Banned antifouling paint in the US

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Greetings,
Re: Post #58. My question should have been directed to Mr. fst, NOT Mr. OC. I got my divers mixed up.

In any case, I now have my answer courtesy of an off site expert and I quote... " The IMO (international maritime organization) has banned the use of TBT paints for about 15 years or so. Testing for it is very simple, the port state control inspector (USCG and or CBP in our case) simply rubs a hand held device called an X-ray fluorescence detector(XRD)...on the side of the hull and it instantly displays the metal content of the paint."


It would seem that contamination from a "US warship upstream" would hold little credibility in court...Hmmmm....
 
fstbttms said:
Except that one boats paint can't "contaminate" another's. Oh yeah, and the U.S. Navy doesn't use tbt paints. But why let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good, unhinged anti-American rant? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No anti-American rant from me. I have been cruising your beautiful country for decades and been treated exceptionally well everywhere. I'm just trying to point out how silly it is to expect that the thousands of vessels coming into your waters every year will be (or could be) individually tested. I can see them stacked up at customs for weeks while they wait for the lab tests to come back .... ain't gonna happen !
 
RT Firefly said:
the port state control inspector (USCG and or CBP in our case) simply rubs a hand held device called an X-ray fluorescence detector(XRD)...on the side of the hull and it instantly displays the metal content of the paint."


It would seem that contamination from a "US warship upstream" would hold little credibility in court...Hmmmm....
Click to expand...


I dealt with lead inspectors when we were rebuilding our apartments. Their X-ray fluorescence detectors cost $25,000. So now harbormasters are going to be equipped with them? I doubt it.
 
Greetings,
Mr. fs. $25K? Chump change. They only would have to find and fine ONE boat and the instrument is paid for.

If you'll note the ex-patrol vessel for sale in the "Interesting boats" thread (Post # 4085) that cost $5.5 million and then scrapped I think you'll agree that $25K is nothing plus someone would have a new toy to play with...
 
twistedtree said:
And sure enough, Seahawk 44 is 10-25% Tributyltin, and advertised as the only TBT (Tributyltin) based paint available on the market.
Click to expand...

I had understood that Seahawk 44 is made in the US.
 
RT Firefly said:
Greetings,
Mr. fs. $25K? Chump change. They only would have to find and fine ONE boat and the instrument is paid for.

If you'll note the ex-patrol vessel for sale in the "Interesting boats" thread (Post # 4085) that cost $5.5 million and then scrapped I think you'll agree that $25K is nothing plus someone would have a new toy to play with...
Click to expand...



HOW CORRECT YOU ARE!!! That is why our Country faces a 20 trillion dollar debt THAT COULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO REPAY.

Yes, d a m n the dollars, just spend, spend spend. Why do you think Donald won last November?
 
Bay Pelican said:
I had understood that Seahawk 44 is made in the US.
Click to expand...

It is made in the U.S., in Florida. But it is not legal to sell or use in this country. Not that that didn't stop them from trying. In fact, Seahawk's owner and executives did prison time a couple years ago for that very crime.
 
fstbttms said:
It is made in the U.S., in Florida. But it is not legal to sell or use in this country. Not that that didn't stop them from trying. In fact, Seahawk's owner and executives did prison time a couple years ago for that very crime.
Click to expand...
I've heard the story, I don't think it was that cut and dry.
 
Here is the article with the details.

https://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2014/12/sea-hawk-paints-executives-prison-terms-banned-coating-case/

I just have to say, not the kind of company I would ever choose to do business with.

Back to the original issue, if I were purchasing a boat with 44 on it and planning on bringing that boat to the US, then I would repaint first. You wouldn't likely get caught entering but when you did need to repaint, you'd be putting yourself and a shipyard in a serious predicament. At least one shipyard I know of would not touch it. There is also that issue of detection. While the odds of a problem may be extremely low, the cost of one would be extremely high.

It's a popular paint in the Eastern Caribbean, but the reviews on it are very mixed. There are now two versions, both ablative, but one harder than the other. The softest one is known for flaking off badly and the harder one apparently some better but still many talk about issues with it.

There are plenty of other paints, that it seems like an unwise route even where legal.
 
mbevins said:
I've heard the story, I don't think it was that cut and dry.
Click to expand...

Umm... yeah it was. When the U.S. adopted the tbt ban, Seahawk was given a timeline by which they had to stop selling tin-based paints in this country. Seahawk intentionally misled their customers about how long they were allowed to do this and doctored their books to make the feds think they had complied with the law when in fact they hadn't. The company paid millions in fines and the entire upper management went to prison.
 
Last edited:
Field test kits are used for all kinds of things...

I can't say for bottom paints, but not improbable that a 2 dollar test kit couldn't be made available for field officers.
 
fstbttms said:
Umm... yeah it was. When the U.S. adopted the tbt ban, Seahawk was given a timeline by which they had to stop selling tin-based paints in this country. Seahawk intentionally misled their customers about how long they were allowed to do this and doctored their books to make the feds think they had complied with the law when in fact they hadn't. The company paid millions in fines and the entire upper management went to prison.
Click to expand...

What is your best recommendation stay-clean and long lasting of BP; for, 2017:

1. Fresh water

2. Salt water
 
Art said:
What is your best recommendation stay-clean and long lasting of BP; for, 2017:

1. Fresh water

2. Salt water
Click to expand...

If your boat is used in both fresh and saltwater, my recommendation is Pettit Trinidad.
 
fstbttms said:
If your boat is used in both fresh and saltwater, my recommendation is Pettit Trinidad.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your answer.

Depending on time of life... Our boat are either 100% of the time in 100% fresh or 100% salt water. For last 8 yrs. and foreseeable future we are in 100% fresh, 100% of the time. Would you still recommend Pettit Trinidad?
 
Art said:
Thanks for your answer.

Depending on time of life... Our boat are either 100% of the time in 100% fresh or 100% salt water. For last 8 yrs. and foreseeable future we are in 100% fresh, 100% of the time. Would you still recommend Pettit Trinidad?
Click to expand...


Absolutely.
 
fstbttms said:
All other considerations aside, most boaters aren't douchebag enough to use this horrible poison. Some of us actually care about our impact on the marine environment. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Yeah, and California has too many green douchebags out there where I wish they would stay. Consider how your farmers are getting screwed because eco terrorists want to protect a 3" smelt which is now bait for stripped bass. They don't give a damn about the families suffering from loss of employment because farms are now going the way of the smelt.

Don't lecture me about your Utopian goals. :banghead:
 
foggysail said:
Yeah, and California has too many green douchebags out there where I wish they would stay. Consider how your farmers are getting screwed because eco terrorists want to protect a 3" smelt which is now bait for stripped bass. They don't give a damn about the families suffering from loss of employment because farms are now going the way of the smelt.

Don't lecture me about your Utopian goals. :banghead:
Click to expand...

Those who can't make a salient argument deflect. :lol:
 
foggysail said:
Yeah, and California has too many green douchebags out there where I wish they would stay. Consider how your farmers are getting screwed because eco terrorists want to protect a 3" smelt which is now bait for stripped bass. They don't give a damn about the families suffering from loss of employment because farms are now going the way of the smelt.

Don't lecture me about your Utopian goals. :banghead:
Click to expand...

Hey, hey... I have to side with fstbttms on this... in so far as only ecosystem compatible bottom paint should be used on boats. Not the old school very-poisonous types of yesteryear; even if they deter growths better.

foggysail - We're all in this together on planet Earth. And, (considering pleasure boating collectively as an organization), if we ask other organizations having things such as polluting car emissions, plane emissions, ocean liner emissions, land based septic-treatment plants, coal fired electrical plants, concrete manufacturers... and on and on to stop polluting (which they must or earth's ecosystem will eventually be ruined) then our "Pleasure and Commercial Boating Organization" must as best we can stop polluting too.

One easy way to help curb pollution from the boating industry is to use non polluting bottom paints - that is plain and simple! :thumb:
 
Last edited:
Art-- the entire tin topic is moot! Tin based paints are not available in this country at least that I am aware of. Fastbottom got carried away when I pulled his chain suggesting that he would be out of work if tin based paints were available. So he responded in frustration suggesting that those objecting to his outlook were douchebags!

A case can be made for all metals being hazardous to life. Trade offs should be made where risks vs benefits are considered. This is a major problem today with the EPA that hopefully will get corrected. Consider many dry gullies that flood during heavy rains were being subjected by the EPA to the clean water act which applies by law to navigational waters. OK, this is a different topic but my reason for presenting it is to illustrate how wacky decisions are made without a careful risk/benefit tradeoff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
foggysail said:
Art-- the entire tin topic is moot! Tin based paints are not available in this country at least that I am aware of. Fastbottom got carried away when I pulled his chain suggesting that he would be out of work if tin based paints were available. So he responded in frustration suggesting that those objecting to his outlook were douchebags!

A case can be made for all metals being hazardous to life. Trade offs should be made where risks vs benefits are considered. This is a major problem today with the EPA that hopefully will get corrected. Consider many dry gullies that flood during heavy rains were being subjected by the EPA to the clean water act which applies by law to navigational waters. OK, this is a different topic but my reason for presenting it is to illustrate how wacky decisions are made without a careful risk/benefit tradeoff.

It is favorable to environmentalists to object to anything that presents the slightest health risk. In the meantime we still have millions dying from the perils of society that include street peddled illegal opiates to legal cigarettes. I venture to guess that these substances have far greater negative impact on society in general than ANY marine antifouling paint. Maybe environmentalists are banging the wrong drum!
Click to expand...

I think you have emphasis on the wrong syl-a-ble. In that... opiates and cigarettes do not too much [but somewhat do] hurt the environment, in general... but they can [too often do] kill the user. For the user that is just too bad - but it's their own fault! So... good by to each user.

However, environmentally toxic substances [poisons] can [do] kill off sectors of needed ecosystem parts and portions... therefore ruining things for innocent non users.

So, we all should do our best to protect Earth... as best we can. Believe me I'm no saint, but I do remain as conscious as possible about poisons to air, water, land..
 
foggysail said:
Tin based paints are not available in this country ....
A case can be made for all metals being hazardous to life.
Click to expand...

Calling Tributyltin "tin based" and equating it to other metals is like calling sulfuric acid "oxygen based" and equating it to breathing fresh air. It just shows a real lack of understanding.
 
Foggysail, if you'd like to have an intelligent conversation about our west coast estuary ecosystem, please PM me. I think there's a lots going on here that you don't understand or have been mislead about.

The Delta Smelt to which you refer have coexisted with salmon, sturgeon and other fishes in this system for hundreds if not thousands of years. Striped bass were introduced in the late 1800's after the completion of the intercontinental railway. They have thrived together for over 100 years until recently. The significant population drop in all these species coincides precisely with the water exportation increase to the corporate farmers in CA. (Don't let those guys fool you....they are VERY BIG business.)

It's been frequently said that the delta smelt are a harbinger species...the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Vast exports of the fresh water and the heavy pump suction needed causes reversing of some nearby rivers. This causes huge losses for the smelt and other species which cannot survive the loss of fresh water (too salty) or current and perish in the pumps. They require a narrow temp and salinity band for survival during early stages of life.

Once they go, many more species will follow. If the Gov gets his way and constructs huge tunnels to divert the freshwater from the delta before it gets to the rivers and sloughs, it will become a saltwater swamp. Much has been improved environmentally in the SF Bay and CA Delta throughout the last couple of decades but there's much left to correct.
 
Last edited:
twistedtree said:
Calling Tributyltin "tin based" and equating it to other metals is like calling sulfuric acid "oxygen based" and equating it to breathing fresh air. It just shows a real lack of understanding.
Click to expand...

Gosh, too bad we all aren't chemists like you, 'cause I guess you know more than the paint manufacturer.

Seahawk's product description of Islands 44:

"Self-cleaning copolymer with high load of tin (TBT)"

https://www.seahawkpaints.com/product/islands-44-plus/


Product description of their tbt additive:

"Sea Hawk Tin Booster is a straight tin-based binder loaded with tin. Its high strength will add an extra kick to any tin-based antifouling."

https://www.seahawkpaints.com/product/tin-booster/
 
Last edited:
fstbttms said:
Gosh, too bad we all aren't chemists like you, 'cause I guess you know more than the paint manufacturer.

Seahawk's product description of Islands 44:

"Self-cleaning copolymer with high load of tin (TBT)"

https://www.seahawkpaints.com/product/islands-44-plus/


Product description of their tbt additive:

"Sea Hawk Tin Booster is a straight tin-based binder loaded with tin. Its high strength will add an extra kick to any tin-based antifouling."

https://www.seahawkpaints.com/product/tin-booster/
Click to expand...

I'm no chemist, but just read the wiki article. Yes, it appears common to call it tin-based, but it's totally different from mixing copper into a paint. Seahawk SDS sheet for the product lists the contents. There is no tin as a separate component. Just Tributyltin which happens to include tin atoms, just like sulfuric acid contains oxygen atoms.
 
fstbttms said:
Gosh, too bad we all aren't chemists like you, 'cause I guess you know more than the paint manufacturer.

Seahawk's product description of Islands 44:

"Self-cleaning copolymer with high load of tin (TBT)"

https://www.seahawkpaints.com/product/islands-44-plus/


Product description of their tbt additive:

"Sea Hawk Tin Booster is a straight tin-based binder loaded with tin. Its high strength will add an extra kick to any tin-based antifouling."

https://www.seahawkpaints.com/product/tin-booster/
Click to expand...

Wow! That's some heavy duty sounding bottom paint... and, its "tin-booster" additive.
 
Seahawk 44 is a popular paint here in the English speaking islands of the eastern Caribbean.

I used a US approved bottom paint for nine years in US harbors. Very satisfied. Once I got south of St. Martin I found I needed to clean the bottom every couple of weeks even though we were moving and at anchor.

The various sea creatures here are very aggressive in attaching to and growing on any surface. If you stay in a marina you will suffer extensive growth.
 
Art said:
Hey, hey... I have to side with fstbttms on this... in so far as only ecosystem compatible bottom paint should be used on boats. Not the old school very-poisonous types of yesteryear; even if they deter growths better.

foggysail - We're all in this together on planet Earth. And, (considering pleasure boating collectively as an organization), if we ask other organizations having things such as polluting car emissions, plane emissions, ocean liner emissions, land based septic-treatment plants, coal fired electrical plants, concrete manufacturers... and on and on to stop polluting (which they must or earth's ecosystem will eventually be ruined) then our "Pleasure and Commercial Boating Organization" must as best we can stop polluting too.

One easy way to help curb pollution from the boating industry is to use non polluting bottom paints - that is plain and simple! :thumb:
Click to expand...


Whoa, big boy, Let's not get ourselves carried away. :rolleyes:

The cause of pollution on this earth is humans. Get rid of the humans and the planet will survive just fine!

Oh, you think that's a bad idea? OK then, we have to balance pollution with humans and their activities. It seems pretty ironic for a guy who buys a boat made out of petrochemicals and burns fossil fuel to take him back and forth to places he doesn't need to go to be complaining about people's septic systems and so forth. Maybe you should trade your trawler in on a sailboat. Or better yet, a kayak.

If we're not going to get rid of the humans, we should minimize pollution. We can't eliminate it. We can't stop burning coal or making concrete without drastically changing our lifestyle. And if we continue to have recreational boating, we must continue to use effective bottom paints. Maybe someday there will be a bottom paint or treatment that causes no harm to the environment but since what we are trying to do with our bottom paint is prevent growth which is part of the environment, that's going to be pretty difficult to do.

And we can't control what other people do. The fact that tin based bottom paints are legal in other parts of the world is proof of that.

Personally, I'm not one to sneak illegal bottom paint into this country but I will continue to use the most effective legal products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Painting over painted teak?
Replies
3
Views
424
RT Firefly
RT Firefly
BrentwoodBayliner
Ultrasonic antifouling
2 3
Replies
65
Views
8K
Wdeertz
Wdeertz
M
Help - Paint Blistering
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Finestkind
F
Nick14
Interlux VC bottom paint?
Replies
6
Views
584
Nick14
Nick14
JDCAVE
Bottom Paint Update
Replies
21
Views
3K
Bmarler
B

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom