a) Leaded aviation fuel, an absolutely KNOWN hazard, has been given a pass for literal DECADES.
b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban the sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather in the old planes.
c) Ban the sale of leaded gas to fill planes with changes in registrations after 1/1/2023.
d) Ban the sale of leaded gas period after 1/1/2025.
Industry has been given (more) than enough time to solve this - and does not care.
I live near an airport, with a pregnant wife and a young child. The total hassle it is to deal with just old lead paint if you try and follow code is rediculous, but they still have planes flying over burning LEADED fuel!! WHY?
Most planes don't need leaded gas. Jet-A / Diesel etc can also be used in planes. And yes, I understand small, old GA planes may be impacted, but this has been on the radar for decades now.
"There is no known safe blood lead concentration; even blood lead concentrations as low as 5 µg/dL may be associated with decreased intelligence in children, behavioural difficulties and learning problems. As lead exposure increases, the range and severity of symptoms and effects also increase."
This comment makes me think you don't actually understand the situation. The vast majority of aviation fuel used IS Jet-A, which does not contain lead.
Small piston engine general aviation aircraft are the only ones that use leaded gas, and most of those can not use anything else that exists currently.
I too have a pregnant wife and a young child, but I worry far, far more about residual lead paint exposure than I do about avgas. Both get tested regularly and show no detectable levels (<2ug/dL), so that makes me feel like the risk exposure is acceptable. Yes, your quote about "no known safe level" is true, but at undetectable levels I'm confident it's in the noise along with all other environmental factors we don't know about.
If you're worried about lead exposure, are you testing?
After decades - does it make public policy sense to still sell NEW planes that REQUIRE leaded gas?
I don't believe so.
Literally every other method of propulsion, some with much stronger claims in terms of life utility, have moved off leaded gas. Ie, the ambulance, the race cars the everything, except GA.
Reality -> GA has a well connected / rich pool of users with influence. If you had a bunch of poor minorities spraying even trace amounts of lead over someone's nice golf course my guess is you'd be getting well off activists to shut you down in no time for environmental or other reasons.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-360
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_IO-550
To my knowledge some ultralights use regular unleaded (called MOGAS in some aviation contexts) and of course anything that you can buy an airline ticket for outside of perhaps Alaska will use jet fuel.
It appears that most versions of the O-360 can run on mogas, or unleaded gas of some sort.
https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070AB%20Spec...
Indeed, there does appear to be a 100UL drop in out here too.
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2021/july/27/ga...
To be clear, none require leaded fuel, per se, but until this year there was no approved unleaded 100-octane fuel.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#100LL_(blue) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#UL94_(formerly_94UL)
Yes, planes 50 years ago -> maybe those were designed for leaded. But the idea that we are selling new planes, today, that "only" run on leaded gas is a farce and goes to show how seriously aviation is taking the transition away from leaded gas (which has been delayed as I've said decades).
At some point you just lose patience.
A measure like this may be reasonable.
But C/D totals the entire piston aircraft fleet-- $50B+ of capital equip, plus the whole infrastructure and industry around it-- for only a very moderate change in lead exposure. Best estimates I've seen is that this would lower the total population burden from lead by well under 5%.
Much more sane, IMO, to put in a progressively escalating tax on leaded aviation fuels that over time becomes steep. Then airplanes can gradually transition as overhauls become due, etc, as the pressure from operating costs mounts. Presumably those burning the most fuel would transition first, and an industry capable of retrofitting a few percent of the aircraft per year would spring up.
Except they can't, since there is no approved alternative.
The other problem is that even planes that can run unleaded gas often don't, because it's not available at the airport. Avgas is a tiny market and because of costs most FBOs can't or won't set up another fuel delivery infrastructure to run two fuels over some short transition period.
Because of this, an additional requirement on a replacement is also that it be safely mixable with 100LL in any ratio, because during the transition period this will happen as people fly from airports where it exists to airports where it doesn't.
This problem is being solved (https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/).
There's an increasing number of diesel engines for GA aircraft, and supplemental type certificates to retrofit them into the same. If 100LL got more expensive, you'd see more people opting for the diesels when an engine reaches the end of its life.
e.g. http://www.continentaldiesel.com/typo3/fileadmin/_centurion/...
Yes, it'd be really cool to end up with a lower-lead fuel that's safely combined with 100LL. That's been "imminent" for the last 25 years.
The poster above advocates for a "rip off the band-aid" approach. GA advocates for a gradual, painless transition that, in practice, will never happen. Surely there's some middle ground?
Data seems to imply that the diesel engine lifecycle cost is slightly better now than conventional engines, so electing for a diesel replacement instead of a conventional engine overhaul can make sense... but it's a razor thin difference.
If you made leaded fuels more expensive-- more airfields are going to want to move to UL94, and more people at overhaul time are going to go the diesel path, and the problem will gradually get better.
There's not going to be one single tidy drop-in solution for the entire market. That's why we should tax leaded fuels, and everyone can pick the appropriate solution for them. Some will pick diesel conversions. Some airfields will go 94UL and people will purchase STCs. Presumably some other people will take other paths. And those with the hardest time transitioning can instead pay the tax and burn leaded fuel, still.
3 years is also basically a second at the speeds GA changes at.
Swift charges $100 for a STC, and has coverage of two thirds of the GA fleet.
Really, all that needs to happen is an airport needs to decide that lead free is important to them and they'll pay the premium for Swift's fuel.
But if you taxed the crap out of lead-containing fuels, I suspect more would be interested...
That sounds pretty great actually, for such a simple solution.
If you threw a few billion more at leaded paint remediation, I think you'd make much more of a difference. I think the aviation lead problem should get fixed, but because it's such a small part of the overall problem it makes sense to take a graduated approach instead of giving GA businesses the death penalty. Tax leaded aviation fuels, and use the proceeds to pay for leaded paint remediation.
Graduated approach ignores the decades that have ALREADY been provided as an exception to the lead fuel rules that apply everywhere else - it's already been graduated.
Start at 10% with a commitment to ratchet it up by 4% per year or something. That's enough to start an immediate reduction without destroying the industry.
If you're making choices about engine overhaul now for an overhaul that will last you 7-8 years of light use, fuel costing 40% more at the end of that overhaul will definitely get your attention.
> it's already been graduated.
Doing nothing for decades when it was impossible; and then doing nothing for a decade or two when transition became possible; and then pushing the industry off the cliff is not graduated.
Perhaps that's wrong, but I distinctly remember the statistic and it stuck with me.
Or perhaps this is the benefit of having younger people in government. Because 50 year old like me thinks "massive progress made, don't waste time on diminishing returns" by comparing the current situation to the distant past. Whereas someone younger sees the threat differently.
Frankly, the propellor airplanes I do see are mostly military which will likely not be impacted by any regulations. I am also making the assumption only propellor airplanes could be using unleaded gas.
edit: perhaps "all", not "almost all", in the US.
Just awful.
It's amazing that airports aren't required to purchase and relocate the (typically poor) people who are absolutely getting their lifespans shortened by living near an airport.
The question is, given that it's so clearly a poison (maybe a top 10 poison) - why spray it into the air above residential neighborhood?
Lead impacts are around things like "anaemia, hypertension, renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the reproductive organs. The neurological and behavioural effects of lead are believed to be irreversible."
Reality is measurable increases in lead concentrations in blood near airports is very small. But does look like it exists.
No Chemtrailer here, btw.
Not only that, industry paid for "science" that hid the dangers. People today however seem to strangely think this doesn't happen anymore.
https://timharford.com/books/worldaddup/
The ultimate cautionary tale here is Darrell Huff’s 1954 classic, How to Lie With Statistics. Huff’s book is clever, insightful, and impish, and it may be the best-selling book about statistics ever written. It is also, from cover to cover, a warning that statistics are all about misinformation, and that one should no more believe in them than in stage magic. Huff ended up testifying at a Senate hearing that the evidence linking smoking and cancer was as spurious as the evidence linking storks and babies. His unpublished sequel, How to Lie With Smoking Statistics, was paid for by a tobacco-lobby group.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/the-conspi...
People are very well aware that the war over what is truth and real continues to be fought. And that it is not merely corporations engaged in it, as control over truth and perception is at the heart of power. "All warfare is based on deception."
https://suntzusaid.com/book/1/18/
As a hint, if one side has a long record of lies, and another a long record of honest relations and owning their errors --- the smart money takes counsel from the second. It's wise to assess one's own sources on this basis from time to time.
The salient characteristic of propaganda is not that it is (entirely) false. It is that it serves a specific interest and agenda rather than being a good-faith, best-effort attempt to convey truth.
It's a fundamental conflict in communications dating at least to Plato and the philosophers vs. the sophists.
Propaganda is most effective when it wraps its intended payload in an attractive, largely truthful message, and acts to nudge its intended targets in a direction they're inclined to go already.
False facts will get caught out. All you can do with an interpretation is argue about it.
It was specifically paid for and used to cast widespread doubt on smoking leading to lung cancer. It tried to convince people that "the science isn't settled" when the evidence was overwhelming.
It's an incredibly disingenuous and cynical piece of work that posits truth does not really exist b/c all "experts" are just lying to you with an agenda. Therefore, you can't ever really know the truth, therefore keep smoking.
I presume he got a bee in his bonnet about statistics at some point, and wrote his 'How to lie with Statistics' and because this became such a hit, it was assumed he know what he was talking about, and hence the interest from the cigarette manufacturers, the senate etc. This in fact was a mistake, and his credentials for appearing for the senate should have been checked.
So, the key take away from the book for me is that Statistics is hard, it's easy to confuse yourself or produce dubious results, but i'd look elsewhere for information about how to avoid pitfalls, and how to spot dubious conclusions beyond the most simplistic manipulation he points out.
That's why my initial stance on COVID vaccines was to be skeptical of the industry claims. This lumped me in with a lot of quacks, and with a political (US) group with whom that I don't normally align much.
It's been a strange few years. At this point, I'm not sure I know how to strike a balance between healthy skepticism and paranoia. Regarding the vaccines, I'm fully vaccinated, as enough time has passed to get me to a place where I think the stats bear it out.
At smaller scales, your power isn’t enough to override the preferences of the masses. Get big enough, and you can.
For example, an experimental vaccine isn't given out widely till there is good data that it is safe (often taking years).
However, for risky diseases (like COVID), as soon as there are even rough indications that it is safer than COVID, it makes sense to give it to everyone. Every month you spend doing more safety tests, millions of people die.
The same is happening right now for malaria treatments which are being trialled. Skipping the trial and handing it out untested will probably save more lives.
How is this an example of “the wrong stats being used to make decisions”? You believe that undergoing safety trials with control groups is a bad thing because they take time?
> However, for risky diseases (like COVID), as soon as there are even rough indications that it is safer than COVID, it makes sense to give it to everyone.
What if we find out several years down the road that the vaccine is causing a drop in IQ, affecting birth rates, etc.? Wouldn’t it have been nice to catch these things during the safety trials before injecting it into billions of people?
You can always do more trials and more studies, but at some point the cost of delays outweighs the risks. A blanket "this is the degree of safety testing needed" for every single intervention makes no sense if the cost of that testing differs significantly — and when you have a rapidly spreading disease killing millions of people, the cost of delays is much higher than it would be if you're trying to cure the common cold.
No testing at all would be a really bad idea, but "we'll spend just as long testing this one as this as we would on a common cold vaccine" is also a really bad idea.
I'd also drive faster if I were rushing to the hospital with a dying friend, even though speeding is risky. You have to weigh risks and benefits and do what has the best expected outcome.
What if we find out several years down the road that COVID-19 does these things? We have a better grasp on the potential side effects of the vaccine—which, after all, is much simpler than a virus—than we have on the potential side effects of the disease.
Covid is a relatively known relatively high risk which has killed millions and left tens of millions injured.
A vaccine may cause problems. Possibly. Or it could also not cause problems.
So far there is no evidence to suggest that problems are particularly likely, or that they have been happening at all at significant risk levels.
The rational decision - clearly - is to deal with a severe immediate threat. Not to worry about something that shows no signs of happening because what if maybe perhaps could happen y'know.
"Water conducted through earthen pipes is more wholesome than that through lead; indeed that conveyed in lead must be injurious, because from it white lead [PbCO3, lead carbonate] is obtained, and this is said to be injurious to the human system. Hence, if what is generated from it is pernicious, there can be no doubt that itself cannot be a wholesome body. This may be verified by observing the workers in lead, who are of a pallid colour; for in casting lead, the fumes from it fixing on the different members, and daily burning them, destroy the vigour of the blood; water should therefore on no account be conducted in leaden pipes if we are desirous that it should be wholesome. That the flavour of that conveyed in earthen pipes is better, is shewn at our daily meals, for all those whose tables are furnished with silver vessels, nevertheless use those made of earth, from the purity of the flavour being preserved in them" - Virtuvius VIII.6.10-11
Climate change denialism is the lead poisoning denialism of the modern era. You can actually see the denialism happening in real-time with actual posters here on HN, this is the same way it worked back then, this is how people delude themselves into thinking they're making a scholarly defense of "facts and the scientific process" when in reality they're just buying into industry propaganda designed to play on that instinct.
Nobody need wonder how it might have happened, it's happening right before your own eyes in these very threads.
It's quite disturbing to phrase things this way.
99 years ago the League of Nations signed a treaty banning indoor leaded paint. The US, of course, declined to join and it took another 50 years before it took action. Concerns were raised about leaded gasoline, industry steamrolled the science.
And it was just a couple of months ago that the final country (Algeria) stopped producing leaded consumer road fuel.
For a good history see
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lea...
[0] An Update on Childhood Lead Poisoning https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5645046/
As many as 500,000 US children (2.5%) under 6 years have BLLs ≥5 µg/dL. Each lead-exposed child costs an estimated $5600 in medical and special educational services.7 Lead exposure-related cognitive impairments cost an estimated $50.9 billion annually in lost US economic productivity.6