Timing Bottom Paint Application

[Amgine]

34 countries is not a world-wide ban. And as I understand it, only 12 of those countries have actually passed the required legislation.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

fstbttms,
I am not going to enter in an endless flaming discussion with you...

Of course not. That's why you began your part in this conversation by claiming I was "fooling" my customers into thinking they need my service...

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

anti-fouling means it is supposed to prevent fouling; not to make it easier to clean the bottom every 3-4 weeks. You really think ships in the tropics are cleaned every 3-4 weeks?...

Surely you can appreciate the difference between a ship (anywhere in the world) which is kept moving almost all the time and a typical pleasure boat which spends probably 99% of its life sitting in a slip or at a mooring. Regardless of what you believe the reality to be, boats painted with copper-based paints and living in moderate to high fouling regions need periodic hull cleaning.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

You don't need any anti-fouling when you clean every 3-4 weeks.

This is soooo not true. I can't imagine how foul your hull would get in the tropics without anti fouling paint- even if it were cleaned on a monthly basis. I won't even clean boats in California without bottom paint. Even here, after a short while you absolutely can't keep up with the fouling growth. But maybe you have a different definition of what an acceptable level of fouling is than I do.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

And last but not least: you make it appeaer you are very worried about the environment. This means you should NOT be happy with Trinidad as it has the highest amount of copper in it off all the paints worldwide. Also, you should not clean boats in the water, only when hauled and all the polluting chemicals are contained and collected as required by US law. You should persuade your customers to use that Teflon paint instead..

I am concerned about the environment. I follow a set of Best Management Practices approved by the the State of California that help me reduce my impact on the environment. Further, studies show that in-water hull cleaning activities account for only a small fraction of the total copper that enters the water column. Well over 90% comes from the passive leaching that is part of the method that all copper-based anti fouling paints use to perform their function. In a perfect world, copper would be banned as well as tin, but it's not (yet) and most boaters still use it. I would love it if everybody went to non-toxic alternatives. From everything we've seen in California so far, my business would double immediately as these types need to cleaned about twice as often as traditional copper-based paints.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

With that world wide ban of TBT paint, I assume that the US doesn't allow it's industry to produce and export it anymore??. It's not "those 3rd world countries" that allow us to buy it, because we buy it in the US of A.

Really? You come to a chandlery in this country and buy Islands 44 off the shelf? Because according to the Seahawk web site, that product is available for export only.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Anyone knowledgable should calculate what is more polluting: the small amount of TBT based paint that allows a boat so sail in tropical waters for 3 years or the (at least) 3 times that much amount of copper based paint like Trinidad (75% copper). We would need a "poison-factor" for each type of paint to calculate that

Tri butyl tin is a far more dangerous poison than cuprous oxide. Which is why it is banned and copper is not. I don't have the data to back that claim up but clearly, the proof is in the fact TBT paints are far more effective than copper paints. In addition, although TBT paints have been illegal in the U.S. for over 20 years, TBT can still be measured in the environment, further proof of its damaging legacy.

Despite our differences on this issue, I do commend you for choosing to use a copper-based paint for your next bottom job.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Amgine

34 countries is not a world-wide ban. And as I understand it, only 12 of those countries have actually passed the required legislation.

Semantics. Are you telling me if 34 countries were involved in a war, that wouldn't be considered a "world war"? Puh-leez.

[Amgine]

Tell you what, if McDonalds gets 34 countries together to declare its food a healthy diet, and 12 of them pass legislation mandating it as a nutritional meal, I think then you can say it's a world-wide nutrition standard.

Until then, it ain't?

(In case anyone is unaware, Fstbttms's "world-wide ban" is created and promoted by the World Wildlife Fund, not a governmental or inter-governmental organization, and it only bans use of TBT in ship's bottom paint. It doesn't mention or discuss TBT paint use in the many hundreds of non-shipping applications.)

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Amgine

... In case anyone is unaware, Fstbttms's "world-wide ban" is created and promoted by the World Wildlife Fund, not a governmental or inter-governmental organization ...

WRONG - the ban is a creature of the INTERNATIONAL Maritime Organization, which (it appears) the WWF may endorse.

International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships:

➥ Anti-fouling Systems

➥ http://www.antifoulingpaint.com/down...esolutions.pdf

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Amgine

In case anyone is unaware, Fstbttms's "world-wide ban" is created and promoted by the World Wildlife Fund, not a governmental or inter-governmental organization...

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by DOCRIVERS

Whoa, fstbttms, pimping is not what I intended. I'm just delighted with it and wanted to share the news with folks here.

Originally Posted by DOCRIVERS

After researching Cupronickel, and prior to its application on BLUE CHIPS, with the help of an experienced chemist, I developed the process of Cupronickel application via a water-based epoxy carrier sprayed on with a gun.
...It was for that reason that I decided to make this process commercially available.

So you do, in fact, have a financial interest in this product and you were, in fact, pimping it on the forum.

Originally Posted by DOCRIVERS

If forum users feel that I should not discuss this subject for the reason that I have decided to commercialize it, even though I have invested considerable time, effort, and money into using the process on my own boat, please so advise, and I will not say another word about it.

Using the forum as an advertising venue is a no-no. Buy an ad if you want to do that. Initially you went to great lengths to portray yourself as merely a satisfied Cupronickel customer when in actuality, you helped develop the product and stand to gain financially from its success. Nettiqutte dictates that you reveal your connection with the product/company/financial venture that you are posting about. You have done that now, but only after I called you on it.

Also, you have clearly deleted the post I am quoting here. Why is that?

[anjou]

FFS ladies, ........and they say women are bitchy.