First they took the they want the paint! - Page 4 - SailNet Community
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #31 of 66 Old 03-26-2013
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 713
Thanks: 3
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Rep Power: 12
Re: First they took the they want the paint!

Originally Posted by JimPendoley View Post
There is a deafening absence of perspective here. I live on the Merrimac River which used to change colors daily depending on what factory was dumping upriver. Eagles were an historical memory and the water was unswimmable. The EPA that is being reviled here is the same EPA that cleaned up the water I swim in and the air I breath in today. Eagles soar the length of the river and nest a mile from my mooring. I for one don't aspire to an environment like the chinese are living in and I'm pleased with the stewardship we have shown as a nation for our natural resources. A lot has been accomplished by dedicated scientists and bureaucrats in the EPA. It might be nice to hear about the science behind the regulation before we condemn it.
Yeah, though it does affect me personally, at some point, someone has to stop dumping poison into the environment.

Everybody bitches that you can't buy a 2 stroke or a charcoal BBQ in Los Angeles, and forgets the simple fact that those regulations were brought in to fix a rather serious problem. It's true that the regs aren't applied equally, the solution to cars putting more copper into rivers than boats is not to let boats do 'whatever' the solution is to demand cuts to the real polluters as well.

And try to get a little perspective, it can always be worse: you cannot buy propane at all in Newport beach, not because of any environmental reasons but because the city has decided that it smells bad. McDonalds had to install a one-of-a-kind air filtration system in order to get building permits to remodel an existing restaurant because heaven forbid if a french fry odor my possibly waft by the Ferrari dealership.

Last edited by xymotic; 03-26-2013 at 10:01 AM.
xymotic is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
Sponsored Links
post #32 of 66 Old 03-26-2013
Old enough to know better
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Beacon, NY
Posts: 4,155
Thanks: 25
Thanked 177 Times in 173 Posts
Rep Power: 11
Re: First they took the they want the paint!

This is the same thing that people were screaming about in the auto industry. Yes there were a few years where the regulations were ahead of the technology, but the new paints are far better than before. VOCs would never have been removed from other land based paints if it was not required by regulations. I imagine we will have a few years of bottom paint that does not preform quite as well, but it will come around. Reports of the new bottom paint is promising. VOCs have been reduced if not removed from most other paints and everyone said it could not be done. Biggest issue is that most commercial work is done offshore anyway, so our regulations will not effect them.

I live on the Hudson River, and it has problems but we can swim in it again, and that would never have happened if it were not for the EPA and Pete Seeger. Regulations can work, much to Fox News dismay.
olson34 likes this.
miatapaul is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #33 of 66 Old 03-26-2013 Thread Starter
Senior Member
billyruffn's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,297
Thanks: 5
Thanked 28 Times in 19 Posts
Rep Power: 13
Re: First they took the they want the paint!

Originally Posted by JimPendoley View Post
There is a deafening absence of perspective here....It might be nice to hear about the science behind the regulation before we condemn it.
Content Warning: Now's the time to click off somewhere if you're easily bored by details. This is probably more than you'd every want to know about the impact of bottom paint VOCs on Mother Earth.

OK...a bit on the "science". (In truth, it's not really science...more like information).

The most harmful effects of VOCs concern indoor air quality, which is why you see all the warning labels on paint cans and the like about only using the product with "adequate ventilation". I don't think anyone has a problem with regulating indoor VOCs as it's clearly a hazard. In fact, I know a guy who died from liver failure after an overdose of VOCs on a home improvement project -- paint stripper, I think it was.

Seems the gears of governmental progress have now shifted to outdoor air quality, and, again, I have no problem with cleaning that up either. As Jim Pendoley mentioned in his post the good folks at EPA have done yeoman's work over the last 25-30 years fixing the air quality in the US. Most of the visible polution in the US is gone and what we have left is mostly what's known as "photochemical smog" --- the brown haze you see over a few large metro areas during the day when the air is still. When it occurs, it is almost always in and around very large cities. Most of the cities effected are in the developing world and, of course, California. You can google "photochemical smog" and see how truly ugly the stuff is.

So it's because of photochemical smog that the EPA gets involved.

From the EPA website:
Respirable Particles | Indoor Air | US Environmental Protection Agency

In the United States, emissions of VOCs to the outdoors are regulated by EPA mostly to prevent the formation of ozone, a constituent of photochemical smog. Many VOCs form ground-level ozone by “reacting” with sources of oxygen molecules such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight.
While I suppose ground-level ozone is one issue, apparently VOC's also contribute to photochemical smog because they react with nitrous oxides (NO and NO2) in the formation of something called peroxyacetyl nitrates (PAN). If you go to Photochemical Smog you can read all about it.

To save you some time, here's the meat of it:

Certain conditions are required for the formation of photochemical smog. These conditions include:

1. A source of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. High concentrations of these two substances are associated with industrialization and transportation. Industrialization and transportation create these pollutants through fossil fuel combustion.

2. The time of day is a very important factor in the amount of photochemical smog present. The following...illustrates the daily variation in the key chemical players...
  • Early morning traffic increases the emissions of both nitrogen oxides and VOCs as people drive to work.
  • Later in the morning, traffic dies down and the nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds begin to be react forming nitrogen dioxide, increasing its concentration.
  • As the sunlight becomes more intense later in the day, nitrogen dioxide is broken down and its by-products form increasing concentrations of ozone.
  • At the same time, some of the nitrogen dioxide can react with the volatile organic compounds to produce toxic chemicals such as PAN.
  • As the sun goes down, the production of ozone is halted. The ozone that remains in the atmosphere is then consumed by several different reactions.

3. Several meteorological factors can influence the formation of photochemical smog. These conditions include:
  • Precipitation can alleviate photochemical smog as the pollutants are washed out of the atmosphere with the rainfall.
  • Winds can blow photochemical smog away replacing it with fresh air. However, problems may arise in distant areas that receive the pollution.
  • Temperature inversions can enhance the severity of a photochemical smog episode. Normally, during the day the air near the surface is heated and as it warms it rises, carrying the pollutants with it to higher elevations. However, if a temperature inversion develops pollutants can be trapped near the Earth's surface. Temperature inversions cause the reduction of atmospheric mixing and therefore reduce the vertical dispersion of pollutants. Inversions can last from a few days to several weeks.

4. Topography is another important factor influencing how severe a smog event can become. Communities situated in valleys are more susceptible to photochemical smog because hills and mountains surrounding them tend to reduce the air flow, allowing for pollutant concentrations to rise. In addition, valleys are sensitive to photochemical smog because relatively strong temperature inversions can frequently develop in these areas.
If you read far enough in the above link you'll discover another interesting tidbit, specifically:

To begin the chemical process of photochemical smog development the following conditions must occur:
  • Sunlight.
  • The production of oxides of nitrogen (NOx).
  • The production of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
  • Temperatures greater than 18 degrees Celsius.
OK.....let's stipulate that all of the above is correct and that our bottom paint is a big, bad culprit in all this photochemical smog business. How about the following -- we agree to let the EPA regulate boat yard VOCs:
  • When the sun is shining, and
  • When the air temp is above 18C (approx 65 F), and
  • When the wind velocity is below 12 knots, and
  • When it's not raining, and
  • When the boat yard is in a valley and subject to temperature inversions, and
  • It's in the hours immediately preceeding and during morning rush hour.

Other times we should be free to varnish and paint away to our hearts content. Right?

You see, that's my stead of regulating something according to when and how the "science" says the problem is being created, government always seems to take the easy way out and just prohibit it's use an anywhere and at all times.

How's that for a little "perspective"?
kd3pc and flandria like this.

Last edited by billyruffn; 03-26-2013 at 07:01 PM.
billyruffn is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #34 of 66 Old 03-27-2013
Senior Moment Member
SloopJonB's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 13,061
Thanks: 90
Thanked 118 Times in 113 Posts
Rep Power: 6
Re: First they took the they want the paint!

Originally Posted by probwhite View Post
Absolutely Draconian and Bloombergian regulations. Total government nanny state intrustion. Where does it end?

It doesn't.

I, myself, personally intend to continue being outspoken and opinionated, intolerant of all fanatics, fools and ignoramuses, deeply suspicious of all those who have "found the answer" and on my bad days, downright rude.
SloopJonB is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #35 of 66 Old 03-27-2013
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 219
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rep Power: 7
Re: First they took the they want the paint!

All you guys who voted for Obama and his gang are going to continue paying the price.
Rick486 is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #36 of 66 Old 03-27-2013
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nantucket
Posts: 270
Thanks: 1
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Rep Power: 11
Re: First they took the they want the paint!

What we are actually paying for is the ignorance of the past and lack of disregard for the impacts we have made to the environment. If we do not start to minimize our environmental impact and find a balance then we will all have pollution problems. It is unfortunate that the government has to force our hand but that is because there are some who just do not care or are uneducated of their impacts and want to stay with tradition, just because it is a tradition using high VOC's in the products we use does not make it right. I think it is great the boatyard has to limit its VOC's and other pollutants. I think if you are upset by these regulations write/contact your legislators.
ambianceack is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #37 of 66 Old 03-27-2013
4KSB driver.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East Stroudsburg, PA
Posts: 2,201
Thanks: 11
Thanked 123 Times in 117 Posts
Rep Power: 10
Re: First they took the they want the paint!

None of this is surprising... I'll miss my copper based paints for sure. However, I have confidence that we'll find paints that will work as well or better.

We've just gone through this at work. We've removed all our VOC based adhesive additives from our products. Our Chemist is a downright genius, and has been working on the problem for about 10 years. He's now come up with a NON-VOC additive that works better.

While regulations stink, and are a stupid way to do things. I have confidence in the intelligence of our industry to work around this, and continue to make good product.

1983 WD Schock Wavelength 24. Production boat limit tester, blue-water bucket owner, with wine taste on a beer budget.
SHNOOL is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #38 of 66 Old 03-27-2013
Senior Member
tommays's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,304
Thanks: 1
Thanked 34 Times in 34 Posts
Rep Power: 9
Re: First they took the they want the paint!

This is what will happen

First copper is as benign as it gets and is used in so many places in direct contact with many of the foods you eat everyday and most all of the water you drink

The issue is it has shown up in the water column with the POSSIBILITY of doing something as there not completely sure

IF we change to ingredient X in fairly short order it will also show up in the water column much like most every medication you take already has
kd3pc likes this.

1970 Cal 29 Sea Fever

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1981 J24 Tangent 2930
Northport NY

If a dirty bottom slows you down what do you think it does to your boat
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
tommays is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #39 of 66 Old 03-27-2013
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Baytown Texas
Posts: 100
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Rep Power: 5
Re: First they took the they want the paint!

Kinda makes you wonder what bad effects the new non VOC paints may have on the environment. Sorta like the new wundekind hybrid cars. The manufacture of their batteries can be just as polluting as any normal ICE car. But the expense to produce them is much higher. Follow the money if you want to understand how stupid regulations get written. Don't get me wrong, I do believe regulations, when well written with an understanding of long term effects, are good. I have no fear of swimming in Galveston Bay now, I did 25 years ago. I've seen how regulations have made a difference. I hope there is much study going into these regulations and that they will be applied properly.

Tallswede is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook
post #40 of 66 Old 03-27-2013
Sea Sprite 23 #110 (20)
mad_machine's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Posts: 3,217
Thanks: 5
Thanked 69 Times in 60 Posts
Rep Power: 5
Re: First they took the they want the paint!

One only need look to China to imagine what this country would look like without the EPA. I will say this, they found a great way to kill of their overpopulation problem.

Personally, I think non or low VOC products are a great idea. Even if not regulated, I would use them. Sadly, they would have never come into being if not for regulation. So while the regulations may be applied with a large brush, they are done with good intent and will have the required result.. a cleaner earth for all of us to enjoy.

One thing people forget.. in my 40some years here on this planet, I can remember how much worse the pollution was, even here at the Southern Tip of NJ. Acid rain used to eat the paint on the cars, exhaust would make your eyes water, toilets that pumped directly overboard made the back bays a sesspool around the marinas, and all sorts of trash and worse used to wash up on the beaches.

There never was a "good old day" because believe it or not.. things were WORSE back then.. we just forget how much worse
SloopJonB and flandria like this.

Art Haberland

In the end all that matters is how fully you loved, how gently you lived, and how gracefully you let go of things that did not belong to you -Buddha


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mad_machine is offline  
Quote Quick Reply Share with Facebook

Quick Reply

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Paint Remover for anti-fouling paint cousineddy Gear & Maintenance 18 03-12-2016 05:50 PM
Don Casey: Paint Waterline Stripe with Bottom Paint asdf38 Gear & Maintenance 23 03-05-2016 07:50 PM
Paint thinner for soft ablative bottom paint jameswilson29 Gear & Maintenance 7 11-26-2012 01:56 PM
HVLP or Convential paint sprayer, & other paint equipment of choice patrscoe Gear & Maintenance 3 07-11-2011 12:46 PM
Engine: To paint or not to paint aluminum and bronze parts dennisvetter Gear & Maintenance 4 03-19-2011 11:06 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome