Visit our Popular Forums

fstbttms · 26-12-2011, 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by HopCar

The reason that paints with copper and TBT work so well is that TBT is a slime fighter as are Ingoral and Biolux.

TBT (tributyl tin) is not a slime agent additive like Ingoral and Biolux (assuming that is what you were inferring.) It is a primary biocide like cuprous oxide is. It is also illegal for use in anti fouling paint in the the U.S. and most other countries.

**HopCar** · 26-12-2011, 11:06

fstbttms, you're right and you're wrong, TBT is effective against hard growth but it is a very good anti-slime (algae) agent as well. One of the primary reasons it was banned was because it was felt that it would harm commercial shellfish industries. When TBT was sold in the USA the most effective paints in my area were those that used a combination of copper and TBT. I'm not sure I buy the idea that TBT would harm shellfish that weren't in direct contact with it. I once had my boat painted with a copper / TBT paint but the yard missed painting under one pad. In a very short time I had a very healthy square of oysters growing on my boats bottom. That said I don't miss TBT now that the paint companies have come out with other dual biocide paints. I've lived in South Florida all my life so my bottom paint observations only apply to South Florida. In my opinion dual biocide paints are far more effective than single biocide paints and are worth the extra money.

fstbttms · 26-12-2011, 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by HopCar

fstbttms, you're right and you're wrong, TBT is effective against hard growth but it is a very good anti-slime (algae) agent as well.

Well, if TBT was every used as an anti slime additive like Irgarol and Biolux, is was over 20 years ago. I have no doubt that TBT would be effective as such. It is one of the most harmful compounds ever intentionally introduced into the marine environment.

**HopCar** · 26-12-2011, 12:58

I'm going back thirty years or more. When TBT was first introduced it was thought of as a miracle product by boaters. You could buy single biocide paints with just tin in them. They were not as effective as the tin / copper paints but were safe to use on aluminum. If you go back about fifty years the hot bottom paint was also a dual biocide, Mercop. You guessed it, Mercury and Copper.

**osirissail** · 26-12-2011, 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by fstbttms

TBT (tributyl tin) is not a slime agent additive like Ingoral and Biolux (assuming that is what you were inferring.) It is a primary biocide like cuprous oxide is. It is also illegal for use in anti fouling paint in the the U.S. and most other countries.

You need to revise that last sentence to "It is also illegal for use in anti fouling paint in the the U.S. and some other countries."

Almost all the countries in the Caribbean Basin sell and use TBT paints which are legal in these countries. The signatories to the TBT ban treaty are the major western 1st world countries. The vast majority of countries in the world including China are not signatories and produce, sell and use TBT paints.

That TBT has a strong negative effect on shellfish was documented by the French who lead the way to getting the treaty adopted. However, the plus or minus of TBT was hashed out in an older CF thread.

Since this thread is about the new "non-metallic" anti-fouling containing Econea (Tralopyril) it is of interest to hear from anybody who has tried the various brands of paints containing this product.

I have worked with the prototype Zinc Oxide paints and they did not work very well long term. And the serious problem of folks with aluminum boats having to use copper based paints is really unacceptable to me. So if this new Econea based paints can be perfected and proven effective - I, for one, will gladly switch.

fstbttms · 26-12-2011, 21:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirissail

You need to revise that last sentence to "It is also illegal for use in anti fouling paint in the the U.S. and some other countries."

By my count, 57 seafaring nations have ratified, or declared accession to, the IMO treaty banning TBT. That counts as more than "some", in my book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirissail

The signatories to the TBT ban treaty are the major western 1st world countries.

Really? Cook Islands, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Ethiopia, Greece, Iran, Kiribati, Latavia, Lebanon, Liberia, Morocco, Syria, etc., etc., etc. The list of non-western, non-1st world signatories goes on and on. In fact, the majority of signatory nations are neither western nor 1st world nations.

And guess what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirissail

The vast majority of countries in the world including China are not signatories...

China is a signatory nation.

Seas At Risk Issues Convention ratification

**osirissail** · 27-12-2011, 06:28

There is always sometimes a huge gap between Treaties and what should be and what actually happens in the real world. And of course you have to actually go into reading the actual legal wording of all the signed documents and intents. Simplicity is not a feature of political treaties, laws, regulations, etc.

As I said in my post the TBT issue has been thoroughly beaten to death in the CF thread TBT Antifouling - Morally Reprehensible ? You appear to be trying to rehash all you old arguments from that older thread. Folks interested in the TBT issue can view the old thread.

This thread is about the new OCNEA version of bottom paints.

fstbttms · 27-12-2011, 07:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by osirissail

There is always sometimes a huge gap between Treaties and what should be and what actually happens in the real world. And of course you have to actually go into reading the actual legal wording of all the signed documents and intents. Simplicity is not a feature of political treaties, laws, regulations, etc.

As I said in my post the TBT issue has been thoroughly beaten to death in the CF thread TBT Antifouling - Morally Reprehensible ? You appear to be trying to rehash all you old arguments from that older thread. Folks interested in the TBT issue can view the old thread.

This thread is about the new OCNEA version of bottom paints.

Yeah, I hate to be proven wrong too.

bobconnie · 27-12-2011, 08:44

All I have to say on this is the Gulf Oil Spill did more damage to shell fish in the gulf then ALL The BAD Bottom paints ever made or used !! Heck theres more paint of that type in Louisiana then anywhere ! and our shell fish has always been safe !! not now after the oil spill !! maybe we need to look at other things then worrying about nasty bottom paint just my 2 cents Bob and Connie

fstbttms · 27-12-2011, 08:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobconnie

All I have to say on this is the Gulf Oil Spill did more damage to shell fish in the gulf then ALL The BAD Bottom paints ever made or used !! Heck theres more paint of that type in Louisiana then anywhere ! and our shell fish has always been safe !! not now after the oil spill !! maybe we need to look at other things then worrying about nasty bottom paint just my 2 cents Bob and Connie

No doubt the oil spill did massive harm. But to argue that we should not be trying to reduce the damage we do with anti fouling paints because of that is ridiculous.

Steve Pope · 27-12-2011, 12:54

I have heard (Anecdotally) that the French have or about to revise their findings on TBT antifouling and the damage it does or doesn't do to shellfish in marinas.
It is becoming apparent that there is far more damage being done to shellfish by estrogens being dumped in the sea from the many sewerage outlets around the coasts of all major countries.

**Don Lucas** · 27-12-2011, 16:08

Personally I wouldn't ever consider eating anything that lives/grows in the harbor I keep my boat. The stuff that washes down the creeks etc that dump into it are enough to make me question anything living in it. So.... bottom paint that kills stuff in these limited areas seems a small part of the coast.

In the end I just want the paint to work and don't care what is in it.

I'm sure this is going to but me into some planet hating group, but there are so many better things to worry about that make a bigger difference than the boaters who really are just an easy target!

bobconnie · 27-12-2011, 16:21

Seems to me that someone else is ridiculous!! water from street drains and sewer plants kill more bays then any amount of bottom paint. just another Cali green rule!!theres plenty shell fish in the Bahamas, for instance and plenty of your so called bottom paints Just my 2 cents Bob and Connie

bobconnie · 27-12-2011, 16:25

Gee maybe we should start talking about all the Poo from boats ruining the water everywhere ?? I mean thats a subject close to eveybodys heart !! LOL Bob and Connie

msulc · 10-02-2012, 05:09

Just an update on our experience with Sea Hawk. The original rep who recommended Smart Solution should have recommended the use of Bio-Boost additive with the paint if we were headed to the Caribbean. Because of this error, Sea Hawk is allowing us to repaint our bottom without any cost to us. That is a good way to handle customers!!! I think we will try the Cukote with Biocide Plus or the Biocop TF...