Adding TBT to bottom paint

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by SVI

Said the guy who dives to clean the boats for a living! 😁😁😁 I have 5% TBT in my Jotun copper paint. 5 seasons in the water, works perfect.

If you were in my service area and I knew you had added tBt to your anti fouling paint, I wouldn't hesitate to report you to the authorities. In any event, you are almost certainly violating the law in whatever country your boat lives.

[SVI]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Yes, the entire management team of Sea Hawk Paints was convicted of federal crimes and did time. The company was fined several million dollars as well. So when you buy Sea Hawk, this is with whom you are dealing.

You are not neutral.
Your ideal is "all antifouling shall be banned", "owners required to scrape monthly" = lots of business.

I do not care about oysters, I am not French.

[SVI]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

If you were in my service area and I knew you had added tBt to your anti fouling paint, I wouldn't hesitate to report you to the authorities. In any event, you are almost certainly violating the law in whatever country your boat lives.

How would you know? Smell it? Like if I tell anyone...

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by SVI

You are not neutral.
Your ideal is "all antifouling shall be banned", "owners required to scrape monthly" = lots of business.

Not true, genius. Anti fouling paint is a necessary evil, IMHO. And nobody wants to clean a boat that doesn't have it. But we have choices and one of them is to not use internationally-recognized, banned-worldwide, super-harmful poisons on our boats. But clearly you don't care about damaging the marine environment. Good to know about you.

[SVI]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Not true, genius. Anti fouling paint is a necessary evil, IMHO. And nobody wants to clean a boat that doesn't have it. But we have choices and one of them is to not use internationally-recognized, banned-worldwide, super-harmful poisons on our boats. But clearly you don't care about damaging the marine environment. Good to know about you.

A lot of large ships use it. Why small yachts cannot?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by SVI

A lot of large ships use it. Why small yachts cannot?

Large ships do not use it. It is banned in almost all nations worldwide. What about that do you not understand?

[SVI]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Large ships do not use it. It is banned in almost all nations worldwide. What about that do you not understand?

Sorry, but US and EU is not worldwide. IMO tried to adopt worldwide, but top 25 nations in sea freight did not agree...

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by SVI

Sorry, but US and EU is not worldwide. IMO tried to adopt worldwide, but top 25 nations in sea freight did not agree...

Bullsh*t. Name 'em.

[Montanan]

Use and impacts of TBT- & copper-based antifouling paints


TBT-based antifouling paints

Copper-based antifouling paints



For over thirty years TBT was the active agent in antifouling paints used extensively in the maritime sector. It has been described as one of the most harmful substances knowingly introduced onto the marine environment. In the 1980s it became apparent that the use of TBT was causing severe damage to non-target species in the wider marine environment, such as deformities in shellfish and mollusc communities, reduced growth of algae and toxic effects in young fish. The effects of TBT were particularly noticeable on dog whelk populations near harbours and marinas where female dog whelks developed into males (Loretto and Proud 1993).

Recognition of the widespread environmental affects caused by TBT resulted in the Europe-wide ban of its use in 1987 on boats under 25 metres. At present in the UK the use of TBT-based paints continues on larger vessels and it remains at present the most-effective means of controlling fouling. However, in November 1998 the IMO made the decision to introduce a world-wide ban in the use of TBT in antifouling paints for most ships from January 2003, a ban which has been in place for several years in some countries, such as Japan.

Pressure for a complete ban of the use of TBT in antifouling paints has been increasing with evidence that it is bio-accumulating in food chains, with particularly high levels being found in marine mammals (Iwata et al 1995). The reported effects of TBT in marine mammals include suppression of the immune system. Marine mammals (porpoise and grey seals) stranded along the coasts of England and Wales have been shown to be contaminated with low levels of butyl tin compounds. Whilst the levels of these tin compounds are lower than some of those reported for small cetaceans from other areas, such as Japan, the USA and the Adriatic Sea, further study is required of possible toxic effects of these compounds and the risk their accumulation poses to marine mammals in the UK (Law et al 1998).

It is recognised the IMO ban will need to be gradually introduced and its success depends upon the development of effective substitute paints. Paint manufacturers have been researching and developing alternative paints for some years, with varying degrees of success. At present copper antifouling paints present the best practical environmental option for a TBT alternative available to the marine industry. Phasing out TBT would be undermined if other paints were found to be more detrimental to the environment. The International Chamber of Shipping has stated that the antifouling coatings industry "seems to be seeing a way through the problem" (ENDS Report 1998), although they have warned that a full-scale switch would be at significant cost to the maritime industry. The IMO urges member states to encourage the use of alternative antifouling paint systems, pending the mandatory ban, and to set a timetable for the phasing out of TBT.

Copper-based antifouling paints

The ban of the use of TBT on smaller vessels has resulted in the shift back to the use of copper as the main biocide in the UK. Although copper is a naturally occurring element which is essential for metabolic processes in living organisms, it is also a widespread pollutant in industrial waters which can be one of the most poisonous heavy metals when present in excess. The main sources of copper contamination in the marine environment are from industrial discharges and atmospheric deposition, particularly from foundries and metal processing operations. Fungicides, wood preservatives and boat antifouling paints can also contribute to high levels of copper in the aquatic environment.

In general 95% of the UK recreational market is using some form of copper-based paint (UK CEED 1993). In a study commissioned by the Environment Agency, WRc estimated the amount of copper used on coastal leisure craft in the UK in one year was between 75,173 and 311,769 kg (Boxall, Conrad & Reed 1998). This study found the majority of copper in antifouling enters the marine environment through leaching, and that only a small proportion enters during the removal of antifouling paint, which occurs mostly by water blasting. However, the concentrated nature of the biocide in scrapings and cleaning residues may cause more of a localised environmental problem.

In addition to the widespread use of copper-based paints on leisure boats, they have also been tested on ocean going ships over 25m, particularly in the USA and Japan. There are potential drawbacks of the use copper-based paints, including an incompatibility with aluminium-hulled craft and the production of offensive odours. A new form of copper antifouling developed is the copper based gel coat, or epoxy, that is used widely in the United States. It is claimed that it lasts up to 15 years, but the cost is higher than the previous types of paint and it does not work as well. Certain fouling organisms are resistant to copper-based paints and they have now been supplemented by additional biocides known as booster biocides. Trials of alternative copper-based coatings with rapidly degradable boosting biocides on ships in Japan have claimed recent breakthroughs with equivalent performance of TBT products (ENDS Report 1998).

Although at present copper antifouling paints present the BPEO available to the marine industry, there are a number of potential environmental impacts that may occur from using copper antifouling paints. Copper present in the water and sediments can be accumulated by benthic animals causing, for example, reduced respiration rates and impaired growth in mussels, clams and other shellfish (Sobral & Widdows 1997). The toxicity and accumulation of copper varies greatly depending on concentration levels, exposure, temperature and salinity, the presence of other metals and the type, size and age of the marine organism. It is therefore difficult to generalise about the toxicity of copper to marine organisms, there is evidence that certain species of fish are sensitive to quite low levels of copper even though other species are tolerant of much higher levels. Benthic marine organisms are thought to be slightly more sensitive to copper than fish, although some species demonstrate a capacity to adapt to elevated levels.

There is limited information available on the environmental impacts on non-target species, particularly algae, associated with the use of the newer booster biocides, such as the herbicides irgarol and diuron. These studies are discussed in the Recreational User Interaction report (UK CEED 1998 and 1999 in preparation 1999). Using a model to predict concentrations of antifouling in the environment, WRc have estimated that the six most common biocides used in antifouling paint for recreational craft, including copper (1) oxide, diuron, copper thiocyanate and ‘Irgarol 1051’, were present in marina waters in concentrations generally more than an order of magnitude higher than levels required for toxic effects on marine algae and fish (Boxall, Conrad & Reed 1998). However, it should be noted that these estimated concentrations were generally higher than levels actually measured in the marine environment and are likely to be an overestimate. An improved model is currently being developed for the HSE and the Environment Agency, which should provide information that will help to determine whether further control options are necessary.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by SVI

Sorry, but US and EU is not worldwide. IMO tried to adopt worldwide, but top 25 nations in sea freight did not agree...

NOT.

Reference: http://https://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_mp_antifouling.html


The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships (AFS Convention) entered into force on September 17, 2008. Adopted under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on October 5, 2001, the United States signed the AFS Convention on December 12, 2002, and ratified it on August 21, 2012. The Convention, which NOAA played a key role in negotiating and developing, bans the application or use of tributyltin (an anti-fouling agent used on the hulls of ships to prevent the growth of marine organisms), calls for its removal from existing anti-fouling systems by January 1, 2008, and establishes a detailed and science-based mechanism to consider future restrictions of harmful substances in anti-fouling systems. While necessary to increase vessel fuel efficiency and minimize the transport of hull-borne species, such systems can also have an adverse impact on the marine environment. The U.S. implements the AFS Convention through 33 U.S.C. §§ 3801-3857. As of October 31, 2012, 63 countries representing 81.06 percent of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage have ratified the Convention.

I have not researched what the number of countries and percentage of shipping that have ratified as of February 2020, but presumably more than the data point as of 2012 highlighted above. Clearly the vast majority of shipping.


Reference: http://http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork...OULING2003.pdf

2002

Anti-fouling systems
Introduction
Ships travel faster through water and consume less fuel when their hulls are clean and smooth - free
from fouling organisms, such as barnacles, algae or molluscs.
In the early days of sailing ships, lime and later arsenical and mercurial compounds and pesticides were used to coat ships' hulls to act as anti-fouling systems. During the 1960s the chemicals industry
developed efficacious and cost-effective anti-fouling paints using metallic compounds, in particular the organotin compound tributylin (TBT). By the 1970s, most seagoing vessels had TBT painted on their hulls.
However, it soon became clear there was a price to pay for the efficient anti-fouling paints containing TBT. Environmental studies provided evidence that organotin compounds persist in the water and in sediments, killing sealife other than that attached to the hulls of ships and possibly entering the food
chain. Specifically, TBT was shown to cause shell deformations in oysters; sex changes (imposex) in whelks; and immune response, neurotoxic and genetic affects in other marine species.
In the 1970s-1980s, high concentrations of TBT in shellfish on the coast of France caused the collapse of commercial shellfisheries in at least one area, and this prompted many States to act and enforce some restrictions on the use of TBT in anti-fouling paints.
In 1988, the problem was brought to the attention of the Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the United Nations Agency concerned with the safety of shipping and the prevention of marine pollution.
As a result, IMO in 1990 adopted a resolution recommending governments to adopt measures to eliminate anti-fouling paints containing TBT. In the 1990s, the MEPC continued to review the environmental issues surrounding anti-fouling systems, and in November 1999, IMO adopted an
Assembly resolution that called on the MEPC to develop an instrument, legally binding throughout the world, to address the harmful effects of anti-fouling systems used on ships. The resolution called for a global prohibition on the application of organotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems on ships by 1 January 2003, and a complete prohibition by
1 January 2008.
In October 2001, IMO adopted a new International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, which will prohibit the use of harmful organotins in antifouling paints used on ships and will establish a mechanism to prevent the potential future use of other harmful substances in anti-fouling systems.
The convention will enter into force 12 months after 25 States representing 25% of the world's merchant shipping tonnage have ratified it.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Montanan

As of October 31, 2012, 63 countries representing 81.06 percent of the world’s merchant shipping tonnage have ratified the Convention.

The number is actually higher than that now.

[SVI]

Originally Posted by Montanan

63 countries

63 countries out of 200 is not worldwide.
Fortunately, I am under Mongolian flag and perfectly legal.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by SVI

63 countries out of 200 is not worldwide.
Fortunately, I am under Mongolian flag and perfectly legal.

Mongolia ratified the treaty, genius.

Jeezus, you can't even make a joke that makes sense.

[SVI]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Mongolia ratified the treaty, genius.

proof?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by SVI

proof?

Now you provide the proof I asked you for. If you're able to that is.