Coppercoat Bottom Paint

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Blue Stocking

Looks to me like a draw--- Fsbttms can't specifically answer Jedi's question...

Oh, I'll answer it, alright. Tomorrow I'll call the California Department of Pesticide regulation for a definitive answer.

[nonam]

So fsbttms is saying copper plus epoxy is pesticide.First time I have heard either of them called that.Sound like if you just waxed your bottom,that would also be pesticide?I knew a guy experimented with putting cayenne pepper in a paint so cayenne would be a pesticide.Hey,I bet all paints are pesticide.

[nonam]

Yes,ok,he is right.
A pesticide is a substance or mixture of substances used to kill a pest.[1] A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substance intended for: - preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pest
So anything that just REPELLS a pest is a pesticide.It may be a completely harmless substance but it is still a pesticide.So not all pesticides are poisonous and harmfull to the environment.

[FSMike]

Well, let's see -

fstbttms can't as yet come up with a specific example of a law preventing a private citizen from formulating and using his own bottom paint.

fstbttms' boat yard contact said they would not prevent a private citizen from using his own formula of bottom paint.

fstbttms contact at International Paint said it would be illegal, but he couldn't cite a specific law either. Of course he then said that the epoxy/copper formulation wouldn't work. I surmise that if it wouldn't work (as a "pesticide")then it can't be illegal since it's not a "pesticide". Seems like he wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Of course nobody would think that a rep of a major paint company might just possibly have an ax to grind when it came to a discussion of private citizens making their own bottom paint rather than buying from him.

I can't wait to see what local regulations fstbttms comes up with. I hope nobody will be upset if I refuse to get excited about laws issuing from the land of the politically correct. Californians seem to have a great deal of faith in government regulations being wiser than the individual.

[fstbttms]

Since so many of you geniuses seem to doubt that copper-loaded epoxies are in fact pesticides, check this link to the page on the Coppercoat web site showing the approval for use by the British Health & Safety Executive under The Control of Pesticide Regulations:

http://www.coppercoat.com/documents/...ofApproval.pdf

Here is a document outlining the California Department of Pesticide Regulation's oversight of anti fouling paints using copper as the main toxin:

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/sur...ers_sw0503.pdf

[Bash]

The PDR document is a white paper, not a regulatory statement.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Bash

The PDR document is a white paper, not a regulatory statement.

Yes, but it clearly indicates that the regulation of anti fouling paints falls under the DPR's authority.

[Christian Van H]

How did this thread turn into this? In a nutshell, this stuff works like crap. Hows that for a general review?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Christian Van H

How did this thread turn into this? In a nutshell, this stuff works like crap. Hows that for a general description?

Again, the efficacy of any anti fouling product is largely dependant on the fouling conditions present in the region where it is being used. My experience with copper-loaded epoxie (like yours, apparently) is that they are next to worthless. But several who have contributed to this thread claim great results using this kind of anti fouling. Clearly it works for some people.

[fstbttms]

OK, here is an unambiguous document from the California DPR stating that 1.- anti fouling paints are considered pesticides and 2.- that the DPR is the controlling agency regulating them in California.

http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pub...36protocol.pdf

Tomorrow we find out the DPR's stance on home-made anti foulants.

[Christian Van H]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

But several who have contributed to this thread claim great results using this kind of anti fouling. Clearly it works for some people.

Fstbttms, I know you know your stuff...it's your living. Read the thread a little closer though...two people had positive things to say; one says it works where almost anything would, and fails in warm waters, the other who says it's the greatest thing since sliced bread MIXES HIS OWN! Apparently HE should be producing this stuff!

[Bash]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

My experience with copper-loaded epoxie (like yours, apparently) is that they are next to worthless.

Here's the problem, fstbottms. You are a commercial vendor. On your website you endorse a specific brand of bottom paint. It's probably safe to assume that your endorsement is for other than an altruistic motivation since, after all, this is your business. Then, you get onto this forum and render opinions that products other than the one you endorse "are next to worthless." This is not the first time this has happened.

Then, with appropriate sarcasm, you address those who disagree with your paid-for opinions with such salutations as, "Since so many of you geniuses seem to doubt..."

You've posted 14 of the 41 messages on this thread. This has become a typical pattern whenever someone, such as the original poster, seeks an alternative to the specific brand of anti-fouling paint you endorse.

I, for one, don't think that it's appropriate for commercial vendors to use this forum to promote products from which they receive direct monetary gain. It's a shame that we can't discuss AFPs here without a commercial vendor trying to take advantage of the conversation for personal gain.

[nonam]

Even if copper epoxy has lousy performance it is still of great interest to hard core permanent cruisers as it gives the possibility of staying out of the expensive haulout yards for years.If you are healthy ,how big a deal is it to scrub your bottom once a week?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Christian Van H

Fstbttms, I know you know your stuff...it's your living. Read the thread a little closer though...two people had positive things to say; one says it works where almost anything would, and fails in warm waters, the other who says it's the greatest thing since sliced bread MIXES HIS OWN! Apparently HE should be producing this stuff!

Well, that's a question, isn't ? Far be it from me to tell somebody I have never met and know nothing about that his home-made recipe doesn't work. But if making a superior anti fouling paint was as easy as mixing copper powder into a bucket of epoxy, the paint manufacturers would either be marketing it or be out of business.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Bash

I, for one, don't think that it's appropriate for commercial vendors to use this forum to promote products from which they receive direct monetary gain. It's a shame that we can't discuss AFPs here without a commercial vendor trying to take advantage of the conversation for personal gain.

Please show me one example where I have endorsed a particular product in this thread. Please cite an example where I have attempted to use this thread for personal gain. I have neither mentioned any product by name nor have I directed anybody to my web site, where yes, I do happen to mention a product that I think is the best anti fouling paint available. Why do I make that endorsement on my web site? Because good anti fouling paint makes my job easier. I have no connection to that company in any way, shape or form.

I have posted often in this thread because I have some expertise in the area of discussion. You, on the other hand, have tried (and failed) to discredit me in several threads, the last one being a thread I started about hull cleaning frequencies that you completely misread and accused me of trying to inflate my profits at the boat owner's expense. Here again, you accuse me of doing something that never happened. I believe the trend of misusing the forum is yours, friend.