Iliade
Well-Known Member
Utter madness. What do they propose that we use as an antifouling agent? Sodium chloride? Oxygen? Carbon dioxide? DDT?
USA banning copper-based antifouling
- Thread starter Bobc
- Start date
Neeves
Well-Known Member
Unless they find a suitable alternative, and to date nothing works, smaller leisure vessels will simply migrate to somewhere without the restrictions where copper and its compounds (its not clear on this) are still accepted. Fuel usage and costs will soar.
The leisure marine facilities for 'smaller' vessels will find activity reduces, except those willing to power wash monthly, and the income stream will reduce.
The logic of allowing vessels over a certain size to continue to use copper defeats me.
Possibly, then, reality will sink in. Their smaller government vessels, police, fire search and rescue etc, smaller ferries are going to underline to authorities that until there is an alternative its simply unrealisitic.
Fortunately it will all pan out somewhere else first.
The leisure marine facilities for 'smaller' vessels will find activity reduces, except those willing to power wash monthly, and the income stream will reduce.
The logic of allowing vessels over a certain size to continue to use copper defeats me.
Possibly, then, reality will sink in. Their smaller government vessels, police, fire search and rescue etc, smaller ferries are going to underline to authorities that until there is an alternative its simply unrealisitic.
Fortunately it will all pan out somewhere else first.
LONG_KEELER
Well-Known Member
On the positive side, it may produce much better equipment to regularly clean recreational craft's bottoms.
As mentioned, commercial shipping is a mystery that can probably be answered as 'big shipping' is to 'big pharma' , the power of lobbying etc. Like tax on aviation fuel worldwide.
Recreational is always going to be an easy target particularly boating rather than agriculture where massive amounts of fertiliser/animal waste finds it's way into the rivers and seas creating many of the current problems. The rub is that most of the plant material grown is to feed animals and not humans.
As mentioned, commercial shipping is a mystery that can probably be answered as 'big shipping' is to 'big pharma' , the power of lobbying etc. Like tax on aviation fuel worldwide.
Recreational is always going to be an easy target particularly boating rather than agriculture where massive amounts of fertiliser/animal waste finds it's way into the rivers and seas creating many of the current problems. The rub is that most of the plant material grown is to feed animals and not humans.
Last edited:
PetiteFleur
Well-Known Member
Which I discovered a couple of years ago was actually rubbish antifouling on our boat on the River Deben. I've never had so much fouling when laid up in the autumn. I'll never use it again.
(tried to add a picture but couldn't find it!)
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
I've always thought it was zero? Don't they contain Copper Oxide, as opposed to copper which subsequently oxidises? Coppercoat is copper but that's not a paint.
ShinyShoe
Well-Known Member
1 mole of Cu2-O is 66g, So if you had a 25% Cu2-O paint (which looks to be as low as any might be, and might be useless!) has 21.9g Copper so ~22%.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Why does it need re-applied every ten years?
Aja
Well-Known Member
Just asking as the OP quoted:
"In 2011, Washington became the first state to adopt a no-copper paint rule. And from January 1 2018, no new recreational boat up to 65ft can arrive with copper on its hull and no copper can be sold or applied to a boat after January 1 2020."
Which stated copper rather than copper dioxide.
Donald
BelleSerene
Well-Known Member
Why not? It’s a paint and the law says
‘Beginning January 1, 2020, no antifouling paint containing more than 0.5 percent copper may be applied to a recreational water vessel in this state‘.
It may be stupid to lump non-eroding paints together with ones that leach into the water, but this law draws no such distinction.
I do notice that none of the three provisions in that law prevents you from antifouling your yacht in a neighbouring state and bringing her back - but that might be a long sail!
Orion Jim
Well-Known Member
Pardon if I am stating the obvious but the legislation is the product of the liberal whacko's in Washington State which is distinct and not to be confused with Washington D.C., as such it has no bearing beyond the borders of the State of Washington. The remaining 49 states still recognize common sense....
sgr143
Well-Known Member
Hmmm.. as other posts have asked, does this mean metallic copper or does it include copper in compounds (e.g. copper oxide)? Rather like the distinction between banning chlorine in your local chippy (good idea, death by poison gas not advised) and/or banning use of common salt (flavouring chips desirable though maybe medically suspect). I wouldn't put metallic sodium in my curry either, though I might add salt...
Serously, I think it's not clear in the extract from the regulation posted above; maybe further bits of the full legislation make it clearer.
[Edit: I now have read the full text of 70:300. Still not any clearer! It might be possible for a lawyer (for the defence of an offending vessel) to point out that copper oxide is not "copper" any more than rust is "iron" or limestone is "calcium"; after which the lawmakers would no doubt amend the regulation to include specific copper compounds to be banned, since that is what I'm pretty sure is their intent. ]
Last edited:
lw395
Well-Known Member
And it's handily out of the way on the wrong side of the continent, up North...
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Copper dioxide contains copper shock horror probe.
cf "tin-based antifouling" which did not contain metallic tin and "lead paint" which did not contain metallic lead.
vyv_cox
Well-Known Member
It is far from the best that we have used in the Med. We hauled out in Palma Mallorca, where the local agent persuaded us that this would be the ideal stuff for us, particularly as the price included delivery to the boat. It wasn't a disaster but nothing special.
We were living in The Netherlands when they introduced a similar ban (for mistaken reasons, as it turned out. Mass deaths of fish turned out to be due to industrial discharges, nothing to do with copper at all). Most people we knew just went to Belgium to have conventional antifouling applied there.
oldmanofthehills
Well-Known Member
As Bozlite has pointed out the legislation specifically mentions paint. Coppercoat is part of the gelcoat and no more eroding than the copper containing propeller or through hull fittings, thus coppercoat is ok.
savageseadog
Well-Known Member
Coppercoat is a paint when applied, a copper loaded epoxy paint, no mere semantics.
Don't get me wrong I think the ruling is a bad one but what are the facts regarding pollution by copper or copper compound anti-foulings?
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
As I asked before, if coppercoat is non-eroding, why does it need replaced after ten years?
bozlite
Well-Known Member
I found this article from Cruising World quite interesting: https://www.cruisingworld.com/how/phasing-out-copper-bottom-paint
Triassic
Well-Known Member
Is there more to the legislation than this? The way I read that there is nothing to stop cruising yachts that have copper based antifouling from visiting their ports so I'm not quite sure what all the fuss is about.
bozlite
Well-Known Member
No, that what I made of it, too. I think the newspaper quoted by the OP must have misinterpreted or sensationalised the implications. There certainly don't seem to be implications for visiting boats (nor, indeed, for boats already there - until they want to buy some antifoul).