Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

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.

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

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.

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by fstbttms

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.

[fstbttms]

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.

[tamicatana]

Fuel consumption sure goes up with dirty bottom, something the hull-cleaner organization might want to get the data on

[Roy M]

I think I've heard this before. Bottom paint doesn't kill sealife, bottom cleaners kill sealife. Hang in there fstbttms.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by tamicatana

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.

[s/v 'Faith']

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.

[tamicatana]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

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

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by tamicatana

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.

[Cheechako]

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!

[Ocean Girl]

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.

[thinwater]

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.

[zboss]

How often do you get your hull cleaned? I think that is a factor as well.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by thinwater

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.

Originally Posted by thinwater

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!

[FlyingCloud1937]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

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!

Originally Posted by FlyingCloud1937

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