Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

We don't clean twice a month. Never said we did. When I say "bi-monthly" I mean every two months.



Dunno what to tell you. Here, in freshwater or brackish, boat bottoms are cleaned infrequently or not at all. In fact, if you take your dirty bottom from the main Bay up to the Delta, it will come back clean.

Right. Trying to read too late at night, it was bimonthly, not biweekly. Does make a lot more sense and is about what I saw recently in Narragansett Bay. In fact two months between cleanings might have been too much.

And, when I moved a couple of miles up the CT River where I was in pure fresh water all the growth from Narragansett disappeared.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Maybe the state would put a moratorium on hull cleaning, say for two years. That would be easy to enforce. Stand back and see if the copper numbers go down. Of course, most dive services would go out of business if that happened.

I hate to say it but I have no doubt that could happen after they tried the luxury tax scheme on boat. It put hundreds of boat builders out of business. By the time it was repealed, it was too late.

[perchance]

Targeting bottom cleaners is the low hanging fruit in this whole issue. No one seems to mention the tons of copper flushed from the streets due to disc brake pads.
There is an effort on the part of Government to compel manufacturers to reduce the amount of copper to .5% in brake pads but that initiative is further down the road.

[Matt sachs]

I know nothing about this topic, as I have cleaned a total of one hull, and it was in fresh water. But sometimes a fresh set of eyes can be useful.
Wouldn't it be easy to fit a diaper of sorts under the boat, pump out the salt water and put in a few gallons of city water? Would this not greatly reduce the number of times a year the hull needs cleaned? Seems easy, especially for those boats that get used 3 times a year.

[MarkSF]

Originally Posted by skipmac

My question is how dangerous is copper? At very low levels it is an essential, human micro-nutrient but at high levels it is toxic.

So at the concentrations in the water, even areas around marinas like the Bay, are the levels high enough to be an environmental concern?

This is a good point. What is missing is good data showing that the typical copper levels are damaging the marine environment.

The data I've seen showed a slightly reduced incidence of the smallest invertebrates (most sensitive to copper) in marinas. It hardly seemed to justify the expense and inconvenience that is heading our way - but that's environmentalism for you.

I sincerely believe that common sense has long since gone out of the window.

Feels good to be less important than a shrimp, doesn't it.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by perchance

Targeting bottom cleaners is the low hanging fruit in this whole issue. No one seems to mention the tons of copper flushed from the streets due to disc brake pads.
There is an effort on the part of Government to compel manufacturers to reduce the amount of copper to .5% in brake pads but that initiative is further down the road.

California has banned copper brake pads. Interestingly, the state senator that authored that legislation was the same one who authored the failed legislation that would have banned copper anti fouling paint a year or two ago.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by JK n Smitty

Fastbottoms,

I have read your posts and most of the report. I have not seen a compliant about the methodologies used. Just complaints about the funding source and the results.

Do you have any complaints on the methodology they used?

I can't speak to the science involved, as I am not a chemist. But it seems to me that the collection device could be constructed to produce virtually any result the paint manufacturers wanted.



This thing is supposed to replicate a human performing in-water hull cleaning. But does it? We don't know, not having been allowed to witness any part of the sample collections. They certainly didn't observe and measure a human hull cleaner going through similar evolutions to develop a baseline.

The samples collected by this device are the basis for the entire study. Yet we are supposed to take the paint manufacturer's word that these samples are accurate representations of what is happening in the marina? Sorry, I just don't have that kind of warm and fuzzy feeling about huge multinational corporations trying to protect their interests.

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by avb3

What happens is that if a study results in a conclusion the funders don't like, then it does not get released.

The studies that are released are legit... they just happen to coincide with the funders interests.

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. Do you believe those funded will keep secret unfavorable results???? Really? Would not releasing unfavorable results risk questioning the integrity of the testing agency????

[foggysail]

Originally Posted by skipmac

My question is how dangerous is copper? At very low levels it is an essential, human micro-nutrient but at high levels it is toxic.

So at the concentrations in the water, even areas around marinas like the Bay, are the levels high enough to be an environmental concern?

1+++++++

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by skipmac

My question is how dangerous is copper? At very low levels it is an essential, human micro-nutrient but at high levels it is toxic.

So at the concentrations in the water, even areas around marinas like the Bay, are the levels high enough to be an environmental concern?

The impetus behind California trying to reduce copper in its waterways is that the USEPA has set maximum acceptable levels for many water pollutants, copper among them. There are literally hundreds of bodies of water in this state (typically recreational boat basins) that exceed those levels for copper. The state is required by federal law to bring those bodies into compliance. And there are studies that show that marine flora and fauna are impacted by copper at the levels we are talking about.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by foggysail

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion. Do you believe those funded will keep secret unfavorable results???? Really? Would not releasing unfavorable results risk questioning the integrity of the testing agency????

I obviously can't prove that, but it is not unheard of in the survey industry to keep some surveys internal. The funder is the owner.

I have no doubt that the studies undertaken will pass scientific rigor, either way. No legitimate scientific organization would get involved in a study that does not have that rigor, and both of the groups are very, very, legitimate.

Whether the studies get released may well depend on the funding agreement in place... in other words, who is the owner of the study once it is complete.

[senormechanico]

I'd like to defund or at least seriously harness the EPA, but that's just me.