Coppercoat after 6 months away

[Bycrick]

First, I liked fstbttms last few posts. I’m not a fan or promoter of "let’s just destroy the environment." As for wingsail's comment about projection, all of the items I brought up (like mass spraying of Malathion in the Bay Area) were absolutely factual. They did it in SoCal also. So, it seems, that "spreading poison into the environment" is considered perfectly acceptable under some conditions, sound bites and cliches notwithstanding.

I make no claim that I have any corner on knowing what the "right" trade offs are. My objection is with the people who are sure that they do.

These trade offs are made by the political system, ie, the government. That’s as it should be, because the alternative is some form of shootout at high noon on Main Street. But that doesn’t imply that everybody ought to simply agree with every decision.

[Afrinus]

Nope, none of us has all the right answers.... just the ones we know are wrong we don't try to defend....

Anyway, back to coppercoat - I'm actually interested to hear more about this as I'm thinking that it should be my next bottom paint....

Originally Posted by Bycrick

A poster in another thread started a long discussion on "externalities." The idea that everybody wants to shove the costs and risks off on somebody else. Are you willing to forego using an antibiotic to save your life today, even though the use of antibiotics results in more resistant bacteria which may kill people in the future?

Are you willing to forego spaying Malathion over wide areas to kill the Medfly, as they did in California a few years back, knowing that if you don’t you’ll have massive losses to fruit and vegetable growers and consumers?

Massive use of herbicides will likely kill or injure farm workers. So should we ban them with the result that food production drops and more people might starve?

Would you poison termites to keep them from eating your house, knowing that it might also kill some beneficial insects and maybe people involved in the production and application of the insecticide?

Maybe I wouldn’t **** on my doorstep, but a whole lot of people aren’t a bit shy about shitting on their neighbors doorstep. It’s pervasive. "Flying is destroying the environment," say some. So you have news stories about "flights to nowhere." Or, "I’m driving across the country to protest pollution.." both from last week's news.
Or "rolling blackouts" in CA while they’re busy shutting down "polluting" power plants. Why? Because they can buy power from other places, thus externalizing the pollution problems.

There’s no free lunch. Questioning my "patriotism" isn’t going to change that. Assuming that you’ve got all the "right" answers is just arrogance. If you want to keep your first-world standard of living, somebody has to pay for it. You just want it to be somebody else.

[Q Xopa]

Originally Posted by fgd3

No, he said it was worse than others.

Except in this case TBT ones

[Bycrick]

I hauled and again painted with Trinidad SR last September. Over the last year, there has been zero hard growth and little soft growth. Last cleaning was three months ago and the waterline is still clean. The prop needs work, but the painted through hulls are still free of growth. Tropical Panamanian waters.

[David B]

Originally Posted by NPCampbell

I hate to throw a wrench in this discussion but I see people dogging TBT on the one hand (I'm sure it's probably bad stuff) and then donning a halo while speaking fondly of copper based bottom paints.

Copper is toxic and deadly to marine organisms, especially invertebrates, crustacea, etc. It's typically considered the most problematic metal in marine environments. If you have a fish tank and you want to wipe out all the snails in it what do you use? Copper sulfate. Same with algae. Although it doesn't have as drastic an effect on fish, it generally interferes with the uptake of oxygen across gill tissue.

I'm definitely not an expert on bottom paints so I'm not sure what the most effective eco friendly paint would be. Maybe silicon foul release?

I had a look on the Coppercoat (UK) website. There was an independent test of all antifouling paints available. Apart from Coppercoat coming out as the top performer over five years, the other conclusion was the erosion. All of the others had erroded down at least 80%, and in some cases even through to 20% of the barrier coat gone.

In contrast, Coppercoat had eroded only 4% of the top layer. You can see from that why it lasts decades, and won an environmental award.

Not to be confused with regular antifouling paints that just erode and the copper (or whatever biocide they use) ends up in the ocean.

[ditechspain]

My copperbotted tri was in the water for something over a year, the last 6 months + without moving. When lifted out it naturally looked appalling. I asked the marina crew power washing it off and their view was it had cleaned off much easier than conventionally anti-fouled boats with similar growth.

Given it’s not releasing much in the way of unpleasant materials I’m very happy with it. I never gave it an initial scrub, relying on the fact growth doesn’t seem to take to fresh epoxy. And hadn’t bothered in the tests since.
It didn’t seem to foul much more, if at all, than the conventional antifoul I used before. I’ve read reviews from long term live aboards world sailing and they seem to have a happy experience of it. Most people found fouling was worse once they stopped using tbt.

[dukey]

Hi all.
I have copper coat on my Oceanis 43. When it shows some weed I go for a sail 100-200 miles and it cleans it. Bit slow for the first bit. I used to have ordinary Jotun and after a year we had good growth.

[olivierlc]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

I hauled and again painted with Trinidad SR last September. Over the last year, there has been zero hard growth and little soft growth. Last cleaning was three months ago and the waterline is still clean. The prop needs work, but the painted through hulls are still free of growth. Tropical Panamanian waters.

I am a doctor of pharmacy scientist, I studied toxicology. Everything is against the products you defend.
I have children, grandchildren and don't want to leave the world polluted with DDT and TBT for them.
What have you done in life to take such opposite to science?
Perhaps you also believe that the earth is flat?

[Garbonz]

OK. Several tings to say. First, to personally attack someone for a view within the first dozen posts show the poster's (fstbttme and a couple others) lack of etiquette and good manners and eliminates them from the discussion. This type of attitude is why I only visit this forum occasionally, I do like the international flavor tho.

Second, as an environmental scientist of some 45 years of experience including 10 at the US EPA, I can categorically state that ALL environmental science is biased and is suspect because the bulk of these govt agencies are populated by zealots with an agenda. Blind adherence to any of this with a jihad like fervor serves no one. The fact that 2 guys in the Chesapeake saved the bay and the world is naïve and serves no one. Great story tho.

Third, TBT is probably not as bad as it is made out to be, and the other formulations of BIOCIDE (read the definition) are not as good. These things are never as simple as they seem nor as clear cut as the zealots would pontificate about. As environmental research on these thing go, the evidence is pretty persuasive on TBT tho.

Fourth, the human world is headed for a mythical collapse, which Mother Earth couldn't give a crap about and we are WAY beyond any reasonable chance of recovery, so the problem is self fixing within a few millennia anyway.

Fifth, I use Petit Trinidad.

Sixth, in the immortal words of Jack Nicholsen in Mars Attacks... "Why can't we all get along"

[Capt. Jon]

This is the post that just keeps on giving! Think I’ll pop some popcorn and grab a beer! Keep it up everyone very entertaining!

[MikeInMaine]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

My obligation as a citizen or visitor requires me to conform with the laws where I reside.

Ok.. so by your logic, if I live in a country where it is legal to discriminate against certain groups of people for no other reason than the color of their skin or their sexual preference, it is therefore ETHICAL to do so? That's pretty much a Nazi outlook.

MikeinMaine

[Garbonz]

Originally Posted by MikeInMaine

Ok.. so by your logic, if I live in a country where it is legal to discriminate against certain groups of people for no other reason than the color of their skin or their sexual preference, it is therefore ETHICAL to do so? That's pretty much a Nazi outlook.

MikeinMaine

oOh baby, now this one is WAY OVER the TOP. Congratulations, you have won the Asshat prize and away we go. Over and out, I afraid to even open anymore posts. The moderators whould finally step in, but probably not.

[Northbound44]

Based on what I read on this thread and my experience with ablative antifooling in the tropics, considering the huge difference in terms of investment between Copper clad and regular antifooling paint, I’m not sure about the advantages of the expensive Copper Clad.
Does anyone have an answer by way of conclusion?

[olivierlc]

it is having a disproportionate ego to think that you can, alone, be right against all the states which have made the decision to stop these products without providing scientific proof of your decision. Maybe all the American scientists who got us to ban TBT are all dumber than you. I would like to have proof.

[Muaddib1116]

The biggest advantage of Coppercoat is that you apply it once and you don't have to do it again for many years. It's effectiveness greatly depends on how well it was applied and where you are using it. Obviously in warmer climates, it may not be as good as some ablative coatings with harsher chemicals. My family's boat has had coppercoat on it for 20 years, one application. We keep it in the Northeast though, so it has been very effective. And as many have mentioned, a secondary advantage, is that it is much less damaging to the environment than many other bottom coatings.