Ultrasonic Antifouling??

[ahalfon]

Sounds bogus to me; does anyone have a more substantiated opinion?
Ultrasonic Antifouling - Boat Hull Protection by CleanABoat.com

[Fstbttms]

Sailing forums all over the internet have threads just like this one, where someone says, "This sounds too good to be true." Virtually every response will be, "If it sounds to good to be true, it is." If ultrasonic anti fouling systems worked (and they have been around for years), you would see them in use in your marina, or you would know somebody who had one, or you would see them for sale on chandlery shelves etc., etc. But the fact is; nobody has one, nobody has seen them in action and you can't buy them except online. Oh, the proponents will tell you how well they work and that they have one keeping a test boat spotless in Thailand or some such far-flung place, but the truth is; there is no real data showing that these things are effective and no examples working in the real world that you can inspect.

Caveat emptor.

[SlowButSteady]

These gizmos have been around, in one form or another, for a decade or two now. Don't you think that IF they worked there would be plenty of examples of boats happily humming away with clean, smooth bottoms in every marina?

Also, out here in California, various agencies have been trying to find alternatives to copper-based bottom paints for some time now. Some folks (official and otherwise) are even predicting that coper-based paints will be banned in CA in not too many years. If ultra-sonic anti-fouling worked, the state of California (and, no doubt, some other states) would be all over it -- GUARANTEED.

[Fstbttms]

Originally Posted by SlowButSteady

Some folks (official and otherwise) are even predicting that coper-based paints will be banned in CA in not too many years.

FYI (and not to hijack the thread)- SB 623, currently before the state senate, would ban copper in anti fouling paints in California beginning 2015. Stay tuned.

[knotted]

A quick read of the referenced website turned up this gem (on Ultrasonic Antifoul Protection, How does it work? | Ultrasonic Antifouling - Boat Hull Protection by CleanABoat.com ), which I think says it all:

We do suggest that Antifouling your vessel is still a good idea to provide additional protection however this coating may be performed at extended intervals, 3-5 years is to be expected.

We do need an alternative to chemical poison based anti-fouling bottom coats, most likely by 2015. Is anyone thought to be developing anything with potential to be effective?

[SlowButSteady]

Originally Posted by Fstbttms

FYI (and not to hijack the thread)- SB 623, currently before the state senate, would ban copper in anti fouling paints in California beginning 2015. Stay tuned.

I had not heard of that. But, I'm not terribly surprised ether. The EPA has been making noises about copper, via the Clean Water Act, for some time now.

I'm actually of two minds re: copper in antifouling paints. On one hand it is an environmental toxin; that's why it works. In a perfect world I would be all for stopping its use in bottom paints.

However, and I say this as an over-educated Marine Biologist, I've yet to see a detailed analysis of the environmental effects of copper toxicity. Also, copper is not nearly as problematic as organic tin, lead, or mercury. Yet, if you look at the text of SB623, it infers that copper is in the same league as those (actually, it doesn't specifically mention tin, but the TBT fiasco is where this all started).

Existing law regulates various substances in products, like lead,
copper, and mercury, that can lead to public health issues when
introduced into the environment.
This bill, on and after January 1, 2015, would make it unlawful to
manufacture, sell, or distribute in commerce in California marine
antifouling paints that contain copper. The bill would require
manufacturers to use the least toxic alternative when replacing the
copper in marine antifouling paint.

Virtually all such legislative/rhetorical treatments do the same thing, so this bill isn't unique in that respect.

I suspect that if a ban on copper is implemented, it won't be by 2015, and it will have exemptions for commercial boats, at least in the short term (much like the TBT ban).

[Fstbttms]

Originally Posted by SlowButSteady

However, and I say this as an over-educated Marine Biologist, I've yet to see a detailed analysis of the environmental effects of copper toxicity.

I am not sure that a detailed analysis such as you describe exists for California's coastal waterways. But ultimately, that is unimportant. The federal govenment has determined what are acceptable levels for copper in the water column and many of California's waterways exceed that (most notably San Diego Bay, Newport Bay and Marina del Rey.) Therefore, it is incumbant upon the state to bring any body of water exceeding the federally-madated copper levels into compliance. Most recently this has been attempted through a pollution discharge permit for boaters (much like boatyards are required to carry) and the Coastal Marina Permit program, both of which are monumentally bad ideas and have been tabled, at least for now.

In San Diego's Shelter Island Yacht Basin for instance, copper levels need to be reduced by something approaching 75%. This is not going to happen by regulating hull cleaners (as the Port of San Diego is in the process of doing) or simply encouraging boaters to use non-copper anti fouling alternatives. It is only going to be achieved by the elimination of copper in anti fouling paint. It's a no-brainer and as a hull cleaner, I welcome it.