Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus

[fstbttms]

Earlier this year I began a thread entitled "Anti Fouling Paint Manufacturers Taking Aim At Hull Cleaners." Maybe some of you remember it. Anyway, in that thread, I referenced a study of in-water hull cleaning's copper contribution to the water column. Not the first study of its kind, but the first one funded by the paint manufacturer's lobbying group. It was published a couple of weeks ago and as expected, the results show that copper-based anti fouling paint is much less of an issue than every other previous study has shown, and that in-water hull cleaning is much more of a problem. By a factor of 10. Where previous studies show that hull cleaning contributes about 5% of the copper that gets into the water from anti fouling paint, this study shows it to be about 50%. If you were ever in doubt about the meaning of the phrase, "The fox guarding the hen house," this scenario should clear that right up for you.

We don't know how the paint manufacturers will want the state to use this study, but we suspect it could be used to implement mandatory cleaning frequencies in California, and by that I mean much less frequent than the boat owner would like. FYI.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/1...14.2013.841891

 

[shemandr]

Ta-Dump……Ta-Dump.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

Other than your numerous posts about the subject, I can find no reliable link to the actual study. Given the absence of an ability to read it, maybe you could provide a good link.

Clearly, bottom cleaning in-situ contributes to copper loading. I infer the issue here is to what extent.

That it contributes at all seems like a prudent activity to manage. How would that affect your business???

 

[fstbttms]

Other than your numerous posts about the subject, I can find no reliable link to the actual study. Given the absence of an ability to read it, maybe you could provide a good link.

Clearly, bottom cleaning in-situ contributes to copper loading. I infer the issue here is to what extent.

That it contributes at all seems like a prudent activity to manage. How would that affect your business???

Let's see if this works:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08927014.2013.841891

 

[fstbttms]

That it contributes at all seems like a prudent activity to manage. How would that affect your business???

It is managed. Or is supposed to be. California has failed to enforce its own regulations which state that a certain percentage (don't ask me to quote the numbers) of boats are to be cleaned using Best Management Practices. All the studies show that using BMPs reduces the copper contribution from in-water hull cleaning activities. But the state has never made it an issue beyond a few paragraphs in the Non Point Source Pollution Control Program. A smart hull cleaner is alreading using these BMPs and wants the state to reduce copper pollution in our waterways. But money, politics and apathy are the order of the day, regarding this issue. The paint manufacturers (who have a vested interest in continuing to sell copper) are large and in charge.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

I don't have time to read the whole study now but among the points I did note
the Cu conc in the water column went from 41nM before cleaning to over 600nM after and the researchers noted that was consistent with past studies.

I also noted the study was done by Scripps Institute. Generally an objective research group which concluded:
The relationship of potential ambient toxicity to the
use and maintenance of copper-based AF paints indicates
that initial panel deployment (eg newly painted) does not
exceed toxicity thresholds. However, cleaning activities
(regardless of method) result in a greater toxicity
potential than initial paint exposure despite the lower
dissolved copper release rates associated with cleaning...



What's the problem?

 

[fstbttms]

The study was performed at the U.S. Navy's SPARWAR faciltiy in San Diego, at the behest and funding of the anti fouling paint manufacturer's lobbyist, the American Coatings Association.

http://www.paint.org/

You're right. What's the problem? There's nothing to be suspicious about when a huge industry's lobbyist (whose clients have much to lose if copper should ever be banned) produces a study that (surprise! surprise!) shows their clients aren't the bad guys after all. Despite what every other objective study has shown.

 

[Calif. Ted]

They conducted the test on a Navy base notorious for releasing copper and other toxins from their 59 storm drains, interesting choice.
http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070627/news_7m27pollute.html

 

[KD3PC]

welcome to the gov't that you have elected, especially that in CA....and sadly for the rest of us, this will set the rules for the rest of the nation, eventually.

I believe we have tangled on this in the past, as part of a previous job I had, there was a similar study here in Norfolk for a different part of the Navy, that I was involved in. Except this one basically said that the "stuff" in the water was corrosive, was high (but not higher than what occurs in nature) in copper, and was not as destructive of the immediate environment as those the Navy had in CA and WA....

everyone pooped this study as "statistically" insignificant, that the water in Norfolk/hampton/Yorktown was different, that the boats sat there longer than the west coast boats, ad nauseum.

the fact remains that the more people want "someone" to do something about CU/treated sewage discharge/gray water/etc/coal/diesel particulate/etc, SOMEONE does pop up and they often do a study, and say they are helping you out.

What really happens is that the well oiled machines jump in and see a way to promote their cause, end run the science, force the politicians or corp or whomever to act a certain way. They aren't helping you out, they say they are, and once they get you to agree that they are helping you out, they then turn the tables and help themselves.

One should not ask the question when one already knows the answer, and expects things to turn out in their favor.

This gov't slobbers over special interests, big corporations and environmental do gooders.

A third grader knows that if you scratch something off something, the concentration of something now laying on the table is far greater than the bare table was prior to the scratching off of something.

You can't have it both ways....and that SPAWars study in SD was similar to the ones done here in Norfolk and the one in Charleston and Jacksonville that resulted in the amount of copper in the water column beneath the boat is not any worse than the surrounding stuff that has "nominal" amounts of stuff already..ala natural occurrence.

ie you really can't regulate foreign matter to be less than what occurs in nature, whether in the air or the water....and copper happens to be one of those things that has been in nature for eons, despite what the EPA or the president or any one else wants. Yet that is what CA and WA want to do.

 

[shemandr]

I have to admit that is the first article I've read in the "Journal of Bioadhesion and Biofilm Research."
For prospective what does the unit "μg cm−2 d−1" mean? Can that be related to ppm, or a unit I can grasp? Is this copper leaching a significant problem?

 

[fstbttms]

The "Conclusions" section at the end of the study spells out the actual copper loading numbers in something approaching plain English.

Yes, "passive leaching" is how anti fouling paints release their biocides and they do it 24/7/365 until it is all gone.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

I still don't get your point. Having not yet read through the whole study, it appears the conclusion replicates the results of the preceding two - that copper paint leaches and abrading it exacerbates the release of copper. Anyone who has ever cleaned their bottom already knows that!



I know I'm not the smartest guy in the room but I don't think I am the dumbest either. So I reiterate - what's the problem I can't see?

As to the "μg cm−2 d−1", it is micrograms/sq centimeter/day

 

[Gunni]

Why would I need a study to determine that scrubbing ablative bottom paint would increase the release of copper biocide into the water? More to the point, on what basis would anyone doubt that scrubbing does significantly increase copper release?

 

[fstbttms]

You don't need a study. The paint manufacturers do. They want to show that hull cleaning needs to be curtailed or banned while they continue to sell copper-based paints.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

You don't need a study. The paint manufacturers do.

I thought you just said they sponsored this study.

They want to show that hull cleaning needs to be curtailed or banned while they continue to sell copper-based paints.

There is a huge market for effective bottom paint. If they wanted to bias the study, it wouldn't show what it does (and what we all know) - that scrubbing it exacerbates the release of biocides including copper.

I still don't get your motivation - is it to show the industry biases studies ( we all know that) or are you trying to make some objective assessment of what you do for a living?


Why would I be any more suspicious of an industry sponsored but not the view of someone in a business affected by the study?

 

[shemandr]

By my calculations and the data in the report an average boat bottom could release 6 lbs of copper into the water during the life of the paint - with scrubbing maybe more without somewhat less - like 3 lbs. In either event that is far more than I would have guessed and that is the value of a study.
As for it's methodology, you would either have to be expert in this field of research to judge, or look at subsequent criticisms published about this study. Is the "Journal of Bioadhesion and Biofilms" peer reviewed? Journals have standards of publication, with peer review panels, and if this methodology were off the reservation, it probably wouldn't have been published. Yeah, there are agendas at work almost everywhere but peer review works pretty well to control that. Until further notice I would accept this as legitimate. I once dismissed the notion of copper release as another wacko supposition. Now I view it differently. Maybe we shouldn't use these products and clean our bottoms more.

 

[gettinthere]

Its not hard to read between fastbtms lines.
What he is concerned about is that paint manufacturers will work with govt not to limit the paint they sell but to limit the amount of bottom cleaning. Its the bad practice of rubbing all that paint OFF the boat by morons in wetsuits that is destroying the planet

 

[KD3PC]

Is the "Journal of Bioadhesion and Biofilms" peer reviewed? Journals have standards of publication, with peer review panels, and if this methodology were off the reservation, it probably wouldn't have been published. Yeah, there are agendas at work almost everywhere but peer review works pretty well to control that. Until further notice I would accept this as legitimate. I once dismissed the notion of copper release as another wacko supposition. Now I view it differently. Maybe we shouldn't use these products and clean our bottoms more.

peer review has been proven in the past few years to NOT be the control element that it used to be. Conversations, discussions, debate have been replaced by name calling, law suits and worse.

All one has to do is investigate IPCC and why the "hockey stick" stats were deemed "statistically insignificant".

Many peer reviewed articles are preaching to the choir, and simply will not entertain a first pass at conflicting thoughts or ideas. This tends to stop things dead in their tracks, be it philosophy, pharma, chemistry, paint, climate or anything.

The key to objectivity in a study, is to follow the money....who paid for the study and who does the research. Second would be, "who" stands to gain from the view point being advocated by the results.

Sadly "facts" no longer exist, points of view, perceptions, positions, etc. abound.

The "economist" did a story or two earlier this year on the subject, if you would like further reading or "studies"....

 

[KD3PC]

By my calculations and the data in the report an average boat bottom could release 6 lbs of copper into the water during the life of the paint - with scrubbing maybe more without somewhat less - like 3 lbs. In either event that is far more than I would have guessed and that is the value of a study.

this statement alone, speaks volumes about research....the poster claims that the "average boat bottom" would shed 6 pounds of copper (which by the way, I seriously doubt on it's face)....

so we apply an absolute "6 pounds" to what - some nebulous/ambiguous entity, now defined as an "average boat bottom"....is this a 24' or 44'....mono or cat, recreation or work, gov't or privately owned, well maintained or ignored?

sheesh, let's just make up stuff and call it a fact?

 

[Gunni]

My Pettit bottom paint weighs 16.3 lbs per gallon and is 40% by weight copper and cuprous oxide. That works out to 6.5 lbs per gallon. My boat sheds over one gallon of paint per year. And I don't scrub my hull.