Hull Cleaners Thrown Under The Bus
- Thread starter fstbttms
- Start date
- Status
Quite the contrary. I made a effort to quantify the amount of copper using the study's data and some arithmetic. If I'm wrong you can correct me. Nothing made up here. The study also defined the boat size but I couldn't find that number in the article again so I used 400 sq/ft. Is that unreasonable? If it came out to 5 lbs. would it be any different?
I would like that reference to the article in the Economist. I would prefer to believe that the copper isn't a problem. But I will look at facts and make my judgement. And there are facts.
I did not say the journal in question is objective. I have no idea since I have never heard of it until today. What I said is that if the methodology isn't up to snuff there will be criticism of it. Academics love to argue about this stuff and love nothing more than stuffing their rival's works.
I don't know anything about "Hockey Sticks."
When you say, "Peer review has been proven in the last few years to be NOT ….", I ask how so. With a study? Where is that published?
Who pays for research is very important. In my professional life it is what I look at first. And yes, there is often an economic interest. But I think in this case the study confirmed that the industry which allegedly (I didn't see any direct evidence of this) paid for the study, has a product which is putting copper into the water. I guess they'll want their money back.
I READ the article and they said this about the boat, which is a do over from some paint manufacturer:
"A standard estimate used by paint manufacturers for wetted
hull surface area that considers average boat shapes was
applied as a factor of length (L) by beam width (B) by a
standard conversion factor (0.85). A 40 foot long boat
with a beam of 13 feet yields a wetted hull surface of
442 ft2 (410,631 cm2).
For a typical 40 foot recreational boat, the average
annual loading (based on the three year cumulative loading)
ranged from 970 to 1181 g dissolved Cu yr−1 for
epoxy and ablative paints, respectively, exclusively utilizing
the recommended BMP."
this does not take in to account any of the criteria I mentioned, like time in the water/hull type/draft/pwr vs sail/etc/etc. It did state "recreational".....but again what ever that really means.
the equation one would derive from your post is something along the lines of:
6 = x(time paint adheres) X y(length X width X draft X .85 X time to leach) / n(number of times the bottom(see "y" on the numerator) is scrubbed) X .5(epoxy vs. ablative)
Yet the answer is "6 pounds"....and almost as relevant to boating and paint as Douglas Adam's - "the answer is 42" was to the universe.
But I give up, Don summed this up in post #6....
yes, in my opinion, your math is arbitrary and assumptive, and in this case meaningless
"A standard estimate used by paint manufacturers for wetted
hull surface area that considers average boat shapes was
applied as a factor of length (L) by beam width (B) by a
standard conversion factor (0.85). A 40 foot long boat
with a beam of 13 feet yields a wetted hull surface of
442 ft2 (410,631 cm2).
For a typical 40 foot recreational boat, the average
annual loading (based on the three year cumulative loading)
ranged from 970 to 1181 g dissolved Cu yr−1 for
epoxy and ablative paints, respectively, exclusively utilizing
the recommended BMP."
this does not take in to account any of the criteria I mentioned, like time in the water/hull type/draft/pwr vs sail/etc/etc. It did state "recreational".....but again what ever that really means.
the equation one would derive from your post is something along the lines of:
6 = x(time paint adheres) X y(length X width X draft X .85 X time to leach) / n(number of times the bottom(see "y" on the numerator) is scrubbed) X .5(epoxy vs. ablative)
Yet the answer is "6 pounds"....and almost as relevant to boating and paint as Douglas Adam's - "the answer is 42" was to the universe.
But I give up, Don summed this up in post #6....
yes, in my opinion, your math is arbitrary and assumptive, and in this case meaningless
Search Results
- Unreliable research: Trouble at the lab | The Economist
www.[B]economist[/B].com/.../21588057-scientists-think-science-self-correctin...
Oct 19, 2013 - Instead, he argued, “most published research findings are probably false.” As he told the quadrennial International Congress on Peer Review ...
- How science goes wrong - The Economist
www.[B]economist[/B].com/.../21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-worl...
Oct 19, 2013 - The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts ...
- Academic publishing: Science's Sokal moment | The Economist
www.[B]economist[/B].com/.../21587197-it-seems-dangerously-easy-get-scienti...
Oct 5, 2013 - He then submitted the study, under a made-up name from a fictitious academic institution, to 304 peer-reviewed journals around the world.
- Peer review: Shameful | The Economist
www.[B]economist[/B].com/node/369961
May 22, 1997 - SEX and connections: these are not the criteria on which science should be judged, least of all by scientists. But in the first extensive analysis of ...
- Comments on Unreliable research: Trouble at the lab | The Economist
www.[B]economist[/B].com/node/21588057/comments
Oct 19, 2013 - The Economist puts out articles based on studies that use absurdly ... That doesn't mean that the peer-review system is in a state of failure, ...
If you look at it like dumbasses like me do; if 100% of the copper in paint eventually leaches out into the sea, then simply keep track of how much paint is sold. What else would anybody do with the stuff? Subtract maybe a couple percent for waste, rollers, non use, etc. Betcha that number would be close..
(Hang in the fstbttms. I like to read commentary from a mans trade).
(Hang in the fstbttms. I like to read commentary from a mans trade).
What is it you don't understand? The anti fouling paint industry is under increased pressure in this state to reduce their copper contribution. If they produce a study that shows that hull cleaners are responsible for a huge percentage of the copper (10 times as much as any previous study, BTW), they win on two fronts:
1.- The copper contribution from the passive leaching of anti fouling paints is not 95% as all previous studies have shown, but really only 50%. See, anti fouling paint isn't as bad as it's been made out to be all these years.
2.- If they can show that hull cleaners are big contributors, maybe they can get hull cleaning banned or at least dramatically reduced. The paint companies know (as do smart boaters and hull cleaners) that frequent, gentle in-water hull cleaning actually helps an anti fouling paint last much longer than it otherwise would. In regions of moderate to high fouling (such as California) anti fouling paint is going to foul fairly rapidly. Allowing it to become even moderately foul means it is then necessary to use abrasive cleaning media to remove that fouling. This (of course) scrubs paint (and therefore copper) off the hull and into the water. By cleaning frequently, the hull never gets particularly foul and the softest, least abrasive cleaning media can be used to remove fouling growth. This keeps the paint (and copper) on the hull, where it belongs. Less frequent, abrasive cleaning equals increased anti fouling paint sales.
Wow. Have a hard-on for hull cleaners much?
In California, the fouling rates are such that regular hull cleaning is a necessity (regardless of what the paint companies would have you believe.) Copper paints pollute and to a lesser degree, so does hull cleaning. Lets assume copper paints are not going to go away. What is the state going to do, ban hull cleaning? That leaves the boat owner with one alternative- haul the boat at a yard to have the bottom cleaned. Is that convenient? Is that cheaper than a diver? Is it less polluting than in-water hull cleaning? I say the answer to every one of those questions is no.
Yes, I am concerned about my livelihood. But the boat owner should be concerned as well- about the cost, availability and ease of obtaining the hull maintenance his boat needs.
Fast want to keep cleaning bottoms and I am fairly sure boat owners don't want to pay 1K+ for a short haul and wash in a collection pool as copper is pretty safe stuff in the toxic world
If you look into the California water study's at all the best you will find is a high degree of uncertainty
The best example is copper brake dust and apparently there is bunch of zinc in tire dust ,yes your boat zincs are on a hit list
So now we have changed from copper brake dust to some other material that inevitably will show up in the water column , unless we come up with brakes and tires that do not wear out some type of dust will continue to runoff ??????????????
If you look into the California water study's at all the best you will find is a high degree of uncertainty
The best example is copper brake dust and apparently there is bunch of zinc in tire dust ,yes your boat zincs are on a hit list
So now we have changed from copper brake dust to some other material that inevitably will show up in the water column , unless we come up with brakes and tires that do not wear out some type of dust will continue to runoff ??????????????
Therein lies the fundamental issue - that you believe hull cleaning pollutes to a "lesser degree" flies in the face of both common sense and at least three separate studies confirming common sense.
Current BMP for yards is to contain runoff from hull cleaning. Boat yards throughout the country have been required to comply with those standards for almost a decade. Clearly, compliance is something with which all yards are concerned at the penalty of heavy fines.
Given they already must contain or control runoff, your argument that in-situ cleaning is less polluting is specious.
It cost me $300 for a short haul at what is likely the most expensive yard in Florida. Amortized over the year, that is $30/month. Can I get my hull cleaned in the water for less than $30/month? ....
All of us here are (or should be) concerned with the environment in which we sail. Even if protecting that environment costs a little more. That you advocate here the most polluting method of hull cleaning for your own self-interest is something to which I take offense.
If that is the case, then keep the gov't -state and local, the epa, the regulators, the DEQ folks away from my boat, OR at least have the stones to include EVERY boat that sits in the water....
this "recreational boater" is the problem mentality has got to go....we are the only "special interest" group without a lobby and yet we have the biggest target and the least money of any dog in the fight. And statistically the smallest impact on the water.
You can not have it both ways.
KD3PC: There is no conspiracy by regulatory agencies to deny you your watery freedoms. To paraphrase Willie Sutton: Regulation of environmental toxins like bottom paint is directed at the commercial / recreational boat market because that is where the paint is. The vast majority of bottom paint ends up on dock queens before it falls, or is scrubbed to the bottom of the marina all over the US. So if you want to manage the issue most effectively, you manage at the commercial / recreational level. If military/DHS/LE were the only parties using copper bottom paint this issue would be a local, not a national concern, if any. And it would be managed by existing perimeter access restrictions.
Three studies do not confirm what you consider to be "common sense" (which is really simply your inexpert opinion.) Clearly you do not know what is reported in the previous studies. If you did, you never would have made that statement. And apparently your inexpert opinion is based on some fantasy that hull cleaners are down there, wailing away at your bottom paint with a metal scraper and a Brillo pad.
Again, your ignorance of the subject matter is illustrated. Boat yards are classified by the USEPA as "point source" polluters. That is; there is a pipe draining all their wastewater into the bay. A point source of that pollution. That is why they are now required to contain and filter the wastewater they create. In-water hull cleaning creates what is classified as "non point source" pollution. And as such, does not fall under the same regulations as boatyards. Further, any argument you make about how much hull cleaners pollute compared to any other polluter is simply just more speculation on your part.
Is it your assertion that a yard is going to haul your boat 12 times a year for a total of $300?
Even if in-water hull cleaning was a big polluter (which it certainly is not), you fail to take into account what additional issues need to be considered if say, hull cleaning were banned and everybody had to go to a boatyard for this service.
In the San Francisco Bay Area for instance, there are about 20,000 boats living in the water. These boats are typically cleaned 4-6 times a year. Let's be conservative and say that equals 80,000 hull cleaning events per year. Now imagine how much additional fuel is burned and carbon emissions created if 80,000 additional trips are made by boats to, and from the boatyard. Not to mention the additional driving (and attendant pollution) boat owners will do getting to their boats 80,000 additional times. In San Diego, they are doing about 120,000 hull cleanings a year. Do the math on that. Now factor in Los Angeles and Orange County. Hundreds of thousands more trips to the yard.
Then consider that since hauling the boat is a big inconvenience, realistically, boats will be cleaned less frequently and will motor around on dirtier bottoms. That eats up more fuel and more fuel equals more air and water pollution.
The reality is that copper-based anti fouling paints need to be cleaned regularly and in-water cleaning is really the only practical way to get this done. Yes, what I do creates pollution. But I try to minimize that pollution by using Best Management Practices. And let me absolutely clear on this- I am 100% completely unconcerned if what I do or say offends you.
Okay, I give up!
I guess being a chemical and environmental engineer with over 30 years of scientific and practical experience in environmental health, hazardous material contamination and regulatory compliance is irrelevant compared with someone with your knowledge.
I bow to your expertise...
Your professional resume does not make your speculation about how much pollution in-water hull cleaning creates any more valid. I do not doubt that you are an expert in your field. But it is clear you are not an expert in mine.Okay, I give up!
I guess being a chemical and environmental engineer with over 30 years of scientific and practical experience in environmental health, hazardous material contamination and regulatory compliance is irrelevant compared with someone with your knowledge.
I bow to your expertise...
actually there is nothing further from the truth....I live, boat and pay taxes in VA, yet due to politics - the state of MD owns the water that I live upon, and at least in my 58 years on the planet rule that water. Commonwealth of VA has done nothing to stop it, and continues to allow another state to rule "their" waters.
As MD continues to assert it's beliefs, policy and programs upon the potomac and it's tributaries, my freedoms to boat, dive and use the water continue to be reduced. And you can bet that given the chance, the state of MD, the CBF and the EPA will jump at the chance to rule the Chesapeake.
Perhaps not a conspiracy, but each have their agenda and they certainly work together to implement or get someone to implement items in their respective best interests.
Wake up.
This was, and still has the potential, to be a very interesting, timely and necessary thread as long as it does not descend into personal attacks. Don's position is logical and intuitive, which alone does not make it right. It does, however, make it worthy of a direct answer. I believe his argument is as follows:
1. Copper is a large component of anti-fouling paints.
2. In ablatives in particular, it is designed to slough off by the action of water passing over the painted hull surface.
3. The friction [or chemical reaction is there is one] required to do this at a few knots is not very great.
4. If paints are designed so it does not take much to separate the copper from the hull, then scraping on the hull with just about any object will releast more copper much faster than sailing.
5. Hull cleaning involves scraping of some kind.
6. Hull cleaning therefore puts more copper into the water at a faster rate than would occur without cleaning.
That simple syllogism certainly deserves some response. It does not necessarily end the discourse because human behavior is also a factor. For example, it is necessarily true that boat owners who have their hulls cleaned end up repainting more often than those who don't? Is there an inverse or direct relationship between hull cleaning and the amount of time spent sailing? Is there a tendency for sedentary boats to be cleaned more often than those who rely on sailing to accomplish the same thing? If so, so these tend to balance. If it turns out that cleaning does increase the copper deposit, is it necessarily true that some restrictions will be bad for boaters? Is it possible that a study of the effectiveness and duration of a hull cleaning would do us all some good insofar as we may be overcleaning?
One final note. It is unlikely that there will ever be agreement between those who see every action taken by government as a conspiracy of some kind to abridge their pursuit of happiness, and those who see most government action as necessary stewardship over things individuals can't or won't regulate by themselves. This is a perfect example of the latter. I love my boat. I want the best for her. If the best means a paint laden with copper, that's what I use despite the guilt it engenders because I know the stuff is harmful to the environment. And no, I don't even try to indulge the idea that my little 31 foot source of joy and happiness does not by itself despoil San Diego Bay. I'm not happy when the government calls me on my acts of selfishness by regulating copper content. But I also know that if they didn't do it, my children would end with a lifeless body of water asking why no one did anything before. Which is not to say that all regulation is good. Just that this an important issue. And like most regulation, it will tread on someone's source of income. At the turn of the century American genius found ways to utilize the worlds resources. Perhaps today the focus of our genius will be on how to make these processes less destructive. I don't think the discussion can end by simply saying that haul outs for hull cleaning is too expensive. Perhaps we need to force the entire bottom paint industry, paint manufacturers, painters, scrapers and us end users, to make it a matter of survival to figure out how to inexpensively recover the copper scraped off our hulls.
1. Copper is a large component of anti-fouling paints.
2. In ablatives in particular, it is designed to slough off by the action of water passing over the painted hull surface.
3. The friction [or chemical reaction is there is one] required to do this at a few knots is not very great.
4. If paints are designed so it does not take much to separate the copper from the hull, then scraping on the hull with just about any object will releast more copper much faster than sailing.
5. Hull cleaning involves scraping of some kind.
6. Hull cleaning therefore puts more copper into the water at a faster rate than would occur without cleaning.
That simple syllogism certainly deserves some response. It does not necessarily end the discourse because human behavior is also a factor. For example, it is necessarily true that boat owners who have their hulls cleaned end up repainting more often than those who don't? Is there an inverse or direct relationship between hull cleaning and the amount of time spent sailing? Is there a tendency for sedentary boats to be cleaned more often than those who rely on sailing to accomplish the same thing? If so, so these tend to balance. If it turns out that cleaning does increase the copper deposit, is it necessarily true that some restrictions will be bad for boaters? Is it possible that a study of the effectiveness and duration of a hull cleaning would do us all some good insofar as we may be overcleaning?
One final note. It is unlikely that there will ever be agreement between those who see every action taken by government as a conspiracy of some kind to abridge their pursuit of happiness, and those who see most government action as necessary stewardship over things individuals can't or won't regulate by themselves. This is a perfect example of the latter. I love my boat. I want the best for her. If the best means a paint laden with copper, that's what I use despite the guilt it engenders because I know the stuff is harmful to the environment. And no, I don't even try to indulge the idea that my little 31 foot source of joy and happiness does not by itself despoil San Diego Bay. I'm not happy when the government calls me on my acts of selfishness by regulating copper content. But I also know that if they didn't do it, my children would end with a lifeless body of water asking why no one did anything before. Which is not to say that all regulation is good. Just that this an important issue. And like most regulation, it will tread on someone's source of income. At the turn of the century American genius found ways to utilize the worlds resources. Perhaps today the focus of our genius will be on how to make these processes less destructive. I don't think the discussion can end by simply saying that haul outs for hull cleaning is too expensive. Perhaps we need to force the entire bottom paint industry, paint manufacturers, painters, scrapers and us end users, to make it a matter of survival to figure out how to inexpensively recover the copper scraped off our hulls.
- Status