TBT Antifouling - Morally Reprehensible ?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by At sea

12-15 times pa! Surely this is a misprint.

No misprint. In San Diego, boats are typically cleaned every 3 weeks in the summer, every 4 weeks in the winter.

Originally Posted by At sea

A bit of growth below doesn't do any harm so there's no need for non-racers to be fastidiuous about it.

Here are some reasons that keeping your bottom clean with frequent, gentle hull cleaning is a good thing:

1.- Improved boat speed both under sail and power
2.- Reduced fuel consumption
3.- Reduced carbon emissions
4.- Improved handling, both under sail and power
5.- Increased anti fouling paint longevity

Originally Posted by At sea

boat owners have been sold a pup by bottom scrubbers.

Yeah, that's what's going on here.

Originally Posted by At sea

bottom scrubbing must be a significant contributor to the accelerated release of anti-fouling toxins..

If you had been reading this thread you'd know that I already indicated that studies show that in-water hull cleaning activities contribute approximately 5% of the copper loading in the water column. Over 90% comes from passive leaching of the toxin from the anti fouling paint.

Originally Posted by At sea

Surely an annual slipping for a clean and antifoul, with the waste safely removed, could be no more costly than a monthly clean in the pond - and be better for the little fishes.

Clearly, you have never kept a boat in California. I guess we have a different idea of what constitutes proper boat maintenance here than you do.

Three month's growth on a Copperpoxy bottom in San Francisco Bay- taken a few months ago:

[VirtualVagabond]

Originally Posted by bljones

Anybody want some cheese with their whine?
Thanks. I'll stick to beer for now, but some cheese would make all these 'crackers' around here a bit more pallatable

From what I have read here, there are ONLY three arguments in favour of TBT bottom paint:
1. It's cheap.
2. If the big ships can do it, why can't I, it's not fair!
3. Nothing else works as well and I don't like to scrub.
Would you accept this kinda crap from your kids? No, so why do we have to put up with it from government?
Apart from 2), which is along the lines of the govt marching us into the town square for a public flogging and whispering in our ear, "I know you didn't do it, because I did. But we've got to look like we're doing something about it so bare your back, and try not to yell too loudly..."

*Puts on belligerent dickhead hat* Sorry guys. I've created a monster...
Rebuttal to argument 1: If you can't afford the paint, you should have bought a smaller boat... Or a much bigger one, so we can antifoul cheaply, with TBT, all nice and legal and really, listening to guys on 40 foot boats lounging around the caribbean bitch about spending $1000 on paint and haulout every two to three years is a little rich while i sit here and contemplate the snow falling outside.
Besides, if the new stuff doesn't work, why are you putting it on anyway? Therefore the cost is moot.

Rebuttal to argument 2: Don't make me pull this car over. Again, just so we're clear, this is the argument coming from grown men successful enough to cruise on 40 foot boats. C'mon.

Rebuttal to argument 3:If you were living on dirt, you'd have to mow the lawn, pull the weeds, trim the walks, prune the hedges... weekly.
Seems to me that occcasionally scrubbing the hull is just part of the cost of cruising- nautical lawnmowing. Hey... we go cruising to get away from all that, not substitute it! if that task is too onerous for some of you, feel free to come north, where you can enjoy a little persective by shovelling the snow off my sidewalks...again.
Some here are complaining about needing to go snorkeling, with a brush in the Bahamas every couple of weeks. Okay, I admit, it does seem a bit lame...I'll happily trade you.

For those of you who think that Fastbttms has an agenda and makes money off poor quality inferior bottom paint and this is all some sort of conspiracy cooked up by bottom-diving lobbyists (as opposed to bottom-dwelling legislators) you're dead wrong. he's making money on sailors too lazy or self-important to dive on their own hulls, just as landscapers make money on people too lazy to mow their own lawns.

*removes belligerent dickhead hat* Don't. It's so 'you'...

Thanks for your time.

I owe you another round don't I

[bewitched]

Forget about whether it's legal in some places around the world, forget if others are using it, forget about how govenments are trying to evade the requirements of the convention. These are excuses, not reasons.

Ask youself if you really think it's a good idea to use a chemical that has been specifically banned by an international convention because of its harmful effects to the environment. Just because you have to dive your boat slightly more often?

[perchance]

If you want the facts(not sure whose) see copperantifouling.com/copper/index.html

[VirtualVagabond]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

I guess you're right. I'm only reinforcing your posititon that personal responsibility is for suckers...

Difficult as it is, I'll ignore the selfrighteous arrogance of this incorrect assumption. I'm a great believer in personal responsibility.

You have a rare talent for missing the point and homing in on just what you want to hear.

What I don't believe in is fiddling while Rome burns, and having the pyromaniacs saying "..you keep fiddlin' there boy, 'cause if you stop Rome is gone, and it will be your fault", while they happily fan the flames...

Strange as it seems to you, we're actually on the same side.

As stated before, I care about the environment enormously, every bit as much as you do. And I'd bet everyone on this forum does too.

The point is, feeling good about doing my little bit so that somehow I can feel better than everyone else, even though it doesn't make the blindest bit of difference, is useless tokenism and solves nothing, except the consciences of those sucked in.

In fact there is an argument that it is counter productive. While the drum beaters are making a racket everyone thinks the problem is being solved and it diverts attention from REALLY solving the problem.

At the risk of thread drift, but to illustrate a point...

Last year here in Australia, global warming was, to quote the prime minister, the "greatest moral challenge of our time". We have to reduce our emmissions by 20% by 2020.
This year, the govt. is building a $40 billion fibreoptic broadband network that isn't needed but it gets young votes.
50% of our emissions come from coal fired power stations. The $40 billion would build 8 nuclear power stations with 0 emmissions. And we have most of the world's known uranium. We could reduce our emissions by 50%, not 20%.
But that would be only 1% of global emmissions and there aren't as many votes in it.

And yes, I burn as many lights as I feel I need because I won't be sucked into thinking I'm making a difference.

The point is, until governments and industry globally move to solve problems, they won't get solved, and I'm not going to knock myself out achieving NOTHING!

If that is morally backrupt, well, rosin up that bow...

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by VirtualVagabond

I'm a great believer in personal responsibility.

Originally Posted by VirtualVagabond

...until governments and industry globally move to solve problems, they won't get solved, and I'm not going to knock myself out achieving NOTHING!

In one breath you say you're all about personal responsibility and in the next you say you won't change anything in your life unless the government does it first.

That ain't personal responsibility in my book. In my book, big changes come because enough little people stand up and make a noise. But I guess we can count you out, can't we?

[Brent Swain]

A recent article in 48 North quoted a survey which found that around 60%of the copper in Puget Sound was from brake shoes on vehicles in the area. I wonder how much more was from ablative paints on ships and ferries. Probably the bulk of the remaining 40%.
I never found TBTF anywhere near as effective in killing bottom growth as copper. In fact it was abysmally useless in doing so.
It's simply smoke and mirrors , targeting the most vulnerable and compliant people, boaters, for show and tell, that they are addressing the pollution issue, while doing nothing really effective.

[VirtualVagabond]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

In one breath you say you're all about personal responsibility and in the next you say you won't change anything in your life unless the government does it first.
You're missing the point, and making an incorrect generalization... again!

I'll change things that actually make a difference. But I don't change when it doesn't make any difference, ie when it's tokenism.

That ain't personal responsibility in my book. In my book, big changes come because enough little people stand up and make a noise... Rarely. But I guess we can count you out, can't we?

When you can show me that tokenism will bring about meaningful change, pass me a drum and I'll probably drown you out. There is no problem solved by mini gestures.

There is no point in trying to stop the cavalry by sniping away with a muzzle loader when what you need is a few Gattling guns.

There. I've turned it into another gun thread too. Am I morally bereft or what...

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by VirtualVagabond

The point is, until governments and industry globally move to solve problems, they won't get solved, and I'm not going to knock myself out achieving NOTHING!

They are our Governments and our industries and it is not their problem, it's ours. It's our childrens.

"They should do something about it" - it's not a mindset that will achieve much.

We need to do something about it.

The first step is to take responsibility for our own personal, immediate environment. It's not tokenism if everyone does it. Try it, it's not that difficult. It won't knock you out I promise.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by VirtualVagabond

When you can show me that tokenism will bring about meaningful change, pass me a drum and I'll probably drown you out. There is no problem solved by mini gestures.

There is no point in trying to stop the cavalry by sniping away with a muzzle loader when what you need is a few Gattling guns.

There. I've turned it into another gun thread too. Am I morally bereft or what...

Life is like a bag of popcorn. The butter and salt on one kernel doesn't add up to much, however, the butter on a whole bag adds up to a real nice snack. Saying, "one persons contribution is nothing so why bother", ignores the math of the situation. There are a lot us out there and frankly if you're all going to start beating drums instead of quietly doing the right thing it's going to get real dirty and real noisy.

Now pass the damn popcorn!

[superdave]

wow.... way informative

[Wand]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Here are some reasons that keeping your bottom clean with frequent, gentle hull cleaning is a good thing:

1.- Improved boat speed both under sail and power
2.- Reduced fuel consumption
3.- Reduced carbon emissions
4.- Improved handling, both under sail and power
5.- Increased anti fouling paint longevity

Clearly, you have never kept a boat in California. I guess we have a different idea of what constitutes proper boat maintenance here than you do. Three month's growth on a Copperpoxy bottom in San Francisco Bay...

Well, points 1-5 are what the blurb on the packet says. But that boat probably has an ablative antifoul and definitely never leaves its moorings. So points 1-5 have absolutely no meaning. Which is why I said that they've been sold a pup by the bottom scrubbers. If they take it out for a trip just once a year, it'd be cheaper for them to slip it then and do it properly and in a way that's much better for the little fishes. But then that wouldn't suit the scrubbers.

But then again what would I know. Because you're right: I have "never kept a boat in California and must have a different idea of what constitutes proper boat maintenance."

[swagman]

Originally Posted by GordMay

I can’t work out where you get the idea that yachts are targeted, whereas commercial tankers are not.

I thought that the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships (AFS Convention) applies to all ships.

It does. My apologies, I was misinformed. Please remove my post Gord.

Cheers
JOHN

[VirtualVagabond]

Originally Posted by bewitched

They are our Governments and our industries and it is not their problem, it's ours. It's our childrens.
You've bought the spin, hook, line and sinker.
A sure sign of suckerdom.

Unfortunately it is a very naive concept. They own us! We are their cash cow. That's it.

If you doubt it, ask yourself, who makes the rules, and who has to follow them?
Now, do you still think you own them?

"They should do something about it" - it's not a mindset that will achieve much. True. Neither is... "If I do my bit, and you do your bit, the problem will magically disappear".

We need to do something about it. My point exactly. But I notice nobody has come up with an idea half as effective as my suggestion of getting all the boats that don't get used out of the water. Much easier to selfrightously beat that little drum isn't it?

The first step is to take responsibility for our own personal, immediate environment. That's an opinion, not a fact. It's not tokenism if everyone does it. Same again. It's tokenism if it doesn't fix the problem because everyone else has exemptions. Try it, it's not that difficult. It won't knock you out I promise.

And the last two sentences are just a tad too patronising, given the fact that there doesn't seem to be an original thought presented. Just a regurgitation of the same old worn out cliched thinking.

And for the record, I seperate the recyclables, dispose of junk thoughtfully etc etc. I just don't fool myself that it will make a significant difference until the big end of town does the same...

[Wand]

After having read through this thread again, I'm still uncertain on the real question: that is, who appears to be the biggest prig. Is it FSTBTTMS or VirtualVagabond? Maybe I should start a thread on it.

One thing's for sure: I expect neither would have a well thumbed copy of Dale Carnegie's classic in their bookshelves.