Primarily because it is prohibitively expensive. It is also heavy.
That product exists.
Questions About Bottom Paint
- Thread starter cousineddy
- Start date
It can be done, however, it is an expensive process and if not done correctly it can fail.
VC 17 is based on pure ground copper suspended in some kind of slippery vehicle which does ablate.
Damn! Only 42 years late on that idea....
After using it for 30 years, trust me it ablates or wears off on leading edges of the keel, the hull, the rudder and elsewhere. It does not wear off where the water moves past the hull at slower speeds, like behind the keel.
But, the volume of biocide leeched out of the paint is very small compared to the volume of the lake, bay or ocean. I could see your point if the boat was in a swimming pool. You would have higher concentration adjacent to the hull, but out a couple feet and I doubt its even detectable. Never heard of any fish kills adjacent to marinas because of bottom paint. Plus, there are forms of algae that are extremely to toxic to aquatic life. And, red tide will kill more aquatic life in one season than bottom paint will kill in 1000 years. Now our boats drag thru the water like a piece of drift wood. Very sad. Very troubling.
Has there been a study of how bottom paint affects aquatic life?
Has there been a study of how bottom paint affects aquatic life?
Pleasure craft tend to congregate in small, enclosed basins (like marinas) where they leach their paint's biocide 24/7/365. The resultant copper-loading can cause these bodies to exceed federally mandated water quality standards. The copper is actual metal- it doesn't magically disappear a few feet from the hull.
Many. This subject has been studied by regional, state and federal government agencies for decades.
Last edited:
Toxins that do not degrade quickly are ingested by different organisms, typically those low on the food chain. The toxins then move up the food chain and concentrate in the animals at the upper end of the food chain, like the perch and bass that are caught in the lake. Those toxins then accumulate higher up in chain like humans who eat the perch and bass. The accumulation of toxins in animals is well documented, a classic example was the effect on the bald eagle population from DDT which entered water systems, was ingested by fish which the eagles ate.
What's your point? It isn't illegal. But steps are being taken in many places to reduce the amount of copper that enters the environment from anti fouling paints.
We have discussed Copper at length on SBO.
People forget that most landlubbers water piping is Copper. That Copper ion is put in fresh water lakes, rivers, and salt water marina, etc.
One measurement I found was on Copper ion in the Pacific North West, but from a recent Volcano's eruptions.
400 ppm.
Many bottom paints are allowed in USA and it territories.
A few specific USA Areas have restrictions. Most of those areas rushed to the morale high ground with Laws.
_______
I think @fstbttms speaks from his experience and years of his work. Any past discussions I had with him, he listens and learns. Snarky he is not.
____
______
Many Bio-accumulations Studies have been incorrect or flawed by using a certain species of fish and not properly done by using the wrong Controlled test. I have personally been involved with 3 studies.
The only metal I know of is Mercury that is Bio-accumulated. But a recent study on wild Salmon versus Farm raised Salmon showed insignificant differences. Tuna was studied also.
For a human to get Mercury poisoning from Fish, you would have to eat 150 cans of Tuna or 80 cans of Salmon per year.
Jim...
People forget that most landlubbers water piping is Copper. That Copper ion is put in fresh water lakes, rivers, and salt water marina, etc.
One measurement I found was on Copper ion in the Pacific North West, but from a recent Volcano's eruptions.
400 ppm.
Many bottom paints are allowed in USA and it territories.
A few specific USA Areas have restrictions. Most of those areas rushed to the morale high ground with Laws.
_______
I think @fstbttms speaks from his experience and years of his work. Any past discussions I had with him, he listens and learns. Snarky he is not.
____
Later found to be NOT true. DDT is still available to use. But this is off bottom paints subject.
______
Many Bio-accumulations Studies have been incorrect or flawed by using a certain species of fish and not properly done by using the wrong Controlled test. I have personally been involved with 3 studies.
The only metal I know of is Mercury that is Bio-accumulated. But a recent study on wild Salmon versus Farm raised Salmon showed insignificant differences. Tuna was studied also.
For a human to get Mercury poisoning from Fish, you would have to eat 150 cans of Tuna or 80 cans of Salmon per year.
Jim...
The copper in the paint isn't the issue per se, it is the leach rate of the copper, that is how much of the copper is passively leached into the water. That's why hard bottom paints came about, for the most part the copper remains in the paint doing its job and is not leached out as fast when scrubbed. Paint manufacturers are working to reduce the copper in the paint and to reduce leach rates. Effective bottom paints are now available that are copper free. Multi season ablative paints also have controlled leach rates that are lower than single season paints.
We were talking about how herbicides are removed from paint because of its affect on the environment. But copper is still the main ingredient. And it certainly doesn’t work where I sail.
Are you at all worried about health concerns given your occupation?
There is zero evidence that ablative paints are more polluting than hard paints, "scrubbed" or not and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Why don't our divers look like this? Not knocking you, @fstbttms , but I don't think you'd look that good in a silver wetsuit.
So, my bronze prop was heavily fouled. Does that prove copper don’t work? So why is it so popular in bottom paint?
