TBT Antifouling - Morally Reprehensible ?

[Wand]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I am really curious about the stance of the professional diver-hull-cleaners amd US berthed yacht owners when the next step in environmental protection is taken in the USA... which is a ban on cleaning anti-fouled hulls while in the water. This practice releases much more poisons like copper and chemicals in the environment than cleaning the boat during extra haul-out's where the waste is contained and disposed of in a way that is safe to the environment.

Many years ago, we were banned from careening for cleaning and antifouling because of the toxins released by the process. That was annoying because the club has a couple of sets of careening poles and some excellent drying shoals. It's also a process steeped in nautical tradition. But it's true that our mangrove-lined inlets and creeks are fisheries breeding grounds and keeping them pristine is the best defence against the forces of creeping suburbia. So now we must slip to antifoul and then collect and properly remove all the waste. I've come to think this is good policy.

But it seems strange to me that the practice of an in-the-water scrub contines to be tolerated, because it is much the same thing as careening. Okay, I agree, that there is a difference in scale to a full antifoul while careened but if a diver goes along a row scrubbing every boat, and does it quite regularly, it's arguable that the toxins thus released would be considerable and comparable over time. I wonder if there've been any studies along these lines to inform us.

[bruce smith]

I wonder the same ting ?
Is OK for a diver to scrub, but not to careen.
Anyway,got my 1 coat of seahawk 44 plus on today, maybe Woodwind will not need another shot next year?
(friday launch)
Edit.... Chap in the boatyard left a 3sq inch piece of said paint on his leg overnight,had a nasty sore today.
Fstbttm, what ARE the alternatives, other than not being lazy n cheap?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by At sea

But it seems strange to me that the practice of an in-the-water scrub contines to be tolerated, because it is much the same thing as careening. Okay, I agree, that there is a difference in scale to a full antifoul while careened but if a diver goes along a row scrubbing every boat, and does it quite regularly, it's arguable that the toxins thus released would be considerable and comparable over time. I wonder if there've been any studies along these lines to inform us.

Studies done in San Diego have shown that in-water hull cleaning does contribute to copper loading. What the most widely accpected study shows is that in Shelter Island Yacht Basin, for instance, aproximately 5% of the copper in the water column is due to in-water hull cleaning activities. Over 90% is due to the passive leaching of copper from anti fouling paints. The rest is naturally ocurring or comes from other sources. However, I know of no studies that show what the long-term effects of this copper loading are. While there is no doubt that many hundreds of water bodies in California are imparied for copper (according to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the USEPA), I have seen nothing showing how that affects the local foral and fauna. I do not maintain that copper in the levels we see due to anti fouling paint isn't bad, I'm just saying I seen haven't a study showing that to be the case.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by bruce smith

Fstbttm, what ARE the alternatives, other than not being lazy n cheap?

What, have I been banging my head against the wall here? Any good high-copper anti fouling is an acceptable alternative. So far the only anecdotes we have seen saying that these paints are ineffective in the Carribean are from the people who use TbT paints!

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by bewitched

Sorry, but I can't go along with the implied logic here - I know TBT is a bad thing, but until the whole world bans its use, I don't see why I should stop using it.

Seriously? You know it's the wrong thing to do, you admit as much, but you don't understand why you shouldn't do it? Wow. You have a messed up sense of morality, man.

[bruce smith]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

What, have I been banging my head against the wall here? Any good high-copper anti fouling is an acceptable alternative. So far the only anecdotes we have seen saying that these paints are ineffective in the Carribean are from the people who use TbT paints!

Wrong, my anecdotal evidence is from Trinidad, hard copper. This is only the second time I have used the devil paint. Trinidad was not available here. That is why I started this thread. I've been here 18 years , over the past 36.

[bewitched]

fstbttms - You mis-read my post.

Try:

Sorry, but I can't go along with the implied logic of the other poster here

who seems to be saying

"I know TBT is a bad thing, but until the whole world bans its use, I don't see why I should stop using it"


I understand why I shouldn't do it, that's why I don't.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by bruce smith

Wrong, my anecdotal evidence is from Trinidad, hard copper. This is only the second time I have used the devil paint.

OK, accepted. But you have an agenda. Let's hear from a few boat owners echoing your sentiments about cleaning frequencies who aren't pimping for the devil paint (and by that I mean; who still use copper-based paint.)

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by bewitched

You mis-read my post.

Try:

Sorry, but I can't go along with the implied logic of the other poster here

who seems to be saying

"I know TBT is a bad thing, but until the whole world bans its use, I don't see why I should stop using it"


I understand why I shouldn't do it, that's why I don't.

Gotcha. But I didn't mis-read it, it was not clearly written. The quotation marks would've been nice in the original post.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

OK, accepted. But you have an agenda. Let's hear from a few boat owners echoing your sentiments about cleaning frequencies who aren't pimping for the devil paint (and by that I mean; who still use copper-based paint.)

Sorry... I thought I had... I was using Jotun.. don't know what base it is... but its legal..

[hummingway]

I think I need antifouling on my deck. It's raining so hard here the barnacles won't be able to tell where the sea ends and the sky begins.

[tager]

fstbttms, you are a strong advocate, but not a tactful one.

I don't care whether your study says that in water hull cleaning is okay or not.

It's obvious that in-water hull cleaning is harmful. I see the toxic plume floating off into the water!

[Brent Swain]

Lattitude 48 had an article in which it quoted a study which said over 60% of the copper in Puget Sound is from auto brake shoes. How much more is from ablative paints on comercal ships and ferries was not stated, but I imagine it was most of it.
This is aboput scapegoating cruisers , not solving environmental problems.
I have never found TBTF anywhere near as effective in stopping marine growth as copper paint.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by tager

fstbttms, you are a strong advocate, but not a tactful one.

I don't care whether your study says that in water hull cleaning is okay or not.

It's obvious that in-water hull cleaning is harmful. I see the toxic plume floating off into the water!

I never said in-water hull cleaning doesn't pollute. In fact, I just cited a study that says it does. But it is a necessary part of boat maintenance. The whole point of divers using Best Management Practices is to minimize the copper that in-water hull cleaning activities introduces into the water and to make the customer's paint last longer. The heart of most BMPs is basically cleaning the boat frequently enough that the gentlest cleaning implement can always be used. Most hull cleaning BMPs also recommend refraining from cleaning ablative paints, which is what is happening when you see a "plume". But understand that the copper (or whatever toxin) that makes your paint work is coming out of that paint and going into the environment 24/7/365, whether you have the boat cleaned or not.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

I never said in-water hull cleaning doesn't pollute. In fact, I just cited a study that says it does. But it is a necessary part of boat maintenance. The whole point of divers using Best Management Practices is to minimize the copper that in-water hull cleaning activities introduces into the water and to make the customer's paint last longer. The heart of most BMPs is basically cleaning the boat frequently enough that the gentlest cleaning implement can always be used. Most hull cleaning BMPs also recommend refraining from cleaning ablative paints, which is what is happening when you see a "plume". But understand that the copper (or whatever toxin) that makes your paint work is coming out of that paint and going into the environment 24/7/365, whether you have the boat cleaned or not.

Is it really a necessary part of boat maintenance?

I would have thought it just a cheaper and easier solution than say hauling out and cleaning down on the hard and collecting the residue (assuming the same frequency of in water cleaning).

Surely cleaning by hauling out would be a better practice enviromentally wise, just happens it would be dearer and more inconvenient.

Please note I am not advocating this practice, just pointing out the logic of what can be considered best practice and /or necessary boat maintenance.