safe bottom paint time

Along with the ethical problem of dumping bilge and greywater overboard is the looming problem of toxic bottom paint.

A great gift to the environment would be a slick teflon or silicon or silicate coating that would keep barnacles and weed at bay, or in the bay. I hope California takes the lead again, as the state did with VOC solvent coatings,

and ban soft and hard copper bottom paints.

Then corporate chemist$ will be forced to come up with clean and reliable alternatives like the waterbourn coatings in the market now.

I personally feel that sloughing copper bottoms should be outlawed immediately. That would send a shock wave into the industry.

It is completely unlikely that the feds would take the lead to fund the search for a non-toxic bottom coating and use it on every one of their ships. The USNavy is a major polluter. I believe any ship over 80' (freighters and cruiseships and aluminum boats) can still use TBT, a long lasting kill everything biocide that has entered the whole marine food chain. It's accumulative, once any living thing picks it up (that oyster you just et!) you gets it forever.
We can't eat the fish in SFBay and we've destroyed much of the spawning areas. Birds and bottom dwellers have been grossly affected as well.
The changes happened relatively slowly and therefor have become acceptable. Isn't that how it happens?
You know, our short term memory makes the negative changes inevitable.

Why not a silicate? An innocuous mineral coating that is composed of mineral flakes that fall off in a controlled uniform fashion. Evidently it's the marine insurance business that insists that coatings last at least five years. That drives the paint industry to invent very deadly products. Imco these jerks have the wrong attitude.

You hear of something, let us know, ok?
HNY2006

Here is a more literate better organised view of this subject by somebody you can trust:

http://www.sailnet.com/collections/a...eid=caseyd0048

He's right: we can't legislate ETHICAL behavior into corporate america.

Interbucks has a non-toxic bottom paint called Veridian (?). But it's too pricey. Has to be 'professionally' applied. A crock. A blatant ploy to keep the price high.

Did it occur to them to SELL IT AT THE SAME DAMN PRICE AS TRINIDAD??

I mean if Interclucks truly was responsibly committed to improving the environment...? well, the point would be to get people to buy the stuff and use it - continue to use it. Right?
Might start a trend and the price would drop naturally due to volume. Whoa, what an idea...

They have to live with the mess they created in the first place. It's OUR CONTINUING MESS, and our children's mess. In fact they seem to be calling attention to their unethecal mindset by not offering their alternative (and no doubt patented) environmental product at a decent price. Intersucks!

Shucks, when you are big and powerful you don't have tp be responsible, just sincere. :p

__________________________________________________ ____________________________

Gotta get some innermarina rap groups to get up some nasty baggy rimes. The blues is too much like music. We need to embarrass these buzzards now!

__________________________________________________ ____________________________

FYI
Interlux, maker of Intersleek (formerly Veridian?), an untouchable antifouling as far as we are concerned, has been gobbled up by a global chemical corp called Akzo Nobel.
Their companies make industrial, powder, automotive, marine and Sikkens coatings. They call themselves "a respected member of society". When you think of it a rather insipid way of publically describing themselves. I don't see why any special trust or dispensation should be given to this megalosorb. But they do business in countries with vastly superior environmental records than the USA. One can only hope it has an effect here!

It's easy to point the finger at Interlux or any other bottom paint manufacturer, but let's not get too carried away with this one source of pollution. I mean, do you buy paper products? Plastics? Electricity? All of these are much higher volume and toxicity pollution sources.

perhaps you take umbrage with the perjorative, Nathan,
for which I have a unfortunate predilection...
But I won't shrink from the point here
which is that these corporations should take the lead in cleaning up the environment by developing and selling the cleanest and least polluting products they possibily can to the general public. Sell it at a reasonable price too.

Those other major polluters you mention, and thousands of others, should damn well clean up their act too. Without being forced to. Without legislation that is always too late. Because it is the right thing to do. Because it can be done.

And I always leave a little finger to point at myself! :)

All paint is toxic. Even house paint. Bottom paint from what I gather acts as a sort of insecticide. Pound fisherman for years have mixed cayanne pepper powder with thier bottom paint, it works very well for about a year more or less, but it is also toxic. Years ago a company came to wife with a bottom paint product that had cayanne pepper as the active ingrediant; however, my wife who was then President of Seaguard Marine (marine coatings and paints) could not manufacture it or sell it because it was not EPA or government apporved.
Copper seems less toxic than most other metals such as red lead but when you think of it red lead lasted 5 to 10 times longer than copper and was more durable (it is still used in some foreign countries and even the locks on the Panama Canal are still coated with red lead when they need painted. I am in favor of going back to red lead because it lasts longer and may in the long run have a less toxic effect on our waters because less of it is needed over time than copper or tri-butal tin which is now or soon to be outlawed for all uses,is exremely dangerous to all living things and never goes away. Red lead as it very slowly wears off the bottom sinks faster then copper and tri-butyl tin, they stay in the salt water solution longer poisoning , killing or causing mutations and cancer(tri-butal tin) in every life form they come in contact with.

Cayenne is an interesting substance. It's one of the nightshade family that my 'alternative' physician has put on my avoid list along with potatoes, tomatoes and eggplant. If folks add it to bottom paint it is for the low grade alkaloid that can cause problems in sesitive mammals. Can assume that the problem is not a whole ecosystem. Suggests that alkaloids might be a way to go if they can be made long lasting and non-accumulative.

Red lead is bad stuff alright. Assume that once it leaves the bottom of the boat it 'protects' it'll keep on killing life in the water and on the bottom. Like TBT and even copper viz the wasted sealife under a marina.

Regular paint and all kinds of coatings 'dry' and becomes relatively inert. But look at the problems old lead paints are still causing, lead paint has no place in the marketplace. Lead has no place in paint. And it is apparent that neither does copper.

If there already exists an environmentally clean bottom paint, it shouild be made available to everyone. If it is just more BS then some other real alternative must be made available. Have to assume that chemists have been working on it. Corporate chemists look for patentable solutions while a small entrepenure group might come up with something imaginative and unique and maybe even natural. Like red pepper in a new form. Or a nifty time release alkaloid extraction.

The problem is that we, when we paint anti-fouling on our pleasure boats, are the source of pollution. Not Pettit and Interlux and the others. That is an extremely uncomfortable position for me to be in, not being a trash out the window kind of guy. And I know I'm the one that will have to pay for the polluters. Municipal and big time polluters are treated preferencially in this country. There's no up-stream polluter law that would allow a group (of boat owners) to sue the maker of a lethal-to-the-environment product. How do you make a paint maker do the right thing? Profit? How much are you willing to pay?

Isn't it time?

I guess its hard to make an environmentally friendly pesticide. Maybe we could train some suckerfish to clean the bottom.

How about just using non-ablative hard paint?

Ebb, are you going to paint over your epoxy/copper bottom? Its so pretty.


http://www.pearsonariel.org/discussi...tid=1944&stc=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by commanderpete

How about just using non-ablative hard paint?

---

The copper still leaches out of the paint...

I'm not sure that there is an answer that is easy or inexpensive.I love our country, our citizens, our waters and life. Its one reason I now sail. As everyone knows there is not a single bay, river, lake or creek on the entire east coast from Main to Texas or even east of the Misssissippi that can be safely fished for food or hasn't seen it's native fish and animals driven to extinction, and that is not right by the laws of our land, nature, man or whatever you choose to believe in. These new generations of citizens will never in thier lifetimes get to experience what the rivers, creeks and bays of our youth were like, the kinds and numbers of fish and animals ( ever catch a huge river sturgeon or eaten small Delaware Bay clams raw have a river otter climb aboard your rowboat and eat a mussel) or how clean the waters were, the smell has even changed. Wild productive wetlands are a thing of the past. The views from our boats are now endless shorelines dotted with silly looking, badly built McMansions that look like Disney or Hollywood sets. The views from these eyesores are of polluted, dead or dying waters. However, there may be a way. What if boat yards were city, state or fed owned or supported and had a lift system that splashed your boat when you wanted to go out and put in on the hard when you returned, why not,no need for toxic antifouling bottom paint. It would be far less expensive than the clean-up. What is left of the natural resources of our country will only last so long and the few who have enjoyed or benifited from them will soon be gone also... Sorry about the soapbox. Keep sailing and careing. Saving and restoring these old sailboats also goes a long way for conservation and says a lot about the people who do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Lemasters

. Saving and restoring these old sailboats also goes a long way for conservation and says a lot about the people who do.

---

Thanks Robert, I thought we were just cheap SOBs

Just kidding. Good sentiments there. Nobody seems to care when a municipality flushes a million gallons of sewage into the water. Then you have the fertilizer runoff too. No surprise there's so much algae.

Damn slime slows my boat down :mad:

A boat bottom only fouls when it is not moving , so go sailing more .

Shark Skin Inspires ship Coating
is the title of the article on
http://www.wired.com/news/technology//,66833-0.html

(hope it comes up)
It is about an experimental coating aimed at large ships because of the large expense of keeping the clean. Sharks do not have an algae or barnacle problem and don't have to be copper coated every 3 years. The structure of their miniscule scales evidently totally discourages anything from growing on them. That's what they are trying to replicate with plastics and rubber at the U of Florida (funded by the Navy).

(it DOESN'T come up -
Could a computer savvy associate please post the correct address?
I copied eggzactly what was at the top of the page, I did, I did)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebb

Shark Skin Inspires ship Coating
is the title of the article on
http://www.wired.com/news/technology//,66833-0.html

(hope it comes up)
It is about an experimental coating aimed at large ships because of the large expense of keeping the clean. Sharks do not have an algae or barnacle problem and don't have to be copper coated every 3 years. The structure of their miniscule scales evidently totally discourages anything from growing on them. That's what they are trying to replicate with plastics and rubber at the U of Florida (funded by the Navy).

(it DOESN'T come up -
Could a computer savvy associate please post the correct address?
I copied eggzactly what was at the top of the page, I did, I did)

---

Try this instead:
SharkyTypeScaleys

Interesting approach. Might not be accepted by the racing class because of induced drag:

"Shark skin is made up of tiny rectangular scales topped with even smaller spines or bristles. This makes shark skin rough to the touch. This irregular surface makes it difficult for plant spores to get a good grip and grow into algae or other plants."

The thing is with this new paint is that you have to carefully brush it on with single strokes from stem to stern. No back strokes. If you do it backwards, from stern to bow, you can never move the boat out of the marina, it would be stuck there.

The scales on most sharks are really micro and reduce the stickyness of water, reduce eddys that create drag, and reduce the noise of the water passing over the body. Really.

Fishermen like this new coating for its stealth quality, silent running. There have been experiments painting props, but nobody has figured out how to back up.

Boats that sail on their ear like Ariels will probably paint their topsides as well with this stuff. Comes in 3 colors: grey, grey and grey.

The raucus drumming of a fiberglass hull punching thru the joyful waves will all but be forgot as the boat silemtly slithers thru tamed liquid without a bone in her teeth, without making a bow wave, without leaving a wake. snif

Last time I checked two part epoxy resin products are some of the most toxic things on the planet, and the whole darn boat is made of that...and we're all gassing it off, grinding it, and otherwise spreading particulate fibers of it into the atmosphere all the time...

I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate...but if you start on Bottom Paint, where do you draw the line on toxic products Ebb?

These old boats are made of polyester resin .

'Lo Chris,
Let us start at the BOTTOM, with the bottom.
All positive changes in our toxic life style
start with attitude chamge.

Maybe we could translate our American 'frontier spirit'
into pioneering a profit based non-poluting culture.

We wait until plain-to-see-coming disasters develop
befor changes are made. Changes are happening but
it's slow going because life styles are based on Money

rather than Ethics.

EG, when I go to the Farmers Market on Sunday,
I buy my fruit and vegies not from vendors who have
banners that read Certified California Grown Produce
but Certified California Organic Farmer.

There's no way I can persuade truly evil corporations like
monsanto, philip morris, dupont, dow, ama, fda onto
a path of enlightenment. But I jnow they are the bad guys
and One Day we will prevail and erase them.

The right way is to consciously take care of our individual
toxic wastes. There's a small chance the government and
the corporations will follow. :rolleyes:


Oh.... Support Small Business
and never NEVER buy anything advertised on TV!

Ebb,
I agree with you completely on the "act locally, think globally" issues. I just had to play the Devil's advocate and test your resolve a little... Myself I work for a natural resource conservation company now that I'm no longer with working for the Admiralty of Uncle Sam, polluting away for profit. Perhaps I've grown too untrusting and cynical of all the, power and money hungry corporate monsters....I've got an attitude more like Montessier I think, I'm going to do what I'm going to do, but in the end the Monster is going to destroy us and we'll have to start over.
The pop culture, cell phoning, oxygen bar going, Gucci shoe wearing, US Magazine reading, polymerized plastic generation is way too self absorbed to get enough of us genuinely caring individuals to sway them...no, I think even if Ben Affleck and J-LO were out sorting recyclables these people still could not be brought around.

That said...I'll be right beside you doing my part too, regardless!!

Chris :rolleyes:

WOW!!!
Hey lemme catch up!

Recommended reading: "Ishmael", by Daniel Quinn. (Warning: Mind- and philosophy-altering contents therein.)

Hey Mike - Though this story seems OT, it does have to do with this topic - bear with me - I know you know a lot of this stuff, I'll explain a bit for those who might not -

The surfboard industry just went through a *major* shake-up in the past month. Clark Foam, which supplied about 80% of the *entire worlds* surfboard "blanks" (the foam core of the 'boards), just up and closed their doors one day. Literally. The founder sent out a 7 page fax that said, in essence, "We're Closed. As of Now. For Good.", and had given no prior warning.

The Clark blanks were made of polyurethane (PU) foam, which is compatible with polyester resins, but not epoxies. Epoxy-glassed boards use extruded polystyrene (EPS) foam as their core material, ie; common styrofoam.

So, the epoxy/EPS foam boardmakers are now crowing and gloating. Among the claims I've seen them make is that epoxy resins and EPS foams are a *much* "greener* solution for FRP products like 'boards and boats than are the polyester/PU variants.

Is there any truth in this claim? Seems to me that alla that stuff is pretty much a vile, nasty chemical soup, that if one is actually "greener" it has to only be by a matter of a very few degrees. I'm not knocking the use of either (or I'd have a wood boat), just stating what would seem to be self-evident. I've worked with both types for years, tho' polyester mostly. Is this "greener" bit just a bunch of hype?

I mean - It's not like we can go into the woods and forage up the makings for a gallon of West Systems resin, it's still a lot of highly chemically modified dead dinosaur juice, right?

Or perhaps it is because tho the difference in "nastiness" is slight, enough is used that in the aggregate, that what is a slight difference locally would be a huge differenc globally?

Trying to separate hype from truth, prior to resin investment. Thanks!

Speaking thru my hat.
What I know is this from a safety standpoint:
(probably the single most important thing to know about epoxy)
Use 100% solids epoxy of one to one or two to one A to B parts.
100% solids epoxy is relatively benign.

Simple, do not use any manufacturer's formulation that has solvents in it.
Do not use any manufacturer's product that blushes.
That includes your favorites: East System and System Four, N.A.S.
Blushing is an indication of cheap extenders like nonylphenol (a carcinogen).
Extenders are a way of cheating the consumer.

The only reason not to use epoxy on foamboards is the expense.

One very good reason not to use polyester on boards is the styrene solvent in it. In 1982 A USEPA study found styrene in human fat tissue in 100% of the people tested. Causes liver kidney brain and lung damage. Styrene also rearranges your chromosomes.

(Why won't epoxy stick to urethane foam?
It's not compatible with polyethylene and polypropylene.)