SailNet Community banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Bristol 45.5 - AiniA
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I will be doing a bottom paint job in a month or so and wonder what opinions people have of these paints. For what it is worth, we will be in the Caribbean until May and then heading north to temperate waters. The boat currently has Micron ablative from Australia.

  • Sea Hawk Islands 77
  • Blue Water Caribbean Gold
  • Interlux Pacifica Plus (this one does not have copper)
  • Interlux Trilux 33
  • Interlux Micron 66 (I assume this is close to what I have now)
  • Jotun Megayacht Imperial

Thanks
 

·
Master Mariner
Joined
·
9,225 Posts
Last year we hauled in Trinidad and asked the Power Boats recommended painter Alan, to put on what he had found to be the best mid range paint. We went with Sea Hawk 44 non-ablative. It lasted about 5 months without anything more than a bit of scum, but after that the barnacles began growing. Not heavily, but by the time we left Grenada for Trini this year, they were going to hinder performance a bit, so Nikki knocked them off, but really, it wasn't that bad.
Walking around the yard, talking to other boat owners, it seemed that the Sea Hawk 44 was the best available, even if it didn't completely live up to company hype. We went for it again, as there didn't seem to be anything better.
What seems the best, though certainly the priciest option, is the Coppercoat. Alan said he had seen it at ten or more, still doing well, and he is NOT an authorized agent! One boat did their bottom in Coppercoat and I gave them my email and asked for a status update in a year. We'll see. It sure is pretty!
Growing up in SF Bay, there were still many, many genuine coppered bottoms and that really did work. Only problem I saw was when one was near steel vessels, but that's to be expected.
I remember bottom paints that really worked, too. All this amazing progress in the 20th century and nobody can come up with an antifouling that does the job? Fiddlesticks.
 

·
Bill SV Rangatira
Joined
·
421 Posts
I will be doing a bottom paint job in a month or so and wonder what opinions people have of these paints. For what it is worth, we will be in the Caribbean until May and then heading north to temperate waters. The boat currently has Micron ablative from Australia.

  • Sea Hawk Islands 77
  • Blue Water Caribbean Gold
  • Interlux Pacifica Plus (this one does not have copper)
  • Interlux Trilux 33
  • Interlux Micron 66 (I assume this is close to what I have now)
  • Jotun Megayacht Imperial

Thanks
my vote is for the jotun but would be inclined towards the seaforce line
SeaForce 90 - fuel saving performance on a budget | Jotun
 

·
Bristol 45.5 - AiniA
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
My list was of the paint available from Island Water World in Grenada. Seemed like the easiest and cheapest way to go since they have an outlet at the Grenada Marine yard where the boat is.
 

·
Master Mariner
Joined
·
9,225 Posts
My list was of the paint available from Island Water World in Grenada. Seemed like the easiest and cheapest way to go since they have an outlet at the Grenada Marine yard where the boat is.
I just bought my Sea Hawk 44 from them, two weeks back. Ask Nicholas about getting some, if that's what you want. Alan here in Trini, who does upwards of 200 bottoms a year, many of the same ones each year, did not have any good words for Jotun, by the way. I'd heard good things about it, but I guess it's nothing special.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
113 Posts
I switched from Micron 66 to Pacifica Plus a few years ago, primarily for environmental reasons. With regular bottom scrubs, the bottom stays barnacle free - for the most part. Boat is kept in Chesapeake and gets sailed on a regular basis. If it was in warmer climate or was used less, I would probably go back to Micron 66. FWIW
 

·
Master Mariner
Joined
·
9,225 Posts
Been almost a a day and Fstbottoms isn't on here yet???? I think there is a special place in his heart for Seahawk 44....
I can't imagine how he would come into contact with Sea Hawk 44. It is a paint specifically formulated for tropical waters, which San Francisco Bay was not, when I sailed from there in 1970. But, with global warming and all, perhaps things have changed?
 

·
Freedom 39
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
I can't imagine how he would come into contact with Sea Hawk 44. It is a paint specifically formulated for tropical waters, which San Francisco Bay was not, when I sailed from there in 1970. But, with global warming and all, perhaps things have changed?
While it is true that he may not have had physical contact with 44, he is usually very quick to get on bottom paint threads. He actually seems to know quite a bit about them and their efficacy in the small area where he works. I'm very aware of the efficacy of 44 in the local waters and see many boats using it with good results. Until another less toxic formula is produced that works as well, it will probably continue to be a common choice in the area.
 

·
I don't discuss my member
Joined
·
2,678 Posts
While it has been a very long time since I've been asked to clean a tin-based paint, after 20 years and 20,000+ hull cleanings, there are few anti fouling products that haven't passed under my hands. Here in the Bay Area we get a fair amount of traffic coming from Mexico and points south.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
--you mean, 'asked to clean a tin-based paint THAT YOU KNOW OF,' right? 'cause they're not exactly going to admit to it once back in the US where TBT paint is not legal...

I think it might be a good idea to require that boats' bottom paints be monitored, just like holding tank installations etc
 

·
I don't discuss my member
Joined
·
2,678 Posts
--you mean, 'asked to clean a tin-based paint THAT YOU KNOW OF,' right? 'cause they're not exactly going to admit to it once back in the US where TBT paint is not legal...
I have been told by owners that they had a tin anti fouling paint and back when I was an ignorant noob, I can remember cleaning those paints. Today if anybody were to mention that to me, I'd refuse the job and probably call the Coasties on 'em.
 

·
Master Mariner
Joined
·
9,225 Posts
--you mean, 'asked to clean a tin-based paint THAT YOU KNOW OF,' right? 'cause they're not exactly going to admit to it once back in the US where TBT paint is not legal...

I think it might be a good idea to require that boats' bottom paints be monitored, just like holding tank installations etc
With all the pollution credits that big business uses to circumvent the realities of environmental pollution, are you really suggesting that some poor sailor who returns from the tropics with an illegal (in the US) antifouling paint, should have to haul, strip his hull and repaint to protect the environment?
Can't we be a little practical here and accept the fact that the antifouling paints on yachts can't possibly come close to the environmental damage the government (as in leaky sewage treatment plant spills, etc) and big business do each day? We always have been the 'fall guys' so that those in power can say they are doing something about cleaning up the environment, while their buddies and big business political supporters continues to pollute at a level that a zillion yachts couldn't match, by just buying 'credits' or even paying millions of dollars a day in fines.
We ain't even the tiniest part of the problem.
 

·
I don't discuss my member
Joined
·
2,678 Posts
...are you really suggesting that some poor sailor who returns from the tropics with an illegal (in the US) antifouling paint, should have to haul, strip his hull and repaint to protect the environment?
Umm... yes. If I can't use an illegal anti fouling paint here in the States, why should you be able to? The fact that you brought your boat in from somewhere else doesn't give you special dispensation.

We ain't even the tiniest part of the problem.
Not true. Tin-based anti fouling paints cause serious damage to the marine environment. Pleasure craft tend to congregate in large numbers in enclosed basins. Therefore pleasure craft contribute a lot of toxins in areas that frequently are poorly flushed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
perhaps mr capta did not want to go to the link I provided, therefore I quote:

"Toxicity[edit]
The effects of antifouling paint go beyond the organisms that it is meant to kill. By poisoning barnacles, algae, and other organisms at the bottom of the food chain TBT is biomagnified up the marine predators' food net. It has been shown to have a harmful effects on many layers of the ecosystem, affecting invertebrates and vertebrates, including humans. Toxic effects in some species occur at 1 nano-gram per liter of water.[7]

Bioaccumulation[edit]
Even with its ban, TBT still presents a danger to the environment. One of the most problematic aspects of TBT is its accumulation in sediments and its long half life of about 2 years. TBT often bonds to suspended material and sediments to the bottom, where it can remain and be released, for up to 30 years.[8] Additionally, TBT can be introduced into non-aquatic or marine ecosystems because dissolved TBT can evaporate into the air and be dispersed by rain.[6]

Invertebrates[edit]
TBT has been shown to impact invertebrate development. One of the most studied organisms are the stenoglossan gastropods, a marine shelled snail. TBT disrupts their endocrine system by inhibiting Cytochrome P450 molecule. Among its myriad functions, P450 converts androgen, which have male hormone properties to oestrogen, which have female hormone properties. This inhibition leads to masculinization in females, because the androgen levels are higher than normal. Since less fertile females are available for mating, the population begins to decline and seriously impacts the balance of the ecosystem.[7]

Chironomus riparius has been used as a model invertebrate to test the effects of TBT on development and reproduction at sublethal concentrations found in marine environments. It was found that only 0.05 ng ml− 1 range is enough to have developmental effects on their larvae, and 10-100 ng l−1 was enough to seriously offset the female to male ratio in the population. At 10 ng l−1 females were at 55.6% of the population and 85.7% at 100 ng l− 1. These results are interesting because unlike the masculinization of the stengoglassan gastropods, this experiment shows feminization.[6]

Vertebrates[edit]
Vertebrates become effected by the waters contamined with TBT as well as by consuming organisms that have already been poisoned. Oryzias latipes, commonly called Japanese rice fish, has been used as a model vertebrate organism to test for effects of TBT at developmental stages of the embryo. It was observed that developmental rate was slowed by TBT in a concentration-related manner and that tail abnormalities occurred.[7]

Illustrating the infiltration of TBT in the food chain, one study showed that most samples of skipjack tuna tested positive for presence of TBT. Tuna from waters around developing Asian nations had particularly high levels of TBT. Regulation of TBT is not enforced in Asia as rigorously as in Europe or US.[9]

Studies have shown that TBT is detrimental to the immune system. Research shows that TBT reduces resistance to infection in fish which live on the seabed and are exposed to high levels of TBT. These areas tend to have silty sediment like harbours and estuaries.[4]

TBT compounds have been described to interfere with glucocorticoid metabolism in the liver, by inhibiting the activity of the enzyme 11beta-hydroxysteroiddehydrogenase type 2, which converts cortisol to cortisone.[6]

Mammals[edit]
The main way that mammals are exposed to TBT, especially humans, is through the diet. Its effects are more difficult to study, but some correlations have been established.

TBT has been shown to lead to immunosuppression in mammals such as sea-otters and dolphins. Studies have shown that wild, dead sea otters (Enhydra lutris) and stranded bottlenose dolphins can have extremely high levels of tributyltin in their livers.[10] In addition, it was found that otters dying of infectious causes tend to have higher levels of tissue butyltins than those dying of trauma or other causes.[11] TBT has also been blamed by hearing experts for causing hearing loss in mammalian top predators such as toothed whales. Because hearing is important for mating and predetation in these animals, long term consequences could be a drastic.[12][13]

In humans, organotin compounds have been detected both in blood and the liver.[1] Studies have linked Tributyltin to developmental abnormalities and obesity. There are studies indicating that it stimulates the endocrine system by activating retinoid X receptor. (RXRS).[14]

Regulation[edit]
TBT compounds are banned and are included in the Rotterdam Convention[15] and have been banned by the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships of the International Maritime Organization.[4]

Bans on TBT on boats less than 25 metres long first started in the 1980s. In 1990, the Marine Environment Protection Committee adopted Resolution MEPC 46(30), which recommended that the Government eliminate the use of TBT-containing antifouling paints on smaller vessels. This resolution was intended to be a temporary restriction until the International Maritime Organization could implement a complete ban of TBT anti-fouling agents for ships. Several countries followed with a ban of use, and in 1997 Japan banned the production of TBT-based anti-fouling paints.[4]

The use of organotin compounds acting as biocide in anti-fouling paint was completely banned in 2008 by the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships of the International Maritime Organization.[4] It states that ships cannot bear organotin compounds on their hulls or external parts or surfaces unless there is a coating that forms a barrier so that organotin compounds cannot leach out. This measure helps reduce exposure by allowing recovery to occur. Despite the ban, TBT will most likely be present in the water column and sediment for up to twenty years because of its long half-life.[1]

Violations of the ban on TBT[edit]
Even though banned, TBT anti-fouling paints ae still being used in countries with poor regulation enforcement, such as countries in the Caribbean.[16] TBT can remain in the ecosystem for up to 30 years.[8]"
 

·
Master Mariner
Joined
·
9,225 Posts
Fstbttms;2351754]Umm... yes. If I can't use an illegal anti fouling paint here in the States, why should you be able to? The fact that you brought your boat in from somewhere else doesn't give you special dispensation.

Oh, so it's all about if I can't you can't to you, huh? I guess that kinda shows us where you really stand on the environment.

Quote; Not true. Tin-based anti fouling paints cause serious damage to the marine environment. Pleasure craft tend to congregate in large numbers in enclosed basins. Therefore pleasure craft contribute a lot of toxins in areas that frequently are poorly flushed.[/quote]

Wow, and commercial pollution is once again ignored and we are responsible for all the ills in the seas? If the areas are poorly flushed, wouldn't it make more sense to redesign those areas instead of requiring us to use ineffective antifoulings, just so guys like you can have a business? And folks, I don't even find the Sea Hawk 44 non-ablative to be that good a paint, it just seems to be the best available, where I am.
I would love an environmentally friendly antifouling paint, but there just aren't ANY effective antifouling paints on the market it seems, legal or otherwise.
But until the massive pollution by big business and government agencies are stopped, I am not going to feel any guilt at all about my use of a paint that gives me a few months without having to scrub my bottom.
 

·
I don't discuss my member
Joined
·
2,678 Posts
Wow, and commercial pollution is once again ignored and we are responsible for all the ills in the seas? If the areas are poorly flushed, wouldn't it make more sense to redesign those areas instead of requiring us to use ineffective antifoulings, just so guys like you can have a business? And folks, I don't even find the Sea Hawk 44 non-ablative to be that good a paint, it just seems to be the best available, where I am.
I would love an environmentally friendly antifouling paint, but there just aren't ANY effective antifouling paints on the market it seems, legal or otherwise.
But until the massive pollution by big business and government agencies are stopped, I am not going to feel any guilt at all about my use of a paint that gives me a few months without having to scrub my bottom.
So let me get this straight. The points of your argument are:

1.- Rather than make boaters follow existing laws, every small boat harbor on the planet should be "redesigned" to so that you can continue to use a product that has been proven to be one of the most damaging poisons ever introduced into the marine environment.

2.- You do not feel compelled to help protect the marine environment in any way, because "big business and government agencies" continue to pollute. Never mind that governments implemented the ban on tributyl tin paints and that virtually no commercial vessels use it anymore.

Talk about selfish. Un-friggin'-believable. :rolleyes:

Here's my position- sailors should try to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. It's pretty clear where you come down on this issue, however.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top