There are many sides to this mess, but the most important one we already failed at.
We have already lost the anti fouling battle we lost it when we didn't respond to the flawed and manipulated study that was conducted in 2011. The word in the halls of government is that non biocide paint works better than copper, and that the only reason that we don't use it already is because we are traditionalists. Furthermore we should be forced to fix this issue because we are fat cat boater that have all the money in the world to do so.
The reality is that the issue of how much biocide based anti-fouling paint effects the general marine eco system outside of marinas is something that has never been addressed in ANY study. The studies have all taken place inside the confines of the marina directly over which was floating boats. The only one that I know that was done outside of marinas was the one involving the effects of TBT on marine life in most of the CA areas.
Unfortunately the TBT study was also flawed as it failed to identify the majority of the source of the TBT polution, it was assumed that the source of all the TBT in the marine eco system was from leaching of bottom paint from the bottom of boats. Some better scientific method should have been involved and before the study was even started the potential sources should have been checked. The argument was that the TBT had leached and was never leaving the marine environment or the tissues of the creatures that lived in that environment. The numbers that were found were way in excess of the amount that could have been leached out of all of the anti-fouling paint that was currently applied or had ever been applied to the bottoms of boats, especially recreational boats. So an assumption was made that all of this was constantly being recycled in the environment, and was the fault of boats, ships, and protected underwater structures. No where in the study did anyone mention, or investigate the use of TBT in HVAC (Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning) use for shore based installations. Shore based installations were using TBT injection systems, where TBT was directly injected into the piping used for cooling water intake on shore based HVAC solutions. Directly injected, not leached........... The law was passed to ban TBT along with the stricter EPA laws that eliminated the use of seawater based HVAC cooling systems. The fact that these occurred at the same time lead those that had placed the blame on the "rich yachtsman" to point to the results and claim a victory.
The current study on the effectiveness of non copper based paints including Zinc and other "slippery" solutions, is one of the most flawed scientific studies that I have ever read. Had I turned that in as a final paper to any of my professors I would have been flogged, had a dunce cap placed on my head, and been escorted from the campus.
So lets look at the purpose of the study:
"In California, and in coastal communities throughout the United States, water quality is significantly impacted by the copper used to coat boat hulls, large and small. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), a grantee of EPA, identified cost-effective methods for boat owners to protect both their boats and water quality. EPA’s grant assisted DTSC in identifying boat hull coatings that can reduce copper pollution in marinas, while boosting boat performance and cost-effective maintenance over the long-term. Like its predecessor EPA grant, implemented by the Unified Port of San Diego, this project successfully established the viability of non-copper anti-fouling boat hull coatings for both performance and cost-effectiveness. However, while the San Diego project looked at both biocide and non-biocide coatings, in this DTSC project, the grantee solely studied the effectiveness of non-biocide coatings, as well as alternative painting and stripping methods."
Wow wait, There are a heck of a lot of non scientific assumptions here, where is the science behind "water quality is significantly impacted by the copper used to coat boat hulls, large and small". Hint there isn't any. The paragraph should read "Water quality is significantly impacted by the release of sewage, both treated and untreated. This pollution is caused by the residual hormonal and anti-biotic drugs which are not removed from treated water." Opps that means that the people that live on the shore would be responsible instead of those wealthy boater are always the problem.
OK so there were no scientists on the grant committee, lets move on from there, surely there must have been scientists in the study right.... Lets look at their findings first:
"While non-biocide paints perform well in all water temperatures, they do especially well and more cost effectively in the cold water temperatures of northern California, since they incur less marine fouling and, therefore, require less boat hull cleaning frequency. Furthermore, while copper-based paints last on average two years, non-biocide coatings can last as long as ten years.
Uh wait a minute... Ten years, none of these paints have been on the market for 10 years. The 6 of the 8 paints tested in the study are not on the market even now! They were TEST PRODUCTS specifically give to these testers....
Then there is my favorite part of the whole study. How often are the panels and the boats cleaned.;
"The panel testing involved inspecting panels with nonbiocide paints every three weeks for one year.
During the inspections, the level of fouling, the ease of cleaning the fouling and the coating condition were noted. The results showed that five of the emerging nonbiocide paints performed very well.
IRTA selected four of these paints and one additional emerging paint for testing on boats"
Every three weeks the panels were cleaned.. Hmmm Great paints you know there is never any build up on them... Here lets clean everything off again and see if there is any buildup in three weeks... I don't think there were any scientists or boaters on this research committee.
It doesn't get any better on the boats:
In the Port/IRTA project, the annual maintenance costs were estimated by obtaining costs from three different diving companies in the San Diego area. The maintenance cost varies based on three factors.
First, the maintenance or cleaning cost depends on the size of the boat. Second, the cleaning cost depends on the type of boat; the cost of maintaining a sailboat is less than the cost of maintaining a powerboat. Third, the maintenance cost varies depending on the type of paint on the boat hull.
All three of the diving companies had experience cleaning boats with copper paint and hard nonbiocide paint. Only one of the diving companies had experience cleaning the soft nonbiocide paint. The copper biocide paint and soft nonbiocide paints were commonly cleaned by divers 15 times per year, every three weeks in the summer and every four weeks in the winter. All three diving companies agreed that
the hard nonbiocide paints needed cleaning more often but the frequency varied. The average of the three annual costs was used for the hard nonbiocide paints. The maintenance cost for the one diver with experience cleaning the soft nonbiocide paints was used in the analysis.
Really cleaned every three weeks???... NO!!! I have the bottom of my boat cleaned never in the first two years, (Oh wait my bottom paint lasts for more than the two years they say it will in the study... Then again I use a quality bottom paint, Petit Trinidad. ) I have the boat bottom generally cleaned 1 time in the 3rd year if I haven't been sailing enough, 2 times in the 4th year, and 3-4 in the fifth year. I have my boat cleaned less times in 5 years than they do in the first 2 months. No wonder their bottom paint only lasted for 2 years, the diver scraped all of it off cleaning it!
Go read the report, these are only the biggest of the errors, the application method, all of the cost tables, etc are founded on just as poor assumptions as the ones reported above.
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/upload/DTSCboatfinalrept1.pdf
Where we failed:
1> We failed in not ever getting together a lobbying group, national and local. We failed because we don't get heard. Want to be heard as a group... We need a boaters membership group that lobbies for US! Heck even Ham radio operators do better at this than we do (ARRL).
2> We are letting our own sport, hobby, lifestyle wither and die. We didn't get out there and take more people sailing. We don't introduce people the wonder of being out on the water, with the wind in our hair, and the magic carpet under our feet. Most of us don't do it enough ourselves. The average boat leaves the dock only 7 days a year. The magic ins't in the next round of electronics, how to hook my ipad into my onboard toaster. The magic is in sailing getting out there and being in the wilderness that is being on the water. We all know this, we know that a $2,000 Ericson 27 is all that you need, you don't need a 50 footer to have fun sailing, you just need a small sailboat some wind, and TIME. We need to teach this to more people!
3> We don't take enough care of the environment as a group. We need to be seen more as a group as the defenders of the environment, not the detractors. We don't do enough PR for ourselves in what we do for the environment.
I know too long to read right?
