Washington State bans copper bottom paint
- Thread starter RichH
- Start date
- Status
It's not clear what you know. What I know is that I have performed over 20,000 in-water hull cleanings over the last 16+ years and I keep painstaking records of my customer's paint performance and longevity. What I know is that I see anti fouling paints doing their jobs every day, from the day they are splashed until they day they are hauled again. Anti fouling paints are not designed to last four years and therefore do not typically last four years. It is possible that the occasional bottom goes that long, but in all likelihood, that is somebody stretching a bottom job well beyond its useful lifespan and torturing their hull cleaner by making them clean a bottom in poor condition much longer than is right. A typical bottom job last 2-3 years max, whether it be in Northern or Southern California. There is a given amount of copper in any particular anti fouling product and it leaches out at a given rate. It absolutely does not typically last for four years.
So your numbers are skewed, IMHO, based on the fact that the typical California boat owner is not hauling his boat for paint every four years. In reality, it is much closer to twice that frequency.
Fast,
Don't want to hijack your thread but I have a question for you - What effect have you seen with VC17m when the boat is on the hard for 6 months? Does the time on the trailer adversely affect the effectiveness of the paint it you don't give it a fresh coat each spring?
Don't want to hijack your thread but I have a question for you - What effect have you seen with VC17m when the boat is on the hard for 6 months? Does the time on the trailer adversely affect the effectiveness of the paint it you don't give it a fresh coat each spring?
How do you even measure in the trillion thing
Seriously my water system stays< 400 PPB and right now is at 10 PPB at .03 uS conductivity
Seriously my water system stays< 400 PPB and right now is at 10 PPB at .03 uS conductivity
Rich,
You want to talk pseudo-science, let's start with your soda cap analogy. The surface of the moon is roughly 15 million square miles. One part per trillion of that area would be about 420 square feet, so about the size of a large RV or sailboat, not a bottle cap.
Second, when it comes to toxicology you often do find values that are below the current range of technology. That is because toxicological values are derived from studying the effects of exposure on the subject (i.e. human, benthic organism, etc.), observing when visual effects begin to show symptoms (i.e. death, distress, birth defects, etc.) and using a combination of laboratory analytical testing and the observations to derive exposure concentrations that will effect the subject.
When it comes to toxicity of metals, there is significant variation of the effects based on dissolved vs. particulate metal concentrations and the organisms you are studying. The benthic organisms (clams, copepods, etc.) have very acute toxicity to copper that is in particulate form (not dissolved). One trick of copper industry proponents is to cite the low dissolved copper concentrations in marine environments. One of the most significant flaws of this is that metals typically to not remain dissolved in water unless the water is acidic. Ocean water is slightly basic (around 8.1 i think), which means that metals will not stay dissolved for very long.
As to the point about the detection limit, current electrochemical ionization sensors have a detection limit of 0.2 parts per trillion.
To your point about the "morning flush", talk to a waste water treatment operator about what are the hardest effluent limits to meet. I know one of the toughest in the northeast is the copper effluent limit of 1.6 parts per billion. That limit is a compromise between the waste water treatment plants and the regulators. Initially, the intent was to have a lower limit but the waste water treatment operators demonstrated that current technology made it cost infeasible to remove below that limit. There are other plans in place to try and reduce these concentrations including the move away from copper to a pvc water supply piping. I can't remember the example exactly but one toxicologist once told me something like one gallon of water traveling through 10 feet of copper pipe would be toxic to benthic organisms in an area as large as an Olympic swimming pool. This is a significant issue that is in the process of being addressed.
As to the concentrations of copper you gave in the environment, I won't go into a long discussion about why some of that is superfluous to this discussion. But I will say that there is a significant difference between naturally occurring and background. Crude oil is naturally occurring but you would not say that concentrations found in a Gulf Coast marsh land is background.
Relative to the oxidation of copper, I have no idea what you were trying to prove with this statement. All metals oxidize; for copper the oxidation states are either cupric or cuprous. But that has little to do with our discussion; especially since in does not oxidize based on exposure to water but exposure to oxygen. Oxidation is not the same as bio-degradation or chemical breakdown.
I would also warn you against confirmation bias. When you only look for information to support your argument or position, you willfully ignore opposing information. In science you try to prove your position is wrong. One piece of negative information is far more valid and important then all of the supporting data. In citing the source you used you have ignored a lot of more significant data on the opposing side. You have also relied on a report from someone with a financial stake in the continued use of copper. That report was prepared by American Chemet Corporation, who is one of the largest manufacturers of copper products and list anti-fouling coatings first in the list of core businesses.
I am also unsure why you would say "I would make the counter claim to refute your 'entire testimony' as that what you offer is entirely baseless, a gross and wilful distortion and cannot be supported at the most elemental 'chemistry' basis and therefore is WHOLLY PREPOSTEROUS." The majority of my post was providing you information regarding copper-free anti-fouling paint.
Oh well, you try to provide some basic information and people take it as a challenge and try to make you into some kind of nut case. The weather is going to be too nice to spend the day arguing on message boards. I am going to play hooky and go sailing.
Fair Winds,
JK
I'm sure there is, just thinking it will grow significantly as this comes close to taking effect...fstbttms said:
Uhhhh.. a quick observation of the visual information.. It seems that if copper and other bottom paints were so toxic, there would be absolutely no growth on the pilings of a good sized marina .. especially in places where boats have been being docked for 60-70 years now .. and kept in the water year round .. I see barnacles and oysters.. and a lot of other stuff that all seems pretty healthy..I remember walking around the big marina on the north end of San Juan Island, Wa, a couple of years back and saw plenty growth on the dock supports.. I see the same plentiful growth in the marinas on the Gulf coast..
Uhhhh.. a quick observation of the visual information.. It seems that if copper and other bottom paints were so toxic, there would be absolutely no growth on the pilings of a good sized marina .. especially in places where boats have been being docked for 60-70 years now .. and kept in the water year round .. I see barnacles and oysters.. and a lot of other stuff that all seems pretty healthy..I remember walking around the big marina on the north end of San Juan Island, Wa, a couple of years back and saw plenty growth on the dock supports.. I see the same plentiful growth in the marinas on the Gulf coast..
Not sure how seeing growth on a dock proves that it is not toxic. The growth could be toxic itself, I certainly wouldn't feed it to a baby.
Not sure how seeing growth on a dock proves that it is not toxic. The growth could be toxic itself, I certainly wouldn't feed it to a baby.
I have zero practical experience with VC17. It is strictly a freshwater paint and I don't work in freshwater.
JK -
the legal profession in pursuit of ease of litigation and positioning for the surety of claims for years has 'forced' the data in 'environmental issues' by the use of 'non-linear' correlation. Those who in pursuit of 'grant and research money' for years has 'forced' the data for the same purposes. The same 'arguments' have been applied vs. drinking water standards ..... "President Bush is allowing 'three times' the amount of toxic arsenic' in drinking water than that recognized safe on a toxilogical basis ..... 6ppt vs. 2ppt." - Sen. Barbara Boxer et al , etc. etc. etc. Mostly based on unsubstantiated 'opinion', "stretching the numbers", invalid 'correlations' and without supporting and reproducible hard data ..... psuedo-science and lawyerly 'weasel words'.
As respect to the SA of the moon vs. bottle caps. the 'order of magnitude' is valid.
As respect to the 'physical state' of copper, you made the statement "it does not breakdown naturally" as one very deeply involved in 'particles' and their specialized macro/micro-chemistry I would quite stronglly disagree.
I think you get my 'point' about baseless and unsupportable 'claims'. Copper is a naturally occurring element that exists in a relatively high concentration in all the environment; the exclusion of its usage in something as trivial as bottom paint on recreational boats will be of the same order of magnitude change as a 'bottle cap' placed on the surface of the MOON. Ultimately the net result will be 'nil' or below 'detectable limits' .... and at great expense to do so.
the legal profession in pursuit of ease of litigation and positioning for the surety of claims for years has 'forced' the data in 'environmental issues' by the use of 'non-linear' correlation. Those who in pursuit of 'grant and research money' for years has 'forced' the data for the same purposes. The same 'arguments' have been applied vs. drinking water standards ..... "President Bush is allowing 'three times' the amount of toxic arsenic' in drinking water than that recognized safe on a toxilogical basis ..... 6ppt vs. 2ppt." - Sen. Barbara Boxer et al , etc. etc. etc. Mostly based on unsubstantiated 'opinion', "stretching the numbers", invalid 'correlations' and without supporting and reproducible hard data ..... psuedo-science and lawyerly 'weasel words'.
As respect to the SA of the moon vs. bottle caps. the 'order of magnitude' is valid.
As respect to the 'physical state' of copper, you made the statement "it does not breakdown naturally" as one very deeply involved in 'particles' and their specialized macro/micro-chemistry I would quite stronglly disagree.
I think you get my 'point' about baseless and unsupportable 'claims'. Copper is a naturally occurring element that exists in a relatively high concentration in all the environment; the exclusion of its usage in something as trivial as bottom paint on recreational boats will be of the same order of magnitude change as a 'bottle cap' placed on the surface of the MOON. Ultimately the net result will be 'nil' or below 'detectable limits' .... and at great expense to do so.
I guess we'll just have to agree to respectfully disagree. I have averaged four years or more for forty years with two coats of hard copper paint and monthly dives. I am picky about bottom condition and get reports from my divers and have an inspection at three. I am hardly unique and most of my boat neighbors present and past maintain a similar schedule. I truly wish I could trust the data and believe this effort would produce tangible, meaningful results that are likewise beneficial. I do not, and believe we are simply a handy target. How do you explain commercial exemptions?
I think your argument is flawed because the copper leaching out of (and being scrubbed off of, let's be honest) anti fouling paint is concentrated in very small bodies of water, ie: marinas. It does not travel outside these areas and is absolutely present in measurable concentrations that not only exceed federal water quality standards but can be shown to do harm to the flaura and fauna that live in these areas.
The bottom line is that over ten years ago the US EPA mandated that the states must bring their waterways into compliance regarding copper and that all measures taken since that time (largely voluntary) have failed. Now the states are feeling the pressure not only from the federal government but environmental groups as well and some have decided that legislating the toxins in anti fouling paint is the only way to reach the goal. The time for long winded rants about whether copper in our waterways is good, bad or indifferent has long since passed.
Rick D: Maybe you don't have more growth in LB Harbor because there is so much copper in the water that nothing can live there! <g>
Up in the Delta very few sailors need/use divers so I doubt that there is much of an issue. I wish that the copper would kill off the grass that is growing up there.
Up in the Delta very few sailors need/use divers so I doubt that there is much of an issue. I wish that the copper would kill off the grass that is growing up there.
There is frequently a big difference between what boat owners and hull cleaners consider acceptable fouling or paint condition.
Freshwater environments do not experience the fouling conditions found in saltwater.
Nice report Rich. If copper is an element, one of the elements in the periodic table and the claim is "it does not break down naturally" then I guess I am wondering what it would break down to? Elements do not "break down" they combine with other elements to make chemical compounds through atomic bonding, but the only way to transform copper atoms into something else would involve changing the nucleus of the atom. If you know of a good process for doing this such as cold fusion let me know.
You are entirely correct. As I stated elemental copper does not 'break down', rather these atoms combine with other fundamental 'elements' into molecules. Once in the combined state, principally as oxides, acetates (in seawater), etc. do not have the 'reactivity' of 'free' copper. The 'testing and analysis' on such 'trace / nil' concentration usually that has been done most probably only skews the data for reactivity by ignoring the 'combined' state ... only looking for the analysis signature of 'free copper' (probably misrepresented as combined AND 'free'). All depending on how you want to 'skew' the data ... usually for political purposes or to 'build cases' or receive further 'grant money', etc.
- Status