches, with the nearest public lavatory several miles away and the next landfall to the west somewhere in Newfoundland. He calls the suggestion that he should not have peed in the sea absurd, saying "Never did the expression ‘a drop in the ocean’ seem more apposite."
Tony Coghan questions the etiquette guide's conclusion that one should go to the nearest lavatory, sarcastically suggesting it enables a privatised water company to do the job for you.
Etiquette versus science
The letters challenge the idea that peeing in the sea is a breach of summer etiquette. The writers argue that from an environmental perspective, the impact is negligible compared to the resources used in flushing toilets. They suggest that the discomfort with the act is psychological rather than based on scientific evidence.
