Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

[fstbttms]

Earlier this year I began a thread entitled "Anti Fouling Paint Manufacturers Taking Aim At Hull Cleaners." Maybe some of you remember it. Anyway, in that thread, I referenced a study of in-water hull cleaning's copper contribution to the water column. Not the first study of its kind, but the first one funded by the paint manufacturer's lobbying group. It was published a couple of weeks ago and as expected, the results show that copper-based anti fouling paint is much less of an issue than every other previous study has shown, and that in-water hull cleaning is much more of a problem. By a factor of 10. Where previous studies show that hull cleaning contributes about 5% of the copper that gets into the water from anti fouling paint, this study shows it to be about 50%. If you were ever in doubt about the meaning of the phrase, "The fox guarding the hen house," this scenario should clear that right up for you.

We don't know how the paint manufacturers will want the state to use this study, but we suspect it could be used to implement mandatory cleaning frequencies in California, and by that I mean much less frequent than the boat owner would like. FYI.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/1...14.2013.841891

[donradcliffe]

Y'all need your own hull cleaner's group. I could put you in touch with a few lobbyists, but you'd have to double your charges to pay for them.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Y'all need your own hull cleaner's group. I could put you in touch with a few lobbyists, but you'd have to double your charges to pay for them.

Oh, we have a trade association, but certainly can't afford a lobbyist.

California Professional Divers Association

[valhalla360]

As an outsider with no dog in this fight (take care of my own bottom), I tend to believe the new study. It's just logical that scrubbing will release copper and more importantly do it in a concentrated area of a marina.

Sometimes the facts line up with your agenda.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

As an outsider with no dog in this fight (take care of my own bottom), I tend to believe the new study. It's just logical that scrubbing will release copper and more importantly do it in a concentrated area of a marina.

Sometimes the facts line up with your agenda.

You're missing the point. Nobody argues that in-water hull is a contributor; of course it is. But every previous study has shown that contribution to be quite small. Now the paint manufacturers (under increasing pressure to reduce the copper their paints are responsible for in the water) have produced a study that miraculously shows that hull cleaning is responsible for 10 times previous estimates. Which means of course, that the paints are responsible for correspondingly less. Gosh, what a surprise.

[FlyingCloud1937]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

You're missing the point. Nobody argues that in-water hull is a contributor; of course it is. But every previous study has shown that contribution to be quite small. Now the paint manufacturers (under increasing pressure to reduce the copper their paints are responsible for in the water) have produced a study that miraculously shows that hull cleaning is responsible for 10 times previous estimates. Which means of course, that the paints are responsible for correspondingly less. Gosh, what a surprise.

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]

Originally Posted by FlyingCloud1937

fstbttms,

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

Right. You're saying the paint manufacturers ponied up $160,000 to produce a study, the outcome of which they were unsure of? What, they just got lucky on this one? Bwahahahaha!

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

You're missing the point. Nobody argues that in-water hull is a contributor; of course it is. But every previous study has shown that contribution to be quite small. Now the paint manufacturers (under increasing pressure to reduce the copper their paints are responsible for in the water) have produced a study that miraculously shows that hull cleaning is responsible for 10 times previous estimates. Which means of course, that the paints are responsible for correspondingly less. Gosh, what a surprise.

First, I was saying scrubbing the hull is a major contributer not just having the hull in the water. If you think about it logically, of course scrubbing will release copper to a far greater degree than just sitting quietly in a slip.

Also, I never said the manufacturers didn't have a dog in the fight but that doesn't make the study wrong.

When one study agrees with logic and another disagrees, I know which one I'm believing regardless of the fact that two groups with a dog in the fight are coming up with different answers.

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Right. You're saying the paint manufacturers ponied up $160,000 to produce a study, the outcome of which they were unsure of? What, they just got lucky on this one? Bwahahahaha!

There is precedent for such an occurrence. See a study on diesel additives, paid for by additive manufacturers... where the results weren't always favorable for those same manufacturers.

http://www.johnfjensen.com/Diesel_**...itive_test.pdf

-Chris

[sailorboy1]

[QUOTE=fstbttms;1396573. If you were ever in doubt about the meaning of the phrase, "The fox guarding the hen house," this scenario should clear that right up for you.
.[/QUOTE]

The study is the study and the results are the results.

Far as the above statement it sounds to me you are talking about hull cleaners calling foul.

[Dulcesuenos]

Havi g cleaned my own hulls for years, , there is no doubt that if you scrub enough, all your paint is going to end up in the water. How could you think otherwise? Are you saying itz really the pai.ts fault or am i missing something? So glad i dont live in cali....

[Ocean Girl]

Occam's Razor.
I'm siding with fast bottoms.

[Boracay]

For mine the question is not what percentage of copper goes into the water, the question is : "Does it pollute the environment in an unacceptable way?".

My belief is that the limited cleaning that takes place would have no measurable effect on the amount of copper in the environment.

Whether it's 50, 100 or 1000 % is irrelevant if it has a minimal effect on the environment, and limiting in water cleaning is more shooting the messenger than a serious attempt to tackle the problem.

My opinion is that it may not be all that hard to produce a paint specifically designed for in water cleaning that pollutes even less than current paints uncleaned.

However I would like to see much more innovative approaches to antifouling that could include action like limiting the nutrients released into the mooring areas, cleanable coatings as above, fish "friendly" coating that encourage fish to eat the fouling, etcetera.

[s/v 'Faith']

So,

Copper paint is bad, and ought to be banned, but YOUR bit of the pie ought not be tampered with? Ok, to release copper in the water at your hand but paint companies need to make the paint with less copper (increasing cost to boat owners, and increasing your bottom line)?

Is this thread intended to solicit sympathy from us for you?

Do not get me wrong, I DO feel sorry for boat owners facing restrictions and am glad they can still get grey market paint that works....

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Dulcesuenos

Havi g cleaned my own hulls for years, , there is no doubt that if you scrub enough, all your paint is going to end up in the water. How could you think otherwise? Are you saying itz really the pai.ts fault or am i missing something? So glad i dont live in cali....

Please read my posts. I have never said or inferred that in-water hull cleaning does not pollute. Of course it does. But that pollution can me minimized. That is why it is important that the state enforce its own regulations, requiring the use of Best Management Practices, which every study (including the one cited here) has shown to be effective.

But if you think that hull cleaning is the biggest contributor, you either don't understand how anti fouling paint works and/or have never read any study that measures copper loading as regards anti fouling paint on recreation boats. Anti fouling paint is pumping copper into the water every single minute it is in that water, whether a diver is cleaning it or not.