Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 21-11-2013, 19:42   #31
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

Lloyd:

We're not questioning the lab work. Read more closely. We're questioning whether the test was carefully selected. I'm stacked studies like this before for my industry. It's easy to do, since many tests are not designed only for comparison.
__________________

__________________
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, 19:45   #32
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 FlyingCloud1937 View Post
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
Right. It's impossible that the fix is in . Especially when Big Business is involved.

Naivety does not become you.
__________________

__________________
fstbttms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 19:52   #33
Marine Service Provider

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinwater View Post
Lloyd:

We're not questioning the lab work. Read more closely. We're questioning whether the test was carefully selected. I'm stacked studies like this before for my industry. It's easy to do, since many tests are not designed only for comparison.
Ok, then you sound just like the guy to challenge the study.

Your task should you choose to accept it, is Write a B&W counter poise that demonstrates this study done BY UC San Diego is in fact a sham.

Until you do that, to imply it's a sham is a dis-service to all and each member that participated. Many whom were probably working on the advance degrees. If it turns out a sham, them most of these future scientist will be UN-employable.

Both of these institutions are well respected, and the Publisher is equally respected.

Show me why you are right.

Lloyd
__________________
FlyingCloud1937 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 19:53   #34
Registered User
 
svseachange's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: East Coast of Australia
Boat: Custom Steel 43 ft
Posts: 781
I'm with fast bottoms.

We should ignore the paint industry sponsored studies. Industry sponsored studies are deliberately constrained in scope to support the industry's interests. A more comprehensive study might include the factors suggested by fast bottoms.

They want to sell us more ot their toxic paint. Full stop. I can't see how this helps the environment or our pocket books.
__________________
svseachange is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 19:57   #35
Marine Service Provider

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by fstbttms View Post
Right. It's impossible that the fix is in . Especially when Big Business is involved.

Naivety does not become you.
The court is open,

put your B&W where your mouth is.

I'm not holding my breath.

Lloyd
__________________
FlyingCloud1937 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 20:33   #36
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 FlyingCloud1937 View Post
The court is open,

put your B&W where your mouth is.

I'm not holding my breath.

Lloyd
Here's what you fail to understand:

Nobody is suggesting that Scripps or SPARWARS deliberately fudged the study to produce predetermined results. Scripps and SPARWARS were simply paid by ACA to perform a study that ACA designed. "Use this methodology, use these materials, use this time frame, sample for these metals (all under our supervision of course) and report to us the findings."

Scripps and SPARWAR didn't do anything underhanded. They simply did what the client paid them to do. A client that knew what results would be produced.
__________________
fstbttms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 20:38   #37
Marine Service Provider

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by fstbttms View Post
Here's what you fail to understand:

Nobody is suggesting that Scripps or SPARWARS deliberately fudged the study to produce predetermined results. Scripps and SPARWARS were simply paid by ACA to perform the study that ACA designed. "Use this methodology, use these materials, use this time frame, sample for these metals (all under our supervision of course) and report to us the findings."

Scripps and SPARWAR didn't do anything underhanded. They simply did what the client paid them to do. A client that knew what results would be produced.
CAN YOU PROVE THAT?

Or are you just making Innuendo?

On what basis do you believe this to be true?

Lloyd

or is it your contacts to secrete society that inform you?
__________________
FlyingCloud1937 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 20:50   #38
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 FlyingCloud1937 View Post
On what basis do you believe this to be true?
On the basis that I was in the CalEPA office in Sacramento last year to give a presentation on in-water hull cleaning to the Anti Fouling Workgroup when the Department of Pesticide Regulation scientist (then) in charge of determining how much copper was in the state's waterways announced that ACA would be producing a study of hull cleaning's copper loading contribution.
__________________
fstbttms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 20:58   #39
Marine Service Provider

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by fstbttms View Post
On the basis that I was in the CalEPA office in Sacramento last year to give a presentation on in-water hull cleaning to the Anti Fouling Workgroup when the Department of Pesticide Regulation scientist (then) in charge of determining how much copper was in the state's waterways announced that ACA would be producing a study of hull cleaning's copper loading contribution.
So you are implying that a per-determined results was guided. This would not be a scientific report that can stand up to peer review.

So it's going to be really easy to discredit it, and all whom worked on it.

I'm sure that Scripps Institution of Oceanography/UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA, participate in these types of studies, because they need the funding. Each method is clearly stated in B&W. Where do you find fault.

I ask you one more time to just shed some light on where the study is flawed.

It seems that the CPDA 2008 didn't get into the science of how much copper was released into the waterways. As it only looked at what did the best job of cleaning.

Lloyd
__________________
FlyingCloud1937 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 21:38   #40
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

Lloyd:

You commit logical games, those we hear in politics all the time. I did not say the science was bad. I trust that the work was very diligent and said that it was. They studied what they were told to study. By stretching what I said to the absurd you attempted to discredit what I said without addressing what I suggested.

What they could have done was measure copper leaching from a representative group of actual boats over the useful life of the paint. But this was not what they were tasked to do. As a result, the data can really only support 2 trends: that non-BMP cleaning releases more copper (we already knew that) and that cleaning of an inactive boat releases copper (but they didn't study boats that move, so we don't know that the ratio to normal release is valid). Missing, lamentably, is any information about the effect of cleaning on useful life; I think we would all like to know that, as it impacts both cost and total environmental impact. They also suggested that these specific ablative and non-ablative paints release copper a similar rates... but since they tell us nothing of longevity this data is of no value as presented. They withheld necessary information and did not say why; I don't feel defending the privacy of a manufacturer is valid if the data is to be released publicly where it could become the basis for policy.

Good science, but necessarily limited by the choice of experimental conditions.

Would the results be different if different methodology was chosen? I do not know nor did I say did. I certainly don't have a dog in the fight.
__________________
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, 21:43   #41
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingCloud1937 View Post
CAN YOU PROVE THAT?

Or are you just making Innuendo?

On what basis do you believe this to be true?

Lloyd

or is it your contacts to secrete society that inform you?
I think it is very likely that the paint manufactures run these tests (or very similar tests) on their products as part of the product development cycle, for reasons unrelated to the environment. I would. As a paint chemist I would like to know how each formula leached and how cleaning affected that.

But I do not pretend to know this for fact. Never said I did. I did state that technical industries generally have a very good idea what tests give what results.
__________________
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, 22:01   #42
Senior Cruiser
 
DeepFrz's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Boat: None at this time
Posts: 7,930
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Quote:
Occam's Razor.
I'm siding with fast bottoms.
++1

It has been known for a long time that industry funded university studies are not always the most ethical studies. They are funded and controlled in such a way as to favor the industry, otherwise what would be the point in them funding these studies. Most major industries have their own labs and can do their own studies. However, if they release the results of in house studies, and they are favorable to the industry, the results are likely to be refuted. By funding studies at universities and other highly thought of labs they gain some modicum of respectability in the public's and therefore in the politician's eyes.
__________________
The Blue Dot Campaign. This Changes Everything.
DeepFrz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-11-2013, 22:08   #43
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 FlyingCloud1937 View Post
I ask you one more time to just shed some light on where the study is flawed.
Here's my big problem with the study. Sample collection was done with a device that is supposed to approximate a human performing in-water hull cleaning. A spring-loaded, hand-cranked scrubbing cylinder? That is what the entire study is based upon. But since the CPDA was not allowed to witness the study or see any of the data as it was being collected (we asked and were rebuffed), who the hell knows if the device actually performed as advertised. It is entirely possible that the sample collection methodology was completely flawed (perhaps intentionally) since no hull cleaning professionals (or anybody else who has ever cleaned a boat bottom) were allowed to participate in the study or witness the device's use.
__________________
fstbttms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2013, 02:03   #44
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 202
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Number 1 rule for Attorney's? Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

Number 1 rule for industry? Never fund a study you don't already know the answer to...

Fstbttms and Thinwater gets it.
__________________
Sondor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2013, 04:46   #45
Moderator Emeritus
 
GordMay's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 31,583
Images: 240
Re: Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean Girl View Post
Occam's Razor.
I'm siding with fast bottoms.
Occam's Razor holds that assumptions, introduced to explain a thing, must not be multiplied beyond necessity; and hence the simplest of several hypotheses is always the best in accounting for unexplained facts.
That the test results were manipulated by the sponsors (paint mfrs), might be an unnecessary assumption, if (as sailorboy1 suggests) "the results are the results".
__________________

__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay 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 18:57.


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.