Washington State Copper Paint Law

[sdowney717]

any new news on medetomidine?

this following is a repost of what I had read before

Barnacle gene sheds light on foul behaviour - The Naked Scientists

medetomidine causes barnacles to get hyperactive and they dont attach to the surface.

Results - Mistra [NS4 version]

so far they say it is working.

medetomidine - Google Search

In marine paint
Medetomidine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Medetomidine can be used as an antifouling substance in marine paint. It is mainly effective against barnacles, but has also shown effect on other hard fouling like tubeworms. When the barnacle cyprid larva encounters a surface containing medetomidine the molecule enters the octopamine receptor in the larva. This makes the larva legs start kicking and it cannot settle to the painted surface. When the larva swims away from the surface, the effect disappears (reversible effect).The larva regain its function and can settle somewhere else.

so far looking positive
Gene that causes barnacles to avoid ship hulls identified

The substance medetomidine has proved effective in preventing fouling of ship bottoms. Researchers at the University of Gothenburg have now identified the gene that causes the barnacle to react to the substance, opening up the possibility of an antifouling paint that is gentle both on barnacles and on the environment.

Low levels enough
"We have found that medetomidine activates special receptors in barnacle larvae. The receptors emit a signal that causes the larva to swim away from the boat surface, instead of attaching to it. As the receptors are already activated at very low concentrations of the substance, this means that very low levels are also needed to be effective," says Professor Blomberg.
Environmental friendly
The results, which are published in the scientific journal Molecular Pharmacology, explain how it is possible to develop an environmentally friendly and effective antifouling paint which instead of killing barnacles acts as a "deterrent."
"Understanding how the substance works when it binds to the receptor also makes it possible to develop selective agents that only affect barnacles and not other marine organisms," says Professor Blomberg.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...the-high-seas/

“We don’t kill the organisms. We just scare them. We change the behavior of the barnacle larvae,” said Lena Lindblad, I-Tech’s R&D manager who discovered the properties. “It [medetomidine] inhibits secretion of a substance that gets them to stick.”

[sdowney717]

Another repost on a fungus extract that kills barnacles.


Fungus in hull paint may solve barnacle problem

Biofouling of marine organisms on ship hulls has been a global problem since man crafted the first boat. These days, many marine enterprises suffer the problem and the cost of reducing it, in aquaculture, offshore industries and harbours. In shipping alone, marine biofouling and its most significant organism, the barnacle, increase drag, adversely affect fuel consumption, increase pollution (via the workload on the machinery and downtime due to dry-docking. The annual global cost of cleaning alone is in the billions of dollars. Toxic paints are the most prevalent current anti-fouling strategy but they cause severe environmental disturbances due to the emission of toxic substances into the marine environment. Currently used toxic paints based on Tributyl tin oxide (TBT) are the first target as they generate unwanted effects at non-target organisms and will be banned by 2010, but this ban may be followed by the prohibition of other substances in marine paints.

Now a new type of paint has been developed which uses an extract from the microscopic fungus Streptomyces avermitilis to poison barnacles. The fungus lives in the ocean and is extremely poisonous to acorn barnacles and other crustaceans, a feature based on the environmentally friendly defense of the fungus against being eaten. A new study from Goteborg University in Sweden has found that when this fungus is added to paint for ship hulls, the surface remains entirely free from barnacles. As little as a 0.1-percent mixture of pure fungal extract in paint is sufficient to affect the nervous system of barnacles and prevent any growth and the fungal extract is toxic only as long as the paint is on a painted surface. When the paint is dissolved in sea water, the activation of the poison appears not to take place, making the paint apparently harmless to organisms in the open sea.

A sustainable and long-term solution to the persistent problem of toxic emissions resulting from anti-foulants, must be based on methods which are adapted to the environment. At Marine Paint, the objective is to develop anti-foulants which are environmentally acceptable, as well as economically and technically efficient. The catemines provide the basis for the development of environmentally sustainable anti-foulants.

The scientists are basing their work on a theory that the fungal extract makes the paint imitate the fungus’s natural and environmentally friendly defense against being eaten. Hans Elwing also believes that many other organisms in the sea have developed this type of environmentally friendly protection.

“The discovery that this fungal extract counteracts the growth of barnacles will probably create quite a stir around the world. No naturally occurring substance has previously been shown to have such a dramatic effect on barnacles in combination with being so easily degradable in the environment and probably completely safe for humans,” says Hans Elwing, professor at the Department of Cell and Molecular Biology at Göteborg University.

Hans Elwing’s research team has joined up with SP Technical Research Institute of Sweden in Borås and Stockholm to develop their ideas. It is hoped that innovations in nanotechnology will facilitate the creation of new anti-fouling paints for boats.

“The fungal extract is probably both cheaper and, above all, more environmentally friendly that the paints based on copper compounds available on the market today,” says Hans Elwing.

I wonder how much cheaper as copper paints are absurdly expensive.

[sdowney717]

As long as medetomidine or fungus Streptomyces avermitilis based paints are unavailable to buy at the store, they might as well be VAPORWARE.

and I am certain that extremist green organisations and perhaps EPA will either outright oppose them thru court actions or delay for years while reviewing over and over impact studies.

Look at how much bitter strife is occurring over building another pipeline called Keystone. The green wackos say building the pipeline is going the wrong direction away from 'green' energy solutions. This pipeline is just another pipeline among many others.


There is an idea I have involving super hydrophobic paints, which repel water by encapsulating a small layer of air on the surface.
Data

How it works

Vellox LC-410 is more than a traditional water repellant coating such as Teflon, Telgar, Silicone etc…,because of the hydrophobic characteristics it imparts. Water droplets are actually held away from the surface of the substrate, and close examination will reveal a visible layer of air between the surface and the droplet. The air layer also helps to retard heat loss from the droplet which in turn, reduces or even eliminates the formation of ice.

Would this keep barnacles and algae away? You dont see barnacles growing on the surface of the water.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse74

If copper paint is that bad, why are they exempting pleasure boats over 65 feet? A law that is fair applies to all citizens and I think this law can be turned over in court.

Because big boats are owned by rich people and rich people get what they want. Further, there are many orders of magnitude more boats under 65' than there are over. So the total copper contribution from smaller boats is MUCH higher than it is for bigger boats.

This law will never be overturned because it isn't "fair" and if you think it will be, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by sdowney717

“The discovery that this fungal extract counteracts the growth of barnacles will probably create quite a stir around the world. No naturally occurring substance has previously been shown to have such a dramatic effect on barnacles in combination with being so easily degradable in the environment and probably completely safe for humans,” says Hans Elwing, professor at the Department of Cell and Molecular Biology at Göteborg University.

“The fungal extract is probably both cheaper and, above all, more environmentally friendly that the paints based on copper compounds available on the market today,” says Hans Elwing.

I wonder how much cheaper as copper paints are absurdly expensive.

An anti fouling paint that is only effective against barnacles is next to worthless, IMHO. Here in California, barnacles are the last fouling organism to show up on a boat hull.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by minaret

Try writing your congressman and good luck!

Laugh of the Day !

[sailorboy1]

In the end do we really expect that anything added to the paint that is effective isn't going to build up in the bay and later get banded? In 15 years we will be changing the ingredient used in this discussion.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

In the end do we really expect that anything added to the paint that is effective isn't going to build up in the bay and later get banded? In 15 years we will be changing the ingredient used in this discussion.

Precisely the argument against zinc paints.

[senormechanico]

The answer is obvious to me.
Ban all boats under 65 feet.
"Problem" solved.

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

The answer is obvious to me.
Ban all boats under 65 feet.
"Problem" solved.

:s)

I think they would like to in Marina Del Rey.

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

What a heated discussion all because of some local government and citizens head banging. The solution is obvious and simple, no need to erect public platforms and special interest groups and more political sluggish mass: those who do not agree can just load up the boat and leave them. Cleans up their water so they must be real happy about it too.

cheers,
Nick.

Sail mag accused Zeehag of doing just that in their article posted above by minaret.

[Ironhorse74]

Originally Posted by minaret

Government for and by the special interests is what we do in the USA, and you certainly can't blame the left for that! All the big special interests are conservative to say the least. Get used to it. It's not going anywhere anytime soon. If you want to get involved in bringing back the poison, start a campaign! I can see the advertisements now..
Good luck selling that one, LOL!

You miss the point entirely. This law will not stand up in court as it does not apply to all citizens equally. All it will take is a lawyer with a 64 foot boat.

Why does this have to be political? I am a very partisan guy. I try real hard to keep the politics off CF. Maybe you should do the same?

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse74

Why does this have to be political? I am a very partisan guy. I try real hard to keep the politics off CF. Maybe you should do the same?

This is slightly political b/c it was initiated by the Governor of WA. Just keep the name calling, party smears and bashing out and we can continue with this civil debate.

[hummingway]

As long as everyone remains respectful of others opinions and on topic, politics are alright, difficult but alright, and kudos to everyone for their efforts in exploring this topic.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

In the end do we really expect that anything added to the paint that is effective isn't going to build up in the bay and later get banded? In 15 years we will be changing the ingredient used in this discussion.

Not if the solution is non-toxic. Which is exactly the sort of solution this legislation will promote. Effective doesn't have to mean poisonous.

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by minaret

Not if the solution is non-toxic. Which is exactly the sort of solution this legislation will promote. Effective doesn't have to mean poisonous.

I think delmarrey is right when he says, to paraphrase, if the money was there they'd solve the problem.

The gas industry knew how to clean the sulphur out of the refinery emissions long before they did it. They actually had every thing ready so they could throw a switch when legislation in Canada forced them to. No slow down let alone stoppage, just throw a switch at the 12th hour and not a moment sooner.