gaylord694
Member
I find seajet quite sufficient
CopperCoat with weedkiller
- Thread starter Stingo
- Start date
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Welsh, was he?- but then he would occasionally end up in the tub with the sheep through poor practice
KevinV
Well-known member
YepWelsh, was he?
Daydream believer
Well-known member
harvey38
Well-known member
Chiara’s slave
Well-known member
I don’t think they had any input! Its kind of bottom polish for obsessed racers
gaylord694
Member
Very disappointing..........
sarabande
Well-known member
Gaylord
I am one of the few people on the forum trained and licensed to use herbicides, rodenticides, and other poisons in a commercial environment.
I am really weary of your repeated insinuations that there are options to turn e.g. Glyphosate into an adjuvant for anti-fouling. If you care to be more precise in your suggestions, I would be happy to discuss them openly with you on the forum, and would not hesitate to ask HSE to contribute to the discussion as well.
If you do not feel you can take up my offer, then stop making the suggestions that you can alter the antifouling recipes, or bring in AFs from other countries. That is illegal, and as you have demonstrated your indifference to, and ignorance of the testing and approval regimes that AFs are subject to in order to achieve best practice in use of Biocides, I suggest you review your continued contributions to this and other AF threads
Biocides regulation, supply and use - HSE
gaylord694
Member
Well sarabad you obviously haven't been keeping up on this topic... ....At no time have I said to use any pesticides or alter antifouling recipes,,merely pointing out pesticides are readily available.. ....If you feel so strong about pesticides then perhaps you should be getting on to the pesticide companies who should make it a lot more stringent .. Again
Well thankyou sarabad for your opinion ..
oldmanofthehills
Well-known member
Gaylord
you may not have intended it but merely suggesting that other treatments were available, when you knew they were illegal or improper in most regimes, did seem a but more than speculative and indeed a touch cavalier as could well be taken as encouragement.
Of course I am a mere systems safety engineer with a side interest in remediation of spoiled ground (thus rather anti-contamination) so probably a bit anal about it all
thinwater
Well-known member
The only good reason for the moderators to not summarily remove threads discussing illegal practices is so that people, such as Sarbande, can remind people that these practices are illegal, and so we're not going to do it!
Whether illegal practices are unethical and/or immoral will always generate a lot of wind. I'm not going to fan it.
I think it is also pretty funny that junior chemists think they can do better. Not likely.
gaylord694
Member
Well I'm sorry if I gave people the wrong idea I would of thought it pretty obvious not to meddle with pesticides I was merely responding to the first AF post about what is available it doesn't mean you have to go and do it !
Chiara’s slave
Well-known member
And yet you were the first to pitch in with how clean your mates boats were, due apparently to dosing their antifoul with additives. Though most people would know that was your fabrication.
gaylord694
Member
No not a MATE , someone in the boatyard ,a huge difference I would of thought and yes I was pointing out what he or she had done,, again doesn't mean you have to go and do it . ...If you'd care to take note I've said on various occasions I'm a strong advocate of seajet
Chiara’s slave
Well-known member
Then why keep on, and you certainly have kept on, suggesting that illegal US antifouls and commercial antifouls were ‘options’? And that it wasn’t illegal to use herbicides as additives. You certainly strongly 8nferred that with your emphatic statement that ‘they’re not illegal’, though no doubt you’ll say you only meant for their correct use. Your game plan is pretty obvious.
gaylord694
Member
Again you've not read the comments properly,just dived in, somebody said that pesticides were illegal to which I merely replied they were not as you can buy them off the shelf at Sainsbury's ...... On another note I did find the McDonald's joke rather funny obviously you didn't.... Hey ho there's a new year around the corner
thinwater
Well-known member
Re. US Antifouling paint.
California, Oregon, and Washington have adopted limits on copper leaching rates , as needed to maintain copper levels in some poorly flushed harbors, within background levels. The studies were rigorous and managed by very environmentally conscious groups. The result is that, like car in the US, even if the other 48 states do not agree, manufactures tend to come up with 50-state versions that meet these requirements. Thus, the US now has some of the most protective anti-fouling paint standards. The federal rules will probably follow, but that takes time. The new lower-leach paint formulas came out last year. The tests I referred to were on the new, controlled leaching paints.
Interestingly, they did NOT push for copper-free paints, out of concern that the alternative anti-foulants (pesticides) might be more dangerous than the devil they know. Copper and zinc, after all, are naturally occurring and they know lots about them. A new pesticide always raises new dangers that may not reveal themselves for decades. At least copper and zinc will not pose a risk to humans.
I think, for at least 20 years, the issue is settled in the US. The new rules will become federal and the paint manufacturers have formulations that work within the rules. Specifically, most of the 2-years paints were OK to start with, because they had to carefully control the leaching rate to last that long.
California, Oregon, and Washington have adopted limits on copper leaching rates , as needed to maintain copper levels in some poorly flushed harbors, within background levels. The studies were rigorous and managed by very environmentally conscious groups. The result is that, like car in the US, even if the other 48 states do not agree, manufactures tend to come up with 50-state versions that meet these requirements. Thus, the US now has some of the most protective anti-fouling paint standards. The federal rules will probably follow, but that takes time. The new lower-leach paint formulas came out last year. The tests I referred to were on the new, controlled leaching paints.
Interestingly, they did NOT push for copper-free paints, out of concern that the alternative anti-foulants (pesticides) might be more dangerous than the devil they know. Copper and zinc, after all, are naturally occurring and they know lots about them. A new pesticide always raises new dangers that may not reveal themselves for decades. At least copper and zinc will not pose a risk to humans.
I think, for at least 20 years, the issue is settled in the US. The new rules will become federal and the paint manufacturers have formulations that work within the rules. Specifically, most of the 2-years paints were OK to start with, because they had to carefully control the leaching rate to last that long.
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
AMEN!!!
And a further point is that if antifouling could be improved by recipes such as those suggested, they would already be in use. Antifouling is BIG business and a major economic concern for shipping, ports, oil and gas installations, wind farms, and pretty much ANY commercial marine installation. There is major research into it going on. Our end of the market is economically insignificant. If antifouling could be improved by adding readily available chemicals, they would already be used. @Refueler and others could, no doubt, put a value on the cost of replacing antifouling and the cost of reductions in speed caused by fouling; it must be an interesting balancing act for the managers of shipping. But the costs (including lost sea time) of both will run into 6 figure numbers for a single ship.; even a day of downtime has that sort of cost.
Antifouling is immensely complicated. Fouling organisms range over the entire tree of life - plants and animals with representatives of every major taxon beneath that. What is poison to one lot is food to another! And the biology of the biofilm (slime!) that is the substrate for all subsequent fouling is immensely complex, poorly understood, and variable from place to place.
The major difficulty is that effective substances (e.g. TBT) have been found to have major effects on marine ecosystems, threatening commercial fisheries and potentially entering the human food chain with disastrous results. I remember applying it in the 1950s/60s, and it wasn't nice stuff!. So an antifouling coating must not leach long-lasting substances into the environment; it must not cause genetic damage , and many other factors.
gaylord694
Member
Are you ok
AntarcticPilot
Well-known member
If you mean after applying TBT, the answer is yes - we wore gloves and took care!