On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:30:14 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 12:42:19 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:46:00 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"Marc Heusser" d
wrote
in
message ...
No personal experience, but maybe the following link might help:
http://www.rya.org.uk/KnowledgeBase/...ntifouling.htm
Not unnecessarily polluting the oceans seems to be a good idea to me.
Here is some idiot who admits to having no personal experience but who
must
open his pie-hole as if his ignorant comments have some merit. Then the
fool
compounds his folly by concluding with a statement about polluting the
oceans as if one sailboat or all the sailboats in the world combined,
for
that matter, make one iota of difference when it comes to "polluting the
ocean" with their bottom paint.
Calculate the volume of water in the oceans of the world and divide by
the
totally insignificant amount of bottom paint toxin leeching from yacht
bottoms and it amounts to perhaps one drop of mercury in the Great
Lakes.
As
if that's gonna pollute anything at all.Time for you, Marc, and all the
other environmentalist nut cases to get real with your irrationality.
Wilbur Hubbard
If all of the yachts of the world were kept evenly distributed over the
entire
surface area of all of the bodies of water in the world, you would
probably be
correct. The problem is that the yachts of the world are clustered
together in
little harbors, nooks and crannies where the effects get concentrated.
Shellfish
beds, for one, are not out in the middle of the ocean. They are located
in
the
same shalow, confined coastal areas where all those boats and yachts are
kept.
The fool said "oceans." He was concerned about the oceans being polluted
by
bottom paint on yachts. I said oceans are in NO DANGER from anti-fouling
on
yacht bottoms. I am correct.
Stick to the subject.
But, since you changed the subject I will say you, too, are full of ****.
Show me a scientific study, any scientific study that PROVES yacht bottom
paint has had a detrimental effect on shellfish beds or any other marine
ecosystem for that matter. You won't find any such study. You might find a
few where land run-off was involved - chemical plants, etc. But, that's
another story. Why penalize yachts for the indiscretions of landlubbers?
Wilbur Hubbard
Google around and you can find quite a few studies that indicated that
TBT leaching from anti fouling paint was the probable cause of TBT
contamination in several harbors. There are also studies that showed
the effect of different levels of TBT on different types of marine
life. In general critters that ate other critters showed little or no
reaction while filter feeders, clams, etc., showed quite a lot.
In addition there are a number of studies and reports showing reaction
to inhaling paint fumes where TBT was used in interior house paint.
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)
"Probably???" You call that scientific proof?
Wilbur Hubbard
Wilbur I'm not going to do your research for you I'm sure you can find
it yourself. "Probably cause" is also used in law - "probably cause to
believe that this guy done it" - and away you go to the gray bar
hotel.
But it doesn't make any difference whether TBT makes the clams die or
not. They done went and made a law. Now if you break it (and they
catch you) they are going to get you. It no longer makes any
difference whether you, or me, or anyone, else believes.
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)