I state again, Copper is a naturally occurring element, in 'rocks', in water, in seawater, etc.; therefore, copper will NEVER go-away .... it just 'combines' with other elements and still remains 'copper' in combined and mostly 'inert' species. You will NEVER change the 'background' amount of copper in the environment by 'regulation', especially where the 'background' value exceeds the 'regulated amount'.
This statement is absolutely FALSE!!!
"Background" is the concentration of copper that would exist without contamination from man. There is absolutely a concentration of copper that exists in nature. But our activities (i.e. anti-fouling paint, mining, the use of copper pipes for domestic water supply, copper brake pads, etc.) contribute copper to the environment that elevates these concentrations. That elevated concentration can be reduced by better practices by man. This includes using other materials then copper for brakes, anti-fouling coatings, water supply lines, etc.
I would suggest that draconian regulations enacted and promulgated through 'correlation', feel-good-ism, and other unsupported and substantiated data ('claims'), etc. will only result in the DIMINISHMENT of recreational boating by making 'boating' so prohibitively expensive for the 'average recreational joe' that the boating industry and those who partake will simply 'dwindle'. I presume thats where you make your $$$$.
If the EPA and feel-good & technically ignorant legislators want to yet destroy yet another industry or another 'human activity' based on feel-good and unsubstantiated or 'vastly-skewed' claims that in this case specifically target 'boaters' .... and then exclude and provide 'waivers' for the REAL culprits ... theyre on the right track. You and others vote for these anal 'controllers' ... if one doesnt like and doesnt approve of their chicanery then simply vote them out of office. THEY are the problem, not the copper.
Its long overdue time for to restart the 'sanity-clock'.
So you have two arguments here. First, that the scientifically supported position that copper is toxic in marine environments is false. The only thing you have ever provided to support this absurd position is one paper from a copper mining company that side stepped this issue by saying copper is naturally occurring. Weak.
Here are twelve pages of scientific papers that support that copper is toxic in marine environments. Choosing to pick on words like "correlation" just shows your ignorance of the scientific method and science in general. If you wish to wait for something to become a scientific fact before you act, you will be waiting for a long time. But while you wait, how is that whole gravity thing working our for you? You know that is just a theory. So why don't you go to a cliff and prove that the "correlations" there are wrong too?
Second, that it's ok to continue to pollute the environment because the cost to not pollute the environment will mean some people can't afford to be recreational boaters. I guess this boils down to who has the rights over the ocean: you as an individual or everyone collectively. I would argue everyone collectively. The ocean is a limited resource that belongs to all of us. We are all free to use it but only in a way that will not diminish that use for the rest of us. This is the logic behind chemical discharge limits, fishing quotas, beach rights, etc.
Some would call this a liberal/socialist/communist positions. I don't think it is, I call it libertarian. In the same way that the biggest thing I want from the government is the right to be left alone and not be bothered. That right only exists if I am not hurting others. Once I cross the line and begin to hurt others then it now becomes the governments job to step in and stop me.
With bottom paint, 30-40 years ago we didn't know it's full effects. I would argue that we always new it was toxic. That is why Capt. Slocum put a coat of copper on the Spray in 1890s. We wanted it to kill those things that grown on our hulls. But we didn't know the full effect. Now that we do know how it can impact the environment, what is the justification to continue to use it?
Couldn't the same argument be made for say, asbestos. It will cost the schools a lot of money to take that asbestos pipe insulation out of your kids schools. It is just a correlation that people exposed to asbestos develop cancer. But instead of ignoring it, we set up regulations through the EPA. We banned new products with asbestos and phased out old products. We set rules up to manage it in the most cost effective way. Eventually it will all be removed and landfilled. It will take a long time but people will be safer in the mean time. How is this different from the handling of copper?
