In article ,
"Steve Lusardi" wrote:

I have heard that cayenne pepper powder (the really hot stuff) mixed with
paint is a great help with barnacles. I assume this is used with ablative
paint, but have no personnal knowledge myself if this is true. Has anyone
else tried this?
Steve

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.

HTH

Marc

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
http://www.heusser.com

"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

In article s.com,
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote:
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.

You lack respect for other human beings to start with.
Then you seem to mistake modesty and caution for lack of knowledge or
experience.

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.

Then you continue to show no respect to other beings.

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.

On you go with your pseudoscientific brabble.
Man eg needs 2 micrograms of cobalamin per day - without that you will
die.
Yearly production of copper based paint in comparison to total ocean
volume is about the same 1e11 relation.
Which means the concentrations may well reach biologically active
levels, especially since distribution is not uniform.
Fish eg are well known to change from the antibaby-pills in the sewage.

Time for you, Marc, and all the
other environmentalist nut cases to get real with your irrationality.

If you had taken the time to search eg PubMed, you would have found
studies that prove you wrong. Try appropriate keywords and you will find
articles in Biofouling, Journal of industrial microbiology and
biotechnology, etc.
Try this eg:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...4938&cmd=showd
etailview
Plus: What has not yet been proven is not necessarily false, if you know
logic. Sometimes it is just lack of funds to conduct a study.

Global warming has been dismissed by some of the same arguments - by now
it is well proven.

I do not mind you get the facts wrong - and conclusions are debatable as
well.

I will not however continue your mud-slinging disrespect ill suited to a
generally helpful newsgroup.

Take care

Marc

--
remove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail
http://www.heusser.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:46:00 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Time for you, Marc, and all the
other environmentalist nut cases to get real with your irrationality.

Nearly always futile to challenge another's religion, Neal.


Yet you do it all the time... interesting.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

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

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)

"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

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)

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.