Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 21-11-2013, 17:00   #16
Marine Service Provider
 
fstbttms's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under a boat, in a marina, in the San Francisco Bay
Posts: 3,594
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Quote:
Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith' View Post

Is this thread intended to solicit sympathy from us for you?
No. I began this thread so that boat owners like yourself would be informed. Your sympathy (or lack thereof) is of no interest to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith' View Post
I DO feel sorry for boat owners facing restrictions and am glad they can still get grey market paint that works....
If you are referring to tin-based paint (still available in a few backward places) then that's a real douchey position. One of the worst poisons ever intentionally introduced into the marine environment and banned by all right-thinking nations with good reason.
__________________

__________________
fstbttms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 17:16   #17
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cruising NC, FL, Bahamas, TCI & VIs
Boat: 1964 Pearson Ariel 'Faith' / Pearson 424, sv Emerald Tide
Posts: 1,531
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Quote:
Originally Posted by fstbttms View Post
No. I began this thread so that boat owners like yourself would be informed. Your sympathy (or lack thereof) is of no interest to me.



If you are referring to tin-based paint (still available in a few backward places) then that's a real douchey position. One of the worst poisons ever intentionally introduced into the marine environment and banned by all right-thinking nations with good reason.
Again, as we discussed in the earlier thread, you clean boats painted in Mexico and points south.... So you probably scrub the very tin based paint into the water that you decry here. You had said you would not clean a boat that you knew had it but you also said you did not ask (iirc).

My point is that there is a certain double standard in your complaint. You want the policy that allows you to do your job and release copper into the water, but want others to be restricted in what paints they can buy and use (but have no porblem with your releasing those same contaminants).

It seems to me you protest only the parts of the regulations that impact your ability to discharge.... It strikes me as disingenuous.
__________________

__________________
s/v 'Faith' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 18:04   #18
Marine Service Provider
 
fstbttms's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under a boat, in a marina, in the San Francisco Bay
Posts: 3,594
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

In California, the fouling rates are such that regular hull cleaning is a necessity (regardless of what the paint companies would have you believe.) Copper paints pollute and to a lesser degree, so does hull cleaning. Lets assume copper paints are not going to go away. What is the state going to do, ban hull cleaning? That leaves the boat owner with one alternative- haul the boat at a yard to have the bottom cleaned. Is that convenient? Is that cheaper than a diver? Is it less polluting than in-water hull cleaning? I say the answer to every one of those questions is no.

Yes, I am concerned about my livelihood. But the boat owner should be concerned as well- about the cost, availability and ease of obtaining the hull maintenance his boat needs.
__________________
fstbttms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 18:09   #19
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,172
Images: 15
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Fuel consumption sure goes up with dirty bottom, something the hull-cleaner organization might want to get the data on
__________________
tamicatana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 18:12   #20
Senior Cruiser
 
Roy M's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southwestern Yacht Club, San Diego, CA
Boat: Searunner 40 trimaran, WILDERNESS
Posts: 3,042
Images: 4
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

I think I've heard this before. Bottom paint doesn't kill sealife, bottom cleaners kill sealife. Hang in there fstbttms.
__________________
Roy M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 18:14   #21
Marine Service Provider
 
fstbttms's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under a boat, in a marina, in the San Francisco Bay
Posts: 3,594
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamicatana View Post
Fuel consumption sure goes up with dirty bottom, something the hull-cleaner organization might want to get the data on
Those numbers are well known and easily available.

In the SF Bay Area alone, appox. 80,000 hull cleaning events happen each year (conservative estimate.) Imagine how much fuel would be burned and carbon emissions emitted if there were suddenly 80,000 additional trips to and from the boatyard for hull cleaning.
__________________
fstbttms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 18:22   #22
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cruising NC, FL, Bahamas, TCI & VIs
Boat: 1964 Pearson Ariel 'Faith' / Pearson 424, sv Emerald Tide
Posts: 1,531
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Fwiw,

I believe we should be able to clean our bottoms AND choose effective paints. I am against additional regulation, and disagree that it is an either (clean) / or (have good paint) situation.
__________________
s/v 'Faith' is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 18:31   #23
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,172
Images: 15
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Quote:
Originally Posted by fstbttms View Post
Those numbers are well known and easily available.

In the SF Bay Area alone, appox. 80,000 hull cleaning events happen each year (conservative estimate.) Imagine how much fuel would be burned and carbon emissions emitted if there were suddenly 80,000 additional trips to and from the boatyard for hull cleaning.

That's a point, but I was referring to general use consumption which would exceed your back-and-forth to the boatyard example
__________________
tamicatana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 18:36   #24
Marine Service Provider
 
fstbttms's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under a boat, in a marina, in the San Francisco Bay
Posts: 3,594
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamicatana View Post
That's a point, but I was referring to general use consumption which would exceed your back-and-forth to the boatyard example
Understood. But I wanted to point out the additional issues that some people may not have considered.
__________________
fstbttms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 18:48   #25
Senior Cruiser
 
Cheechako's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Skagit City, WA
Posts: 19,365
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

The answer is easy... ban copper etc antifouling paints and train more cleaners! Why are the cleaners inb usiness now? because the paints dont work anyway!
__________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Broads and Boats. The rest I wasted" - Elmore Leonard











Cheechako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 19:05   #26
Senior Cruiser
 
Ocean Girl's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In transit ( Texas to wherever the wind blows us)
Boat: Pacific Seacraft a Crealock 34
Posts: 4,115
Images: 2
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Our bottom job is over five years old. That is because we have a diver tend to the hull. It is so much smarter and I would think ecologically sound than hauling out every year or two to scrape and repaint.

It seems logical that the paint industry wants to sell more paint. If folks stopped cleaning their hulls then they most definitely would.
__________________
Mrs. Rain Dog~Ocean Girl
https://raindogps34.wordpress.com
Ocean Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 19:05   #27
Writing Full-Time Since 2014
 
thinwater's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Deale, MD
Boat: PDQ Altair, 32/34
Posts: 4,339
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Without having studied this topic or read this study in perfect detail, but having worked for an industry that sponsors 3rd party studies...

I think we can all respect that the lab did proper work. But that does not promise proper results. The greatest challenge in science is usually to be certain you are measuring what you think you are measuring, and that is the key to gaming the system. Question: was the method truly valid?

a. The samples were not on boats that were frequently sailed. In other words, how much Cu is shed blasting through the water? Boats that are raced are cleaned, but they probably shed more sailing. Boats that are not sailed much generally aren't cleaned. Are we testing unrealistic scenarios?

b. Wouldn't it be simpler to measure what remains on each panel after used and sail to effective completion? This study does not reflect if a given paint lasts longer.

Like many materials testing methods, they are more valid for comparing products than demonstrating real life. Why? because the developer of the test is normally working in product development, looking for improvements vs. older formulas and the competition, not absolute results. They are also looking for fast methods, taking far less time than actual testing; when developing a product you can't wait 5 years or 2 years; you need usable data in days or weeks. I have worked in this environment. This test measures relative leaching rates, but not necessarily what happens on real boats. I have seen this difference many times.

Did the paint company cheat? Perhaps yes, by specifying the test methods, knowing the results the labs would get. This is why they could safely finance the test. A smart guy in the paint company lab tipped management re. what these industry standard tests would show. I've seen this MANY times.

If I were a part of the hull cleaner's association, I would consider sponsoring a simpler test through a college that looked at paint life and Cu remaining on real boats (raced boats that are cleaned). It would be far less expensive.

----

It is hopelessly naive to believe that the paint group was not involved in the planning of the study. They did some steering re. methods and the sample group, I would bet money on it.
__________________
Gear Testing--Engineering--Sailing

Writing full-time since 2014.
Bookstore:http://sail-delmarva.blogspot.com/20...ook-store.html
thinwater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 19:11   #28
Registered User
 
zboss's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: On a boat
Boat: Cabo Rico 38
Posts: 3,426
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

How often do you get your hull cleaned? I think that is a factor as well.
__________________
zboss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 19:17   #29
Marine Service Provider
 
fstbttms's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Under a boat, in a marina, in the San Francisco Bay
Posts: 3,594
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinwater View Post
Did the paint company cheat? Perhaps yes, by specifying the test methods, knowing the results the labs would get. This is why they could safely finance the test. A smart guy in the paint company lab tipped management re. what these industry standard tests would show. I've seen this MANY times.
My point exactly. They didn't spend this money to simply duplicate previous tests or produce a result that wasn't beneficial to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinwater View Post
If I were a part of the hull cleaner's association, I would consider sponsoring a simpler test through a college that looked at paint life and Cu remaining on real boats (raced boats that are cleaned). It would be far less expensive.
Great idea! Thanks!
__________________
fstbttms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 19:31   #30
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,205
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Quote:
Originally Posted by fstbttms View Post
My point exactly. They didn't spend this money to simply duplicate previous tests or produce a result that wasn't beneficial to them.



Great idea! Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingCloud1937 View Post
fstbttms,

The paint manufactures had absolutely no control over the study. They provided the funding.

  • a SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, CA, USA;
  • b Scripps Institution of Oceanography/UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
Conducted the study using scientific analysis.

You and everyone else are free to contest any of their methods, or
analysis.

Just because it doesn't align with the CPDA 2008 study doesn't mean it's wrong.

Lloyd
fstbttms,

All the methodology, and analysis is right there in black and white for Peer Review.

To Imply that
  • a SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, San Diego, CA, USA;
  • b Scripps Institution of Oceanography/UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
were on the take is flat out absurd.

If you can find fault in their method/analysis then I propose you state it in black and white, and publish it for Peer Review.

You are absurd.

Lloyd
__________________

__________________
FlyingCloud1937 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
hull

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:59.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.