100LL Debacle

TCABM said:
Q: have you ever contributed to poisoning the children and, if so, how does that make you feel?
Click to expand...

Yes, we all have. Do I need to remind you we're on a thread talking about 100LL & UL100?
 
I just hope that Sliceofstrife does not drive a car, as they kill many children outright, every day, and statistically, he may be the next killer. Admittedly, a slim chance, but more likely than the kids near airports will die of lead poisoning.

For the record here, I was in favor of removing lead from car gas. I am in favor of a new fuel for planes with no lead in it, IF IT FUNCTIONS EFFICIENTLY. It must not get vapor lock and cause GA planes to fall on children who live near airports. It must not get viscid in Alaska in the winter, and must vaporize efficiently in way below zero temperatures. Fuel sold in the summer must work properly in the winter, and conversely, winter gas must work in the summer.

100 LL has a storage life of years, and can be used in any season.

What is your substitute? Or is it your desire to ground all GA aircraft?
 
Yep 100% agree it must function efficiently, check all the boxes you mentioned, and a bunch more you didn't. The answer absolutely exists in our modern industrial society. We put people on the moon 50 years ago, we can figure out a viable substitute for lead today.

The problem is that lead IS BAD.. and that argument will continue to be used to shut down our GA airports until something is done to solve the problem. All the cucks in this thread digging in their heels promoting inaction are precisely the problem.

What we need to do is:
- govt agencies support the solution (funding)
- all the testing happens such that it checks the boxes (funding)
- all the approvals happen so no planes are grounded (bureaucracy)
- product(s) infrastructure is setup (funding)
- infrastructure scaled to all GA airports (funding)

I dont know if G100 or UL94 are the answers, no idea. But the process needs to happen to help GA flourish. Action instead of inaction ffs.
 
TCABM said:
So, how does it make you feel to hurt the children?
Click to expand...

I care 0%. I care only about promoting a healthy next generation to keep our economy strong and make this country great again.

People like you, who care more about arguments than solving problems, are the ones holding us back.
 
sliceofstrife said:
I care 0%. I care only about promoting a healthy next generation to keep our economy strong and make this country great again.

People like you, who care more about arguments than solving problems, are the ones holding us back.
Click to expand...

I haven’t opined one way or the other.

I’m just curious why, if your so passionate about the children, you choose to participate in a hobby that requires hurting the children, which is counter to your stated goal.

You could choose not to participate in the hobby, thereby reducing the amount of lead being distributed to the children, by an infinitesimally small, but cumulative amount, thereby directly contributing to improved health of our next generation which will directly result in an improved economy and making this country great again.
 
TCABM said:
I’m just curious why, if your so passionate about the children, you choose to participate in a hobby that requires hurting the children, which is counter to your stated goal.

You could choose not to participate in the hobby, thereby reducing the amount of lead being distributed to the children, by an infinitesimally small, but cumulative amount, thereby directly contributing to improved health of our next generation which will directly result in an improved economy and making this country great again.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

... through the stadium lights!
 
TCABM said:
I haven’t opined one way or the other.

I’m just curious why, if your so passionate about the children, you choose to participate in a hobby that requires hurting the children, which is counter to your stated goal.

You could choose not to participate in the hobby, thereby reducing the amount of lead being distributed to the children, by an infinitesimally small, but cumulative amount, thereby directly contributing to improved health of our next generation which will directly result in an improved economy and making this country great again.
Click to expand...

Seems like you missed my answer. That's okay though I'll catch you up.

I care 0%... Except that "the children" are used as an excuse to shut down GA airports.
 
Do children in poor communities have lower IQs?
 
Bob Noel said:
Do children in poor communities have lower IQs?
Click to expand...
Section 2.3 of the report I linked to details the controls that they factored in that study, one of which is socioeconomic status
 
Bob Noel said:
Do children in poor communities have lower IQs?
Click to expand...
If so, perhaps the cause is that many people are poor BECAUSE they have low IQs. They live in poor communities BECAUSE they are poor, and they have children with low IQs because that is how heredity works.

Of course, not all poor people have low IQs. My grandparents came over from Italy with just the clothes on their backs. My parents were poor and I grew up in a poor neighborhood (in South Philly) even though I didn't know we were poor. But chronic poverty is a fact among those with low IQs.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Then we are in agreement because what I see don’t even know what an LD50 is or means or how to interpret. They don’t have the most basic understanding of physics or chemistry.
Click to expand...

I had one college degreed IH tell me that organometallics are impossible, as things are organic or metallic.

Hmm, ever heard of HEMOGLOBIN. :D
 
PaulMillner said:
The difference with children is that lead adversely affects connections between neurons in the brain, and hence permanently reduces intelligence. No amount of walking it off will reverse that permanent brain damage. The type and permanence of lead impact is very different for children and adults.

Paul
Click to expand...

I was mentioning that in response to a post about lead leaving the body over time. Not in regards to children.
 
Baked Potato said:
But it's pretty striking that this correlation can be seen across many geographical areas, with the same change in crime rates, offset by 18-20 years.

"This study found a robust relationship between lead in air and subsequent rates of aggressive crime at suburb, state and national population levels using multiple analytic methods and data sources."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756504/#!po=1.06383
Click to expand...

Hmm, or could it be that the areas with high lead are also urban areas with low income, poor living conditions and few job opportunities?

Just saying that correlation does not mean causation. There can be other similar factors.
 
Pinecone said:
Hmm, or could it be that the areas with high lead are also urban areas with low income, poor living conditions and few job opportunities?

Just saying that correlation does not mean causation. There can be other similar factors.
Click to expand...
The chart that you, then I, replied to, concerned time (not geographical area).

There is correlation showing the phase-out of leaded gasoline followed by a drop in crime rate about 18 years later. This has been repeated in many areas of the world, most strikingly when individual countries phased out leaded gas in different decades.
 
Baked Potato said:
The chart that you, then I, replied to, concerned time (not geographical area).

There is correlation showing the phase-out of leaded gasoline followed by a drop in crime rate about 18 years later. This has been repeated in many areas of the world, most strikingly when individual countries phased out leaded gas in different decades.
Click to expand...
wow....Chicago must be loaded with lead. Crime hasn't slowed there....nor in most major cities. Gotta close all the airports there too....o_O
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
wow....Chicago must be loaded with lead. Crime hasn't slowed there....nor in most major cities. Gotta close all the airports there too....o_O
Click to expand...
I mean... Crime rates there (and most US locales) are a lot lower than they were in the 80s and 90s, right?
 
sliceofstrife said:
hold up. are you making the claim that lead poisoning being bad for humans is not scientifically grounded?
Click to expand...

The opposite. I'm mocking those who think it's no big deal.

sliceofstrife said:
All that aside, this has been very enlightening. Turns out there's a group of people who think that lead poisoning is a total non-issue.. and that it's 100% ok to continue poisoning this nation's children. Mind-boggling.
Click to expand...

Yes. That.
 
The interesting fact is that carbon monoxide, which is emitted from all of our ICE vehicles, is just as harmful as lead exposure. The number of vehicles on the road that produce CO is far greater the number of aircraft producing lead. Yes, I know the peanut gallery will turn to the EV argument, but such as life. Should we eliminate lead entirely? Of course, but the reality is, the amount that’s being distributed is infinitely small.
 
RyanB said:
The interesting fact is that carbon monoxide, which is emitted from all of our ICE vehicles, is just as harmful as lead exposure. The number of vehicles on the road that produce CO is far greater the number of aircraft producing lead. Yes, I know the peanut gallery will turn to the EV argument, but such as life. Should we eliminate lead entirely? Of course, but the reality is, the amount that’s being distributed is infinitely small.
Click to expand...
I get the feeling that even those that feel that the amount of lead used in GA is small, there is still frustration with the FAA for not doing more and going faster to eliminate even that small amount.
 
JOhnH said:
I get the feeling that even those that feel that the amount of lead used in GA is small, there is still frustration with the FAA for not doing more and going faster to eliminate even that small amount.
Click to expand...
If only government moved at the pace many seem to think it does. :)
 
JOhnH said:
I get the feeling that even those that feel that the amount of lead used in GA is small, there is still frustration with the FAA for not doing more and going faster to eliminate even that small amount.
Click to expand...
But is the frustration because we're worried about the children...or because we want less plug fouling, less frequent oil changes and hopefully better overall engine performance/longevity.
 
Racerx said:
But is the frustration because we're worried about the children...or because we want less plug fouling, less frequent oil changes and hopefully better overall engine performance/longevity.
Click to expand...
Why does it have to be one or the other? In my case, it is all of the above.
 
Baked Potato said:
The chart that you, then I, replied to, concerned time (not geographical area).

There is correlation showing the phase-out of leaded gasoline followed by a drop in crime rate about 18 years later. This has been repeated in many areas of the world, most strikingly when individual countries phased out leaded gas in different decades.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not mean causation. Just because two things happened in a time space related to each other doesn’t mean one had any cause on the other. For there to be causation between the correlation all other variables would have had to be held constant. How can you prove that there were not other world events that drove the drop in crime rates 18 years later. Did nothing else change over 18 years that could have contributed to lower crime rates? Just because both the reduction in lead happened and the reduction in crime happened doesn’t in any way prove they were related.
 
kmacht said:
Correlation does not mean causation. Just because two things happened in a time space related to each other doesn’t mean one had any cause on the other. For there to be causation between the correlation all other variables would have had to be held constant. How can you prove that there were not other world events that drove the drop in crime rates 18 years later. Did nothing else change over 18 years that could have contributed to lower crime rates? Just because both the reduction in lead happened and the reduction in crime happened doesn’t in any way prove they were related.
Click to expand...
I really don't feel like repeating myself a third time about the lead-crime hypothesis - I wonder how many more people will chime in in order to explain to me that correlation does not imply causation, like I'm a child. There are plenty of studies and other resources publicly available for those who are really interested in the subject, and are not just making bad faith arguments.
 
schmookeeg said:
There are probably some that are tired of "the children" being used as a dog-whistle for the corrupt cause du jour.

I don't understand why this thread turned as sour as it did.
Click to expand...
Sure, appeals to emotion are often transparent and can diminish the message being otherwise communicated. However I feel that when it comes to environmental or public health policy, the assumption is that any negative effects being discussed have potential generational (long term) consequences when children are, in fact, the group most at risk by the action (or inaction) being taken.

Which goes back to the lead-crime hypothesis and why there is an 18 year lag between the policy being enacted and any significant changes in crime are observed. It is exactly because the children are the most affected group when it comes to lead ingestion.

Edit - and before those who doubt the lead-crime hypothesis chime in, the myriad negative effects of lead ingestion are clearly documented (i.e., is established science) and are not simply limited to one's likelihood to commit crimes a decade-and-a-half in the future.
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
wow....Chicago must be loaded with lead. Crime hasn't slowed there....nor in most major cities. Gotta close all the airports there too....o_O
Click to expand...
Actually...it is. Lead service lines were required until 1986! The city has the more lead pipe than any other city in the country because of that.
 
Baked Potato said:
I really don't feel like repeating myself a third time about the lead-crime hypothesis - I wonder how many more people will chime in in order to explain to me that correlation does not imply causation, like I'm a child. There are plenty of studies and other resources publicly available for those who are really interested in the subject, and are not just making bad faith arguments.
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't going to, but I'll jump in now. Yep, using correlation as part of an argument doesn't make sense at any grade level, unless the goal is to try to manipulate people. And I'll add that the popularity of an argument or hypothesis probably has a negative correlation with it's accuracy. Two examples that jump out to me are Sagan making up nuclear winter, and all the nonsense of a carb based "food pyramid" being a great idea for health. The former didn't hurt us because nobody was willing to give up on MAD over it, but the former, in my unsubstantiated view, hurt a lot of people. But it was widely credited as correct, and that's all that matters.

There's absolutely a push to get rid of lead, and I don't think that's going to go away. They're are plenty of people will follow along with that for reasons that seem real and sincere to them, and the more educated of them will flat out state theory as fact "because it's in the greater good", or because they truly believe it. And that's really all that matters to us, as pilots. There's going to be a push to get rid of lead, same as witches in Salem, and we can't change that. Whether the risk to anyone is insignificant or real doesn't really factor into it. It's not science, it's politics. We have solutions for most things that use lead - car batteries, paint, etc., and we've figured out how to make galvanized steel that doesn't have lead in it, so there's no serious pushback. It's going to go away in this country at some point.

Ok, rant over...sorry.
 
Ok, I agree with everyone that says "correlation does not prove causation".
But I do believe that it has been proven that lead is unhealthy, especially to children, in lots of ways.

Yes, aviation's contribution to lead pollution is minuscule compared to what cars and other sources used to contribute, and probably even what is being dumped into the air and water today from mining, manufacturing and other sources.

But are some people actually disputing that lead pollution is dangerous and that it does not need to be curtailed to the largest extent possible? Is that what I'm hearing, or is the argument more about the risk/benefit equation?

It seems that these types of arguments always devolve into "one or the other" when, as I said before, the answer is usually a little bit of both and we are just arguing about the ratio.
 
JOhnH said:
Ok, I agree with everyone that says "correlation does not prove causation".
But I do believe that it has been proven that lead is unhealthy, especially to children, in lots of ways.

Yes, aviation's contribution to lead pollution is minuscule compared to what cars and other sources used to contribute, and probably even what is being dumped into the air and water today from mining, manufacturing and other sources.

But are some people actually disputing that lead pollution is dangerous and that it does not need to be curtailed to the largest extent possible? Is that what I'm hearing, or is the argument more about the risk/benefit equation?

It seems that these types of arguments always devolve into "one or the other" when, as I said before, the answer is usually a little bit of both and we are just arguing about the ratio.
Click to expand...

my impression of the situtation is:

there are some people that think all lead must be eliminated because even the smallest amount is a problem.

there are some people that think that lead isn't a problem at all

and there are people in between.

and the definition of curtailing lead to the largest extent possible is difficult to nail down...

the challenge is knowing how much is too much
 
Baked Potato said:
There are plenty of studies and other resources publicly available for those who are really interested in the subject, and are not just making bad faith arguments.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of publicly available studies that also say the world is flat or that we did not go to the moon. It doesn’t mean they are right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top