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)

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 19:08:18 -0500, wrote:

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.

While Wilbur's calculation is perhaps a bit on the wide side I suspect
that to a large extent he may have the right of it. Studies were
performed at various harbors and problems with shell fish were found.
However, to the best of my knowledge all the harbors studied were
commercial harbors.

Secondly you will remember that initially commercial shipping was
exempted from the ban on TBT, the argument was used that commercial
shipping spends little time in port while pleasure craft just sit
there leaching TBT.

But, I suspect that if the original calculations were to have been
based on area of underwater painted area times hours of exposure
inside the port limits you might have some different results.

A 1,000 foot container ship has a tremendous underwater area. The Emma
Maersk for example is 1302' 6" LOA, Beam - 183' 8" and the draft is
50' 10" while my sail boat is 39' 10" long, 13' 6" breadth and draws
6'.

If you use a simple calculation with port, starboard and bottom as
flat plates (which isn't accurate worth a damn, but will serve to
illustrate my point) then the Emma Maersk has an underwater surface
(loaded) of 371,733.5 square feet. Using the same method, my sailboat
has just about 1,000 square feet of underwater area. Thus for every
one day in port for the Emma Maersk she leaches out the equal amount
of TBT that my boat does in 371.7 days.

I'm sure that Roger could refine these numbers with his computer but
they do serve to indicate that perhaps politics played some part in
banning pleasure boats use of TBT first since pleasure boats seldom
belong to any pressure groups and commercial shipping companies have
tremendous clout in maritime affairs.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
....
If you use a simple calculation with port, starboard and bottom as
flat plates (which isn't accurate worth a damn, but will serve to
illustrate my point) then the Emma Maersk has an underwater surface
(loaded) of 371,733.5 square feet. Using the same method, my sailboat
has just about 1,000 square feet of underwater area. Thus for every
one day in port for the Emma Maersk she leaches out the equal amount
of TBT that my boat does in 371.7 days.

I'm sure that Roger could refine these numbers with his computer but
they do serve to indicate that perhaps politics played some part in
banning pleasure boats use of TBT first since pleasure boats seldom
belong to any pressure groups and commercial shipping companies have
tremendous clout in maritime affairs.

With the exception of a few major ports, and especially Navy ports
(which often have dozens of idle ships) I think you might find that
small boats have more surface "in port" than large ships. What I don't
know is where the dividing line is ... where 100 tons ships exempted?

In my home port, Boston, there are very very few 1000' ships. More
typically, there are a small number of 500' ships, most of them turning
around within a day. I was quite surprised the last time I went through
the inner harbor (fall haulout) and there were as many as 8 ships
coming, going, or docked. These ships are at most the equal of 200
pleasure boats, so this would be the equal of 1600 pleasure boats. I'm
guessing there are at least that many boats in the inner harbor, and
maybe three times that number in the extended harbor. Then we can look
at nearby harbors (Scituate, Plymouth etc to the south, Marblehead,
Salem, Manchester, Gloucester to the north) which have many more boats,
but even less ship traffic.

I keep my boat in brackish water, so I get a lot of fouling and quite
a few barnacles on the metals.

I do haul for 3 months a year at present but the following may help.

I prefer ablatives and to me the 'secret' is to apply them SMOOTH.
Smooth will promote less surface adhesion of the fouling, and Ive
noticed that I dont have to paint quite as often .... as when I used a
'roller' as the sole means to apply. My choice now is Interlux Micron
Optima as it seems to be a little 'harder' than the previous versions
plus it has some biocide that in the first 1- 2 years helps to retard
the growth .... until it apparently leaches out and then you get only
the ablative effect.

How I apply ablatives so that they are smooth (I race my 'crab
crusher' so a smooth bottom is a plus for light wind sailing) but in
applying the stuff smooth Ive appreciated the 'other benefits' ...
longer lasting, easily drops the crud when at hull speed, etc.

With a roller apply on the first coat, let cure a bit and then with a
sharp chisel carefully 'lift' a small section to see if thats the mil
thickness I want. Let it fully cure - days.
Then with a orbiting sander knock the just the tops off the paint
pimples left by the roller - flat ... not much paint removed.
Then with a large polyethylene trowel ( the kind used in fairing a
'male' plug when fiberglassing) apply a large 'stripe' of paint with
the roller and immediately fair the wet paint with the trowel working
quickly and working towards the 'wet edge'. Clean the trowel as the
paint sticks or begins to dry on the trowel.
Leave a few inches of dry surface and begin the next 'stripe', until
all the way around the boat. Let these stripes cure and then go back
and fill in all between the stripes. This will begin to fill all the
valleys between the flat peaks that you sanded off.
Then at a different angle to the first set of stripes ..... repeat.
let cure. then repeat at a different angle, etc. until 'most' of the
surface is flat. Continue at those areas that arent flat using a
smaller trowel until the bottom is as smooth as a babys ass.

A smooth surface on ablative will quickly drop the growth off when the
boat is up to speed.

The following year instead of re-painting, I simply put on a quick
'trowel' coat to fill in the areas that have 'roughened'. I only
repaint when I see a different color of ablative showing through the
top coat. You dont want ablative to become too thick as if it
becomes 'thick' has the tendancy to come off in 'chunks'.


BARNACLES
For barnacles on underwater metals, I spray on Pettit 'zinc rich
barnacle barrier' - spray can. The result is that I get 99% less
barnacles on my running gear, throughhulls, and over the bottom paint
thats over any metal thats connected to the bonding system and zincs,
etc. If I dont get an occasional barnacle on those painted over
underwater metals ... then I check my bonding system for 'open shorts,
corrosion, etc. in the bond system'