ALSO!, that paint cant be too toxic as look at all the growth on ship bottoms. Tons of Marine growth right on top of the 'toxic' bottom paint. Most of the plume is organic
The average super tanker gas just over 1.9 tons if paint on it to get your figure you would gave strip the hull back to base metal Thus is way over top It might be a Marine growth removed might be this amount but not the paint usef
Really! 5 tons of coating? What did they do, strip it to bare metal. They are far worst results if you leave a dirty hull. How about huge increase in fossil fuel use because of a dirty hull and the resulting increase of emissions. Please do your research and try not to present only partial truths.
Just removing items which came from the sea, back to the sea. I am a greenie at heart, but i am intelligent enough not to make knee jerk reactions. These people are cleaning off the marine growth, not stripping off the antifoul. I bet the person complaining has no regard for where thier personal effluent ends up. Yes, in a river or ocean at some stage.
+BeeRich33 i life on a yacht, so i do know what is involved, including the fact you cont want your antifoul stripped back. The EPA regulated paints used. Greenie at heart means i can guarantee i have a carbon foot print less than the majority of people, and, i do what i can where i can. No, I am not a scientist. I do have two degrees and work in emergency medicine. Give me some credit for an opinion. what would be novel would be to have a comment of your OWN rather than commenting on other peoples comments. That is the function of a troll.
Terry Peake Sure. But hard facts are just that, which is part of being objective about a situation. If anything, this might be a nucleation point for a problem. Denying claims at this point is useless. Presenting "prove it" responses doesn't get anybody anywhere. This is not about people. This is about the presentation of a potential problem that's been recognized. Further investigation is needed, that's for sure. Until then, you and others have been the trolls. I'm just calling out how wrong those comments are, because they serve no use.
Agreed. Its like commercial shipping with water to set flotation levels. Where do we start with all these things? Chem trails, destruction of reeks, trawling for prawns causes huge damage. Islamification and social issues....so many issues that it's jard to pick a starting point. Desalination plants are far far worse than what is presented here. I guess i am guilty of getting involved in big issues where smaller ones seem to pale by significance.
Ive been finding jobs around south Florida that pay 30 per hour to clean under water parts of boats.. Sounds like a good trade to me someone else have opinions?
Dimitri D No problem: 0:30- The "foggy plumes" are not layers of hull coating being scrubbed off, as the video's subtitles indicate. It is the slime, silt and fouling growth being removed from the hull. Inaccurate statement. 0:47- "1 to 5 tons of biocidal coating are removed- per hull." Really? What ridiculous bullshit. Where is the study proving that little nugget? Just because the video states it as fact doesn't make it so. Unsupported claim. 1:10- "TBT releases can be predicted in such cases." So in the few cases where banned TBT paints have been sealed under newer coatings, it can be predicted that TBT releases will always occur? Says who? Further, this infers that the top coat will always be removed to the point of exposing the TBT. Bullshit. Unsupported claim. 1:45- "Many harbors will continue to have problems with TBT-contaminated sediment for many years." While this may be true, it has nothing to do with hull cleaning today, as TBT paints have been banned worldwide since 2008. Further, most seafaring nations do not allow vessels with TBT anti fouling paints to enter their harbors. This statement is a red herring. 1:57- "4 cleanings per day in a port X 1-5 tons = 4-20 tons of toxic coating residues." Again, a wild claim made with zero facts to back it up. Extrapolating from this, over 14.5 million pounds of toxins enter the harbors in question every year, from in-water hull cleaning alone, according to the video. Back it up with facts or it's complete bullshit, I say. Unsupported claim. 2:30- "Small diving companies in unregulated areas put divers at risk of injury or worse." Wait- I though the argument here was an environmental one. Now we're going to start railing about unsafe working conditions? OK, if that's the game, back it up. What unregulated areas? What small companies? Let's see some facts, not just more unsupported claims. This holds true for similar statements made at 2:40 and 3:01. 3:29- "Reclaim systems here which supposed capture pollutants are only cosmetic." Again, the video saying this does not make it true. Show us proof. Unsupported claim. 5:05- "The cocky approach common among small diving companies is also a concern." The video shows a crewman trying to wrangle in a piece of gear that is swinging around on a pitching workboat deck, the subtitle's inference being that he is playing around dangerously. This bit is blatent slander. Is that enough for you? The makers of the video obviously have an agenda against in-water hull cleaning of commercial shipping vessels. What they fail to mention is that the anti fouling paints these vessels are using leach their biocides into the water 24/7/365, whether they are being cleaned or not. In addition, while the video advocates for the restriction or elimination of in-water hull cleaning activities, no mention is made of how much additional fuel is consumed and air pollution caused by these vessels if they were made to operate with foul bottoms.
+Harbor Diving Services, LLC. Sure you can. Things are BS because he says so? If that is the case, where is your proof that you can't argue with him? So because you've provided no evidence, your comment is also void of any merit.
BeeRich33- maybe you didn't read my breakdown of this video's inaccuracies. If you did, I encourage you to show how any of my statements are incorrect.
Anti-fouling paint is, by definition, toxic - 'fouling' is simply a convenient description for some types of marine life. Anti-fouling paints are there to get rid of them. Tributyltin (TBT) was used everywhere until it was banned in 2008. It was banned because it was causing imposex (development of sex organs in contrast to the actual gender) in marine mollusks. There was evidence of it moving up the food chain. Current products mostly use copper-based compounds together with 'booster" biocides (some of which are banned from land use). Copper is far less effective than TBT at keeping ship hulls clean, so much more is used in the coatings - around 70% of the coating (by weight) is not uncommon. Ship operators generally consider copper-based anti-fouling to be the best of a bad job: it's not toxic enough to keep their hulls clean. On the other hand, it's certainly toxic enough in these quantities to cause considerable collateral damage. Underwater cleaning concentrates the problem of excessive copper contamination in a number of ways: - cleaning is done close to the shore, often in a bay where divers can be relatively safe. So the copper is concentrated in a small area and is not diluted into the wider sea. This is very true in the bay of Gibraltar / Algeciras. - aggressive cleaning with steel-tipped brushes is a necessary requirement to dislodge the unfortunate molluscs, barnacles, weeds and so on which have established themselves on the hull. They are remarkably tough and resilient. The steel-tipped brushes, like it or not, remove a lot of paint at the same time. Hulls with anti-fouling paint which have been cleaned several times can be seen at their next drydocking with little paint remaining. - 5 tons of copper is not an unrealistic estimate of the volume of copper released in this way. A container ship around 300 metres long and 32 metres wide, with a draft of 12 metres might have an antifouling surface area of more than 10,000 square metres. A lot of paint. - Copper antifouling is already restricted in some areas and there are serious attempts to curtail its use in others. Dangerous levels have been detected around marinas and, where research has been done, in bays such as Gibraltar /`Algeciras. There is much more to be said about the broader subject, but the specific issue of underwater cleaning in coastal areas is fairly simple. As with many marine pollution issues it is very easy for them to be out of sigh and thus out of mind. There are alternatives which don't produce this effect but can still keep ship hulls clean.. Marine Reports.
What a bullshit video unbelievable. 95% of the time there is no need for steel brushes. Using steel brushes means the fouling is severe. With modern brushkarts the pressure on the brushes is adjustable. But how can you know if you never used one.. Proper hull cleanings are done with our ROV hull cleaning unit and water treatment system.
Why can't we just go back to the days when we were all hunter/gatherers with a life expectancy of 35 years or so? Everything would be so much easier then and there would be so many fewer humans to disrupt the eco-systems. There, problem solved!
Opinions do not count. think ist through for just one minute. where do you wanna get all the wood from? trees? how long do you think a ship made of wood will survive without antifouling? despite the fact that it is impossible to build ships that big out of wood. Stop smoking weed an use your brain to really solve problems!
People rarely see what goes on beneath the surface of the water, so it's easily ignored. But it's a simple equation: anti-fouling coatings are composed of about 80% heavy metals and the strongest biocides the law will allow (it has to be strong to kill the remarkably tenacious barnacles and other 'fouling' marine life). A mid-sized commercial ship will have perhaps 10, 15 tons or more of this toxic material applied to the hull. When the ship returns to drydock after 5 years there's not much of it left. There's only place it can have gone: into the water. The heavy metals and chemical components sink to the seabed where they affect marine life that is vital to the ecosystem - how could they not?. Underwater cleaning carts mostly use suction pressure to stick the hull and need very aggressive brushes (including steel) to remove the growth. Of course they scrape off the anti-fouling at the same time, as is clearly visible in the video. The crazy thing is that there are other ways of dealing with the problem that don't involve dumping something like a million tons of biocides and heavy metals into the ocean every year. More detailed information available at www.wikigreen.net
wow good job video hull cleaning.
How about the dirt the been removed from the hull? Is there any environmental issue on that?
ALSO!, that paint cant be too toxic as look at all the growth on ship bottoms.
Tons of Marine growth right on top of the 'toxic' bottom paint.
Most of the plume is organic
agreed. As you may know, boats dont have thier coatings stripped as there would then be no protection. this is just removing the buildup on top.
I've seen fishing videos where you scrape barnacles off of pilings to attract fish. Bet the fish are biting good around those ships.
I bet the sheepshead bite like crazy
The average super tanker gas just over 1.9 tons if paint on it to get your figure you would gave strip the hull back to base metal
Thus is way over top
It might be a Marine growth removed might be this amount but not the paint usef
What is keeping it against the boat hull. Roller magnets. ???
vortex created by the spinning brushes
Really! 5 tons of coating? What did they do, strip it to bare metal. They are far worst results if you leave a dirty hull. How about huge increase in fossil fuel use because of a dirty hull and the resulting increase of emissions. Please do your research and try not to present only partial truths.
- good job
GREAT VIDEOS!!
What is the manufacturer of the machine?
looks like a fun job
Just removing items which came from the sea, back to the sea. I am a greenie at heart, but i am intelligent enough not to make knee jerk reactions. These people are cleaning off the marine growth, not stripping off the antifoul. I bet the person complaining has no regard for where thier personal effluent ends up. Yes, in a river or ocean at some stage.
+Terry Peake Uh, might want to read up on that one. You're no scientist. Greenie at heart? WTF does that mean?
+BeeRich33 i life on a yacht, so i do know what is involved, including the fact you cont want your antifoul stripped back. The EPA regulated paints used. Greenie at heart means i can guarantee i have a carbon foot print less than the majority of people, and, i do what i can where i can. No, I am not a scientist. I do have two degrees and work in emergency medicine. Give me some credit for an opinion. what would be novel would be to have a comment of your OWN rather than commenting on other peoples comments. That is the function of a troll.
+Terry Peake unable to edit my bad typos :) from this little phone.
Terry Peake Sure. But hard facts are just that, which is part of being objective about a situation. If anything, this might be a nucleation point for a problem. Denying claims at this point is useless. Presenting "prove it" responses doesn't get anybody anywhere. This is not about people. This is about the presentation of a potential problem that's been recognized. Further investigation is needed, that's for sure. Until then, you and others have been the trolls. I'm just calling out how wrong those comments are, because they serve no use.
Agreed. Its like commercial shipping with water to set flotation levels. Where do we start with all these things? Chem trails, destruction of reeks, trawling for prawns causes huge damage. Islamification and social issues....so many issues that it's jard to pick a starting point. Desalination plants are far far worse than what is presented here. I guess i am guilty of getting involved in big issues where smaller ones seem to pale by significance.
Ive been finding jobs around south Florida that pay 30 per hour to clean under water parts of boats.. Sounds like a good trade to me someone else have opinions?
God help me never get this job
So many inaccurate and unsupported statements here, it's hard to k ow where to begin.
why don't you just try...
Dimitri D No problem:
0:30- The "foggy plumes" are not layers of hull coating being scrubbed off, as the video's subtitles indicate. It is the slime, silt and fouling growth being removed from the hull. Inaccurate statement.
0:47- "1 to 5 tons of biocidal coating are removed- per hull." Really? What ridiculous bullshit. Where is the study proving that little nugget? Just because the video states it as fact doesn't make it so. Unsupported claim.
1:10- "TBT releases can be predicted in such cases." So in the few cases where banned TBT paints have been sealed under newer coatings, it can be predicted that TBT releases will always occur? Says who? Further, this infers that the top coat will always be removed to the point of exposing the TBT. Bullshit. Unsupported claim.
1:45- "Many harbors will continue to have problems with TBT-contaminated sediment for many years." While this may be true, it has nothing to do with hull cleaning today, as TBT paints have been banned worldwide since 2008. Further, most seafaring nations do not allow vessels with TBT anti fouling paints to enter their harbors. This statement is a red herring.
1:57- "4 cleanings per day in a port X 1-5 tons = 4-20 tons of toxic coating residues." Again, a wild claim made with zero facts to back it up. Extrapolating from this, over 14.5 million pounds of toxins enter the harbors in question every year, from in-water hull cleaning alone, according to the video. Back it up with facts or it's complete bullshit, I say. Unsupported claim.
2:30- "Small diving companies in unregulated areas put divers at risk of injury or worse." Wait- I though the argument here was an environmental one. Now we're going to start railing about unsafe working conditions? OK, if that's the game, back it up. What unregulated areas? What small companies? Let's see some facts, not just more unsupported claims. This holds true for similar statements made at 2:40 and 3:01.
3:29- "Reclaim systems here which supposed capture pollutants are only cosmetic." Again, the video saying this does not make it true. Show us proof. Unsupported claim.
5:05- "The cocky approach common among small diving companies is also a concern." The video shows a crewman trying to wrangle in a piece of gear that is swinging around on a pitching workboat deck, the subtitle's inference being that he is playing around dangerously. This bit is blatent slander.
Is that enough for you? The makers of the video obviously have an agenda against in-water hull cleaning of commercial shipping vessels. What they fail to mention is that the anti fouling paints these vessels are using leach their biocides into the water 24/7/365, whether they are being cleaned or not. In addition, while the video advocates for the restriction or elimination of in-water hull cleaning activities, no mention is made of how much additional fuel is consumed and air pollution caused by these vessels if they were made to operate with foul bottoms.
Can't argue with fstbttms..
+Harbor Diving Services, LLC. Sure you can. Things are BS because he says so? If that is the case, where is your proof that you can't argue with him? So because you've provided no evidence, your comment is also void of any merit.
BeeRich33- maybe you didn't read my breakdown of this video's inaccuracies. If you did, I encourage you to show how any of my statements are incorrect.
Anti-fouling paint is, by definition, toxic - 'fouling' is simply a convenient description for some types of marine life. Anti-fouling paints are there to get rid of them.
Tributyltin (TBT) was used everywhere until it was banned in 2008. It was banned because it was causing imposex (development of sex organs in contrast to the actual gender) in marine mollusks. There was evidence of it moving up the food chain.
Current products mostly use copper-based compounds together with 'booster" biocides (some of which are banned from land use). Copper is far less effective than TBT at keeping ship hulls clean, so much more is used in the coatings - around 70% of the coating (by weight) is not uncommon.
Ship operators generally consider copper-based anti-fouling to be the best of a bad job: it's not toxic enough to keep their hulls clean. On the other hand, it's certainly toxic enough in these quantities to cause considerable collateral damage.
Underwater cleaning concentrates the problem of excessive copper contamination in a number of ways:
- cleaning is done close to the shore, often in a bay where divers can be relatively safe. So the copper is concentrated in a small area and is not diluted into the wider sea. This is very true in the bay of Gibraltar / Algeciras.
- aggressive cleaning with steel-tipped brushes is a necessary requirement to dislodge the unfortunate molluscs, barnacles, weeds and so on which have established themselves on the hull. They are remarkably tough and resilient. The steel-tipped brushes, like it or not, remove a lot of paint at the same time. Hulls with anti-fouling paint which have been cleaned several times can be seen at their next drydocking with little paint remaining.
- 5 tons of copper is not an unrealistic estimate of the volume of copper released in this way. A container ship around 300 metres long and 32 metres wide, with a draft of 12 metres might have an antifouling surface area of more than 10,000 square metres. A lot of paint.
- Copper antifouling is already restricted in some areas and there are serious attempts to curtail its use in others. Dangerous levels have been detected around marinas and, where research has been done, in bays such as Gibraltar /`Algeciras.
There is much more to be said about the broader subject, but the specific issue of underwater cleaning in coastal areas is fairly simple. As with many marine pollution issues it is very easy for them to be out of sigh and thus out of mind.
There are alternatives which don't produce this effect but can still keep ship hulls clean..
Marine Reports.
What a bullshit video unbelievable. 95% of the time there is no need for steel brushes. Using steel brushes means the fouling is severe. With modern brushkarts the pressure on the brushes is adjustable. But how can you know if you never used one..
Proper hull cleanings are done with our ROV hull cleaning unit and water treatment system.
Why can't we just go back to the days when we were all hunter/gatherers with a life expectancy of 35 years or so? Everything would be so much easier then and there would be so many fewer humans to disrupt the eco-systems. There, problem solved!
Your brain must be really flat..
remove all the steel ship and replace with wood
All vessels, wood, stell, fibreglass etc all use antifoul.
Opinions do not count. think ist through for just one minute. where do you wanna get all the wood from? trees? how long do you think a ship made of wood will survive without antifouling? despite the fact that it is impossible to build ships that big out of wood. Stop smoking weed an use your brain to really solve problems!
People rarely see what goes on beneath the surface of the water, so it's easily ignored. But it's a simple equation: anti-fouling coatings are composed of about 80% heavy metals and the strongest biocides the law will allow (it has to be strong to kill the remarkably tenacious barnacles and other 'fouling' marine life). A mid-sized commercial ship will have perhaps 10, 15 tons or more of this toxic material applied to the hull. When the ship returns to drydock after 5 years there's not much of it left. There's only place it can have gone: into the water. The heavy metals and chemical components sink to the seabed where they affect marine life that is vital to the ecosystem - how could they not?. Underwater cleaning carts mostly use suction pressure to stick the hull and need very aggressive brushes (including steel) to remove the growth. Of course they scrape off the anti-fouling at the same time, as is clearly visible in the video. The crazy thing is that there are other ways of dealing with the problem that don't involve dumping something like a million tons of biocides and heavy metals into the ocean every year. More detailed information available at www.wikigreen.net
gosh. so many wrong statements in this video. you clearly have no clue of the subject.
but thanks for trying….
So much bullshit here. He is not stripping the anti-fouling. That is the last thing he wants to do.
How often do cruise ships and container ships clean their hulls