Why use bottom paint when you can scrape?

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

Legislation is based on studies done by Fisheries for years.

OK well, you continue to refuse to understand that your opinion does not constitute fact. California has severely impaired water bodies (Marina del Rey, Newport Beach, Shelter Island Yacht Basin etc.), none of which are open to the sea and despite keeping my finger on the pulse of anti fouling paint regulation for over two decades, I have yet to see a single sentence of any study that indicates that ablative paints are more harmful to the environment than hard paints. You point out these "studies done by Fisheries" (whatever those are) which you allege that Washington anti fouling legislation is based upon. How about you back that up by providing a quote to or link from those studies that shows where ablative paints have been proven to be more polluting than hard paints.

I get that you want to come off as some kind of expert on this subject but I'd like you to give us something that carries a little more weight than your personal opinion or some unnamed "studies."

[David Mathis]

So you’re going to scrape? Any plans on preventing gouging into the gelcoat? The bottom paint is your best protection against blistering but blisters aren’t really that problematic. Why even bother to scrape?
You might have a point, if you use it only a couple times a year and never leave the dock or mooring, what is the problem if the boat gets so many barnacles and other growth that it looks like part of a reef and its deadweight doubles? Marine paint is expensive. Save the money and spend it on a dockside party.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by David Mathis

The bottom paint is your best protection against blistering...

Bottom paint provides no protection against blisters. None.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

OK well, you continue to refuse to understand that your opinion does not constitute fact. California has severely impaired water bodies (Marina del Rey, Newport Beach, Shelter Island Yacht Basin etc.), none of which are open to the sea and despite keeping my finger on the pulse of anti fouling paint regulation for over two decades, I have yet to see a single sentence of any study that indicates that ablative paints are more harmful to the environment than hard paints. You point out these "studies done by Fisheries" (whatever those are) which you allege that Washington anti fouling legislation is based upon. How about you back that up by providing a quote to or link from those studies that shows where ablative paints have been proven to be more polluting than hard paints.

I get that you want to come off as some kind of expert on this subject but I'd like you to give us something that carries a little more weight than your personal opinion or some unnamed "studies."

I'll give you my expert opinion that Zero Paint causes Zero Pollution.
Argue that!
I don't use Bottom Paint!

Fisheries does studies and the reason it's even a question is because there is evidence that copper leaches from boat paint and collects in areas where there's more marine traffic.

One such study..
Read it!https://cbf.typepad.com/files/antifoulingpaper.pdf
Boatyarddog

[Allied39]

Originally Posted by Josephcrawl

Sorry to stir up such a **** storm. While we are getting controversial is it ok to put mayonnaise on a hotdog?

OMG!!!!
Seriously? Why not ask something as plain ludicrous as " is it ok to put cheese with vegemite on toast?"
Some days it's all I can do to not lose faith in humanity totally and neck myself to escape this idiotic existence in which I find myself existing.
...........I cry at night you know.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by David Mathis

So you’re going to scrape? Any plans on preventing gouging into the gelcoat? The bottom paint is your best protection against blistering but blisters aren’t really that problematic. Why even bother to scrape?
You might have a point, if you use it only a couple times a year and never leave the dock or mooring, what is the problem if the boat gets so many barnacles and other growth that it looks like part of a reef and its deadweight doubles? Marine paint is expensive. Save the money and spend it on a dockside party.

Bottom paint prevents blisters, that's rich!
Osmosis and badly mixed resin schedules cause that.
Zero blisters on this hull.
It never collects a lot of marine growth, and there is no gouging cause there not that much growth.

No problem here.

The only point I'm making is answering the question that YES, you can do it.
And there's really no damage done by doing it.

As a matter of fact if less paint was used we'd have cleaner waterways.
Boatyarddog

[Josephcrawl]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Two guesses as to why you don’t find ultrasonic systems in every West Marine in the country.

Would it hurt you to say something useful? You spent the time to make this post so why not say something of value.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

I'll give you my expert opinion that Zero Paint causes Zero Pollution.
Argue that!

Zero paint equals foul bottoms and foul bottoms absolutely equal more pollution.

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

Fisheries does studies and the reason it's even a question is because there is evidence that copper leaches from boat paint and collects in areas where there's more marine traffic.

1.- What is "Fisheries"? A company? An industry? A department of government? What? You base your entire argument on this mysterious group but have yet to explain who or what it is.

2.- Nobody in this thread (including me) has said that anti fouling paint is not responsible for copper pollution in the waterways where boats congregate. Copper-based anti fouling paints are poisonous by nature- that's how they work. What is it about this that you apparently think the rest of us do not understand?

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

One such study..
Read it!https://cbf.typepad.com/files/antifoulingpaper.pdf
Boatyarddog

You and I (or so I thought) were discussing whether or not ablative paints are more polluting than hard paints. Yet in the entirety of the study to which you linked (which you obviously have not read), the word ablative appears exactly zero times. This study absolutely does not show that one type of anti fouling paint is worse for the environment than another.

Again, nobody here disputes that copper leached from anti fouling paint (any anti fouling paint) is harmful to the environment. But while you have repeatedly maintained that ablative anti fouling paints are more harmful than hard anti fouling paints, you have provided zero evidence that this actually true.

[Josephcrawl]

Originally Posted by Allied39

OMG!!!!
Seriously? Why not ask something as plain ludicrous as " is it ok to put cheese with vegemite on toast?"
Some days it's all I can do to not lose faith in humanity totally and neck myself to escape this idiotic existence in which I find myself existing.
...........I cry at night you know.

Made some dogs tonight. Put out the mayo just to separate the wheat from the chaff. Sad to say there was some chaff.

I'm not a bun toaster straight out of the bag for me. To much risk of a split. Looks ridiculous squeezing two pieces of bread around a dog.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Josephcrawl

Would it hurt you to say something useful? You spent the time to make this post so why not say something of value.

OK, since you don't seem to be able to grasp what I was saying- The reason you don't find ultrasonic systems in chandleries all over the country is because they do not perform as advertised. They are not a replacement for anti fouling paint. They do not keep fouling growth from colonizing your wetted surfaces. They are snake oil. This technology is decades old yet almost nobody uses it. Is that because it works so well? No, it is not. It is because it doesn't do what its sellers say it does.

[Boatyarddog]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Zero paint equals foul bottoms and foul bottoms absolutely equal more pollution.




1.- What is "Fisheries"? A company? An industry? A department of government? What? You base your entire argument on this mysterious group but have yet to explain who or what it is.

2.- Nobody in this thread (including me) has said that anti fouling paint is not responsible for copper pollution in the waterways where boats congregate. Copper-based anti fouling paints are poisonous by nature- that's how they work. What is it about this that you apparently think the rest of us do not understand?



You and I (or so I thought) were discussing whether or not ablative paints are more polluting than hard paints. Yet in the entirety of the study to which you linked (which you obviously have not read), the word ablative appears exactly zero times. This study absolutely does not show that one type of anti fouling paint is worse for the environment than another.

Again, nobody here disputes that copper leached from anti fouling paint (any anti fouling paint) is harmful to the environment. But while you have repeatedly maintained that ablative anti fouling paints are more harmful than hard anti fouling paints, you have provided zero evidence that this actually true.

Quote from this article cited earlier: A likely source of the higher Cu concentrations observed may be copper released from the antifouling paints used on boat hulls, which have been shown elsewhere to contaminate waters and sediments (Warken et al., 2004). Recreational boating in the Choptank River area has greatly increased since the mid 1990's, but since 2006 has remained unchanged (Maryland Sea Grant, 2007).
this confirms that paint leeches cooper doesn't matter if it's ablative or not.
As to your retort on zero paint Zero pollution?
You are clueless and rude.
Just want an Arguement.
Initially I sought some info from you, now I understand others comments on your advise.
Blocked
Boatyarddog

[boat driver]

this is one of the more lower quality discussions in a while.
1) scraping bottoms in the Chesapeake and most tributaries in the US is now illegal.
If bottom paint is present or not.
2) scraping drops a heavier than normal concentration of animal life in one spot- which leads to other issues of natural imbalance.
3) If you never leave Claiborne, then chances are that your effort is more your loss of sailing time and potential abandon derelict vs saving the Bay.
4) Ablative and hard paint- both have a specific target use and both may be made of various methodology, but the end result is most efficiency of the whole vessel- this goes to small quantities of bio-organisms in a local area rather than an over abundance load (from scraping/scrubbing) few hitchhiker organisms from other places (I am thinking Annapolis anchorage passing thru) and fuel/pollution savings from pushing the extra drag on the engine.

All this begins to show the actual importance of dry sailing from lifts even though the political DNR environmental leaches still think one is covering the bottom of the river from grasses.

Try red paint and red pepper. Wont hurt the Bay but might make the Oyster farm have a seasoning.

study the issues of the bio-organism diversity- and step back from price to the whole picture.
Why do ships change ballast water 200 miles offshore? what polluted the Great Lakes? why must commercial vessels be certified and bottom cleaned offshore now from every continent?

[Josephcrawl]

Originally Posted by boat driver

this is one of the more lower quality discussions in a while.
1) scraping bottoms in the Chesapeake and most tributaries in the US is now illegal.
If bottom paint is present or not.

Are you sure about this? A quick search led to this document on Marylands DNR site. Maybe this is now the law in Virginia?


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...MAOI-OHEwJRsJe

[boat driver]

Originally Posted by Josephcrawl

Are you sure about this? A quick search led to this document on Marylands DNR site. Maybe this is now the law in Virginia?


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...MAOI-OHEwJRsJe

Josephcrawl-
you are correct in the reference to recreational vessels. The regulated control of bottom cleaning activity is aimed at the commercial vessels and the industry paints used and invasive species- and is a combination of multiple issues.
On the recreational side- that article is fairly old but is trying to create proper practice and/or discourage in-water bottom cleaning. The primary motivating issue was the racing sailboats washing the TBT off before the product was banned. That was toxic in closed estuary.

Today, the issue is difficult to regulate outside of the marinas and shoreside facilities. A convoluted government and enviro. activists against business and regulatory bodies.
But if you are in a MD or VA or northeast marina the fine print on your docking contract may include no bottom cleaning in the water beyond accessibility from the topsides. West Coast is worse.

This does not preclude washing bottom regularly , as in a diver doing it before a sailboat race. But if any solids, films, or various debris (organisms) are suspended in the water you are now in violation of epa.

The simple process- good maintained bottom paint and use your vessel regularly, thereby the slime, etc organisms are sluffed off over a large area. solution is dilution.
The idea of scraping (which leads to scratching) is not to be done in the water and the paint must be collected _i.e. the mats, filtering drains etc. under the travel lift.
The idea of scraping and dumping three weeks of growth in one anchored spot (no bottom paint) is just as damaging- invasive species or imbalanced environment.
This is why ballast waters and ships go so far offshore to change out- even between the Chesapeake and Delaware and NY if meeting certain criteria.

This is out of Chesapeake conversation but best and most information and clarity of the subject- The Great Barrier Reef- Australia - they have cranked down with certified cleaning required of all vessels from outside the region.
The Great Lakes Zebra mussels are another discussion- although they are attributed to ballast water from ships- the issue was later expanded to include sea chest areas that did not get easily accessible and cleaned.

all this stuff should be viewed as best practice and worth further googling.

My comment previously about Claiborne still stands: view the whole best practice for the boat and environment. It is not just a single cost of the bottom paint, or the copper, or the efforts- but the matrix of all.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

...this confirms that paint leeches cooper doesn't matter if it's ablative or not.

Of course copper-based anti fouling paint leaches copper. THAT'S HOW IT WORKS!

Originally Posted by Boatyarddog

As to your retort on zero paint Zero pollution?
You are clueless and rude.

No, I'm trying to tell you that unpainted bottoms foul quickly and badly. And a boat with a foul bottom uses more fuel and therefore produces more hydrocarbon pollution than a boat with a clean bottom. You think you aren't polluting because you don't use anti fouling paint. You've just traded one form of pollution for another.

I'm really not sure what it is about this that you don't understand. And for sure you haven't supported your initial statement about ablative paints.