Bottom Paint For Caribbean

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Yeah, there's a big ethical problem involved in using it. But clearly there are those who don't care about that. It just boils down to whether being an environmental a**hole matters to you or not.

I may add that your viewpoint seems to lack an essential ingredient in any useful analysis of environmental engineering problems; facts. The facts (numbers) of using tin paint in a marina in the San Francisco Bay are completely or are different than the facts of using tin at anchor in the Caribbean with 1-knot into open water current minimum . That explain why some people may object to you calling them a**holes without an ounce of fact behind your assertion, not that you need care.

Another story is that the guys that make this stuff have been caught cheating on serious stuff. That is the sort of situation here I feel more comfortable applying ethical "black and white" thinking without numbers or science to back it up.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

The facts (numbers) of using tin paint in a marina in the San Francisco Bay are completely or are different than the facts of using tin at anchor in the Caribbean with 1-knot into open water current minimum .

And so nobody using a tributyl tin paint in the Caribbean is going to be in a marina?

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

And so nobody using a tributyl tin paint in the Caribbean is going to be in a marina?

It is apparent from your posts that you are not familiar with the most basic methods to measure environmental impacts and allow communities to make informed choices and tradeoffs for their development. I am afraid there is a difference between having one boat in a place with plenty of current (not tide) flushing and thousands of boats in a place with little flushing that is only tidal (hence back and forth).

Yes, the environmental impacts are very different in a bay in Grenada and a man-excavated marina in Marina del Rey or Berkeley Marina (just to pick a pair) given that the objective facts are completely different. Moreover, the communities/societies that live in those places have different priorities and therefore they have reason to make different choices.

I do not think the people of Grenada will worry if they hear you calling someone an *******; they are used to more worrying things such as being invaded by 7300 troops from the US, or suffering the horrendous government they had before that invasion. That does not take away from your concern for the planet, it is just a pointer to different ways in which we can make a positive contribution.

Take as an example what happened in the Galapagos. It took a long time for the (relatively) rich "do-gooders" from developed countries to stop calling the locals names for making a living out of shark fins, etc, and move towards developing mechanisms for those people to make a living in a way that preserves that unique ecosystem (ie creating a job as "mandatory" tour guide for someone who otherwise could only make a living in ways that were not good for the ecosystem).

Please let´s keep things civil and not call people "********".

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

It is apparent from your posts that you are not familiar with the most basic methods to measure environmental impacts and allow communities to make informed choices and tradeoffs for their development. I am afraid there is a difference between having one boat in a place with plenty of current (not tide) flushing and thousands of boats in a place with little flushing that is only tidal (hence back and forth).

Yes, the environmental impacts are very different in a bay in Grenada and a man-excavated marina in Marina del Rey or Berkeley Marina (just to pick a pair) given that the objective facts are completely different. Moreover, the communities/societies that live in those places have different priorities and therefore they have reason to make different choices.

I do not think the people of Grenada will worry if they hear you calling someone an *******; they are used to more worrying things such as being invaded by 7300 troops from the US, or suffering the horrendous government they had before that invasion. That does not take away from your concern for the planet, it is just a pointer to different ways in which we can make a positive contribution.

Take as an example what happened in the Galapagos. It took a long time for the (relatively) rich "do-gooders" from developed countries to stop calling the locals names for making a living out of shark fins, etc, and move towards developing mechanisms for those people to make a living in a way that preserves that unique ecosystem (ie creating a job as "mandatory" tour guide for someone who otherwise could only make a living in ways that were not good for the ecosystem).

Please let´s keep things civil and not call people "********".

What you fail to grasp is that I did not ban tributyl tin in anti fouling paint. That would be the International Maritime Organization and the 50 or 60 seafaring nations that are signatories to the ban. Your verbose yet uninformed defense of this poison is indicative of your ignorance of the myriad studies showing the harm tBt has caused, and continues to cause worldwide.

Also, I didn't call anybody anything.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

What you fail to grasp is that I did not ban tributyl tin in anti fouling paint. That would be the International Maritime Organization and the 50 or 60 seafaring nations that are signatories to the ban. :

I do understand that you do not have the power to ban anything.

You are confused.

The IMO does not have the power to ban the use of TBT or anything in the jurisdiction of a country that does not sign/ratify the relevant Convention.. Individual countries have that power but it is limited to their jurisdiction.

For example, Grenada and Chile (and more than 100 other countries) did not sign/ratify the 2001 Convention. Therefore a Chilean boat in Grenada or the high seas (or Grenadian boat in Chile or the high seas) is not affected by the 2001 Convention. I know that international law is not widely understood in your neck of the woods but I do not blame your countrymen, you can always send the Marines . Let´s leave the law for those who do not have Marines.

I am not saying that TBT is good or that it is not bad. In fact I think that, other things being equal (which they are not) , the world be a better place without it.

I am just respectful of the choices that people make while abiding the law that applies to them, which include the choice not to ban a paint that, in their opinion, works better and saves people from having to scrub bottoms or hire your colleagues to do it and repaint more frequently and spread the debris from that scrubbing.

[David B]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

I do understand that you do not have the power to ban anything.

You are confused.

I am just respectful of the choices that people make while abiding the law that applies to them, which include the choice not to ban a paint that, in their opinion, works better and saves people from having to scrub bottoms or hire your colleagues to do it and repaint more frequently and spread the debris from that scrubbing.

Indeed - I shudder to think how many tonnes of antifouling paint from the trillions of litres per year that are slapped onto hulls around the world, ends up in the ocean from it being scrubbed off or just washed away

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by David B

Indeed - I shudder to think how many tonnes of antifouling paint from the trillions of litres per year that are slapped onto hulls around the world, ends up in the ocean from it being scrubbed off or just washed away

Yeah, but the difference is that in most of the world, copper-based paints and the in-water cleaning of them isn't illegal or morally reprehensible.

[Boatguy30]

I pretty sure copper paints have been banned in WA and maybe being considered in other states. I think the larger point is perhaps TBT in certain areas could actually be less harmful than copper paints since it is so much more effective. I honestly don't know how much more harmful TBT is/was but there sure is a bunch of copper coming off bottoms and the need to recoat is much more frequent.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

I pretty sure copper paints have been banned in WA and maybe being considered in other states. I think the larger point is perhaps TBT in certain areas could actually be less harmful than copper paints since it is so much more effective. I honestly don't know how much more harmful TBT is/was but there sure is a bunch of copper coming off bottoms and the need to recoat is much more frequent.

Tributyl tin is orders of magnitude more poisonous than cuprous oxide. That's why it makes for such an effective anti fouling biocide and why it has been banned in most of the civilized world. Of course, when millions upon millions of pleasure craft switched to copper, the levels of that particular heavy metal exceeded water quality criteria, which is why it is now under increased scrutiny. Next in line is zinc, and if that ever became the flavor the month for bottom paint, it too would eventually be found to impair coastal waterways. None of this means it is cool to use a tin paint. That's like dumping your used motor oil down the storm drain. The only reason to do that is complacency, when there are less-damaging alternatives within easy reach.

[model 10]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Yeah, but the difference is that in most of the world, copper-based paints and the in-water cleaning of them isn't illegal or morally reprehensible.

Not now anyway. Tin didn't used to be either.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by Guy

Not now anyway. Tin didn't used to be either.

I am concerned that the combination of interest groups (paint manufacturers and environmental activists that care more about publicity and fundraising than the environment) will lead to a ban on copper antifouling. All this despite the fact that (as fstbttms states in a different way) there is no proof of environmental damage from copper antifouling even in marinas with no flushing.

The weakness in the system is that the legal limits in the US lump all forms of copper in one basket, and only one of them (cupric as in Cu with two minus signs) is a biocide. Furthermore, that form will only last a little while on the surface of the boat and then it will turn into something else that is not bioavailable. Therefore the copper you will find dissolved in the water and mixed with sediment in the bottom will not have effect as a biocide.

I fear that unfortunately the interests in play will push the away from a simple/tested solution that is based on a single chemical element, works in much of the world (copper) and is available to everyone without much patent protection into other solutions based on complex patented chemicals that are not as well known and may end up being more dangerous. All this because the latter are more attractive for environmental groups ( who can raise more money on the back the the accomplishment of having banned copper) and paint manufacturers (who will not face as much competition).

I have learned this the hard way in my years in the boron business when assessing the business potential of various applications of boron, which were found to be more effective and safer than competitive biocides and drugs. The very fact that the thing was simple, well known and cheap was enough to make it nonviable. This is because the process for drug and pesticide registration and labelling in the US and Europe works against the guy who introduces a product that is based on a simple chemistry that has no strong patent protection.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

I am concerned that the combination of interest groups (paint manufacturers and environmental activists that care more about publicity and fundraising than the environment) will lead to a ban on copper antifouling.

How little you understand the issue. The paint manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping copper in anti fouling paints, not only because they want to be able to continue to market an effective product to boaters but because they have contracted to purchase copper from its producers for many years to come. They and their lobbyist, Amec, were instumental in not only amending copper banning legislation in California so that copper would still be allowed in reduced amounts, but in ultimately getting the legislation tabled indefinitely. Nobody wants copper to remain legal for use in anti fouling paints more than the paint manufacturers.

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

All this despite the fact that (as fstbttms states in a different way) there is no proof of environmental damage from copper antifouling even in marinas with no flushing.

I never said anything remotely like that, because it is not true and is a ridiculous statement to begin with. "No proof of environmental damage"? You need to do a little research, my friend. And by research, I mean spending about thirty seconds on Google.

[Dulcesuenos]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Tributyl tin is orders of magnitude more poisonous than cuprous oxide. That's why it makes for such an effective anti fouling biocide and why it has been banned in most of the civilized world. Of course, when millions upon millions of pleasure craft switched to copper, the levels of that particular heavy metal exceeded water quality criteria, which is why it is now under increased scrutiny. Next in line is zinc, and if that ever became the flavor the month for bottom paint, it too would eventually be found to impair coastal waterways. None of this means it is cool to use a tin paint. That's like dumping your used motor oil down the storm drain. The only reason to do that is complacency, when there are less-damaging alternatives within easy reach.

I think the point is tbt paint isn't scrubbed or sanded off or replaced as often as copper paint. Making copper based worse in many cases. I would think

Sent from my LG-LS980 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Dulcesuenos

I think the point is tbt paint isn't scrubbed or sanded off or replaced as often as copper paint. Making copper based worse in many cases. I would think

Tributyl tin paints may not need to be cleaned as often as a copper-based paint, but the tin is still leached into the water 24/7/365. That's how anti fouling paints work. And because tBt is such an effective poison, it takes less to do more environmental harm. Further, it persists in the environment far longer than cuprous oxide.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by Dulcesuenos

I think the point is tbt paint isn't scrubbed or sanded off or replaced as often as copper paint. Making copper based worse in many cases. I would think

This concern is common but I have seen a study that show that the copper released in a "professional" bottom clean using "good practices" is equivalent to only a few days of "passive" release. Of course, there are those who will incur a member´s wrath by suggesting that those studies are skewed to favor the people who stand to profit from frequent repainting and frequent in-water cleaning. I acknowledge that it would be easy to skew those studies, just by making sure the scrub is more gentle than what a diver would do in reality.

I do not challenge that our member from the Bay Area may be very gentle when cleaning hulls, but I have seen the bottom of the Moorings marina in Road Town and you can see plenty of debris from their copper-based antifouling that has to be scrubbed forcefully because it does not keep up with the life over there. That experimental observation lines up very well with your gut feel.