Enviromentalist suit against 100LL

JesseD said:
No, but they can get to 97 without additives like TEL.
Click to expand...

Yep then we have the 80-20 problem. The 20% of the piston fleet that flys 80% of the hours will not work on the 97UL. The fleet is too small to break into two fuels. (and is why 80 went away) The fuel MUST be 100 Octane to not cause significant performance degradation on the high powered (high $$ and high Spenders) end of the fleet.

JesseD said:
GAMI claims G100UL. Will these be viable? I'm not claiming special knowledge here, just a bit of concern. I'm betting those that have "high-performance" planes will end up needing STC's. Not ideal, but I think we'll get 100 octane without TEL. The cost :dunno: that's unknown right now. I'm hoping that GAMI or BP (or anyone) can come through with a drop-in, economical, fuel. I'm not exactly holding my breath :(

Too bad turbines aren't more economical.
Click to expand...

If it's 100 Octane, the high performance planes should have no problems with it and would not need a performance related STC.

If the fuel is not compatable with some material currently in the fuel systems that's a WHOLE other problem.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Lycoming says their engines can run w/o lead, but they are taking a GA "solidarity" stance on the issue, which is why they believe that 100LL should stay.:dunno:
Click to expand...

W/O lead? Sure, with an anti knock rating of 100? Big fat Nope.
 
When I was talking to the Swift Fuel people out at Osh last year they told me that they only requirement they could not meet was one that said the fuel must be petroleum based. Because of that they would have to get a new standard created and that is what takes so long.
 
I think the AOPA, EAA, LAMA, GAMA, USUA, FAA, NTSB, CIA, KGB, and PTA should immediately form a joint and collaborative working committee to look into this issue.
 
ebacon said:
H2O, also known as Dihydrogen Monoxide, is also dangerous.

http://www.dhmo.org/
Click to expand...

Several years ago, a person actually died from drinking too much water. Clear evidence that it kill in volumes that can actually be consumed by a human. That was about the time that artificial sweeteners were banned because massive doses caused cancer in mice but there was no corresponding effort to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide.
 
Bob Noel said:
Not to hijack the thread, but I've always been confused as to why it isn't called Dihydrogen Oxide.
Click to expand...

I think it's because dihydrogen monoxide sounds more sinister!
 
Technically it should be Hydrogen Hydroxide. Hydrogen is in the same column as Lithium Sodium Potassium, and all of those -OH compounds are hydroxides. Lithium Hydroxide, Sodium Hydroxide, Potassium Hydroxide, etc...
Not to mention the structure of it is H-O-H.

Saying it the other way makes you sound like morons.
 
EdFred said:
Technically it should be Hydrogen Hydroxide. Hydrogen is in the same column as Lithium Sodium Potassium, and all of those -OH compounds are hydroxides. Lithium Hydroxide, Sodium Hydroxide, Potassium Hydroxide, etc...
Not to mention the structure of it is H-O-H.

Saying it the other way makes you sound like morons.
Click to expand...

According to the terminology section of this Wikipedia article, you're not even wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
:wink2:
 
Graueradler said:
Several years ago, a person actually died from drinking too much water. Clear evidence that it kill in volumes that can actually be consumed by a human. That was about the time that artificial sweeteners were banned because massive doses caused cancer in mice but there was no corresponding effort to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Click to expand...

I think you don't know too much about the difference between overconsumption and heavy metal toxicity. Not to side with the enviros, but daily consumption of water (assuming no toxic levels of other compounds) won't kill you. Heavy metals, on the other hand, will kill you with just daily exposure past a certain level. Not only that, but other deleterious effects can happen far before lethal toxicity.

Either that or it's a bad attempt at facetious humor. :rolleyes:
 
JesseD said:
I think you don't know too much about the difference between overconsumption and heavy metal toxicity. Not to side with the enviros, but daily consumption of water (assuming no toxic levels of other compounds) won't kill you. Heavy metals, on the other hand, will kill you with just daily exposure past a certain level. Not only that, but other deleterious effects can happen far before lethal toxicity.

Either that or it's a bad attempt at facetious humor. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
 
Graueradler said:
Several years ago, a person actually died from drinking too much water. Clear evidence that it kill in volumes that can actually be consumed by a human. That was about the time that artificial sweeteners were banned because massive doses caused cancer in mice but there was no corresponding effort to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Click to expand...

We must be close to the same age as I too remember that fiasco.... The one side claimed that ' cyclomates', I think that was the compound, would kill you if you drank too much soda pop... The other side did studies clearly showing you would have to drink so much of the stuff that you would literally drown in the stuff before you suffered any side effects from it..... As for your comparison of over consumption.. Yeah, heavy metals in very small amounts is not toxic, but.............. over consumption of them will kill you over time.... :yikes::yes::no: IMHO.

Ben.
 
Last edited:
ebacon said:
Gary F said:
I wonder where they are getting the money to pursue the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

All it takes is a typewriter and malice in your heart.
Click to expand...

Where'd they find a typewriter? :dunno:

Actually, the thing about a protest at Santa Monica, where they've been trying to harass airport users away and close the place for years, gives me a clue where there's money coming from. :incazzato:
 
ScottM said:
CA does some funny things with vehicles, air pollutants, etc. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) HATES Diesel.
Click to expand...

No kidding. You may notice trucks that have California stickers on them - Even the several step-downs in emissions standards required of all on-road diesel engines that the EPA has forced in the last 10 years wasn't good enough for CA - And those are pretty bad. New trucks these days have to burn "Diesel Exhaust Fluid" (cow pee) which sounds like a joke (muffler bearings, anyone?) but it's not.

But, that's not good enough for California. They even write "idling" tickets for refrigeration units and APU's these days, if they don't have the "this has been blessed by California" sticker on them. So, as if it wasn't expensive enough to live in California already... Lots of trucking companies are now refusing to haul things there, meaning less competition, meaning higher transportation costs which will increase the cost of everything in California that much more.
 
I said it many times living in Lake Havasu: When I saw the "Welcome to California" sign, and had to enter the checkpoint to make sure I was not carrying any vegetables or fruits on board, I could feel my freedoms being sucked away with every passing foot.

If I had ever driven all the way to the coast from Havasu, I think I would have been a communist by the time I got there.
 
Graueradler said:
Several years ago, a person actually died from drinking too much water. Clear evidence that it kill in volumes that can actually be consumed by a human. That was about the time that artificial sweeteners were banned because massive doses caused cancer in mice but there was no corresponding effort to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Click to expand...

People die from water intoxication all the time. It's not commonplace but it's not astronomically rare either.
 
DavidWhite said:
Petting kittens is known to cause cancer in the state of California.
Click to expand...

But if you kill them and serve them with catsup... (The alternative spelling the ketchup seemed appropriate...)...

The catsup cats counteract the evilness released from Hades by the Ketchup Dogs.
 
JesseD said:
I think you don't know too much about the difference between overconsumption and heavy metal toxicity. Not to side with the enviros, but daily consumption of water (assuming no toxic levels of other compounds) won't kill you. Heavy metals, on the other hand, will kill you with just daily exposure past a certain level. Not only that, but other deleterious effects can happen far before lethal toxicity.

Either that or it's a bad attempt at facetious humor. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As I remember it, the person was "purifying" his body and drank so much water that he upset his electrolyte balance badly. Had nothing to do with heavy metal toxicity. I know nothing about electrolyte balance or heavy metal toxicity.
 
Everybody knows that lead is toxic is sufficient concentrations. The amount of lead emitted by GA aircraft is very small and widely dispersed so the impact on human health is negligible. Unfortunately, this lawsuit has a significant chance of disrupting the supply of fuel as anybody in the supply chain might decide that the meager profits from 100LL do not justify funding an expensive legal battle. I am disappointed that those bringing the suit will not need to produce an actual victim, somebody with documented lead toxicity who did not grow up on a diet of paint chips. I believe that it would be impossible to find anybody with elevated lead levels as the result of 100LL. It appears that you can file a lawsuit if something bothers you even if there is no scientific evidence of harm. I hope that AOPA gets involved in this one. The good news is that my airplane with a Lycoming IO-360 will do fine on 93UL but not everybody is so fortunate.
 
Gary F said:
Everybody knows that lead is toxic is sufficient concentrations. The amount of lead emitted by GA aircraft is very small and widely dispersed so the impact on human health is negligible. Unfortunately, this lawsuit has a significant chance of disrupting the supply of fuel as anybody in the supply chain might decide that the meager profits from 100LL do not justify funding an expensive legal battle. I am disappointed that those bringing the suit will not need to produce an actual victim, somebody with documented lead toxicity who did not grow up on a diet of paint chips. I believe that it would be impossible to find anybody with elevated lead levels as the result of 100LL. It appears that you can file a lawsuit if something bothers you even if there is no scientific evidence of harm. I hope that AOPA gets involved in this one. The good news is that my airplane with a Lycoming IO-360 will do fine on 93UL but not everybody is so fortunate.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Wouldn't the most likely case of lead exposure from 100LL be pilots and other denizens of GA airports?
 
dmccormack said:
Agreed.

Wouldn't the most likely case of lead exposure from 100LL be pilots and other denizens of GA airports?
Click to expand...
I still think that lead toxicity would be unusual even for mechanics and others who have frequent exposure to exhaust since CO would probably get you first. There is a theoretical concern about accumulation of lead from repeated minor exposure. I would like to see a legitimate scientific study on lead levels in A&Ps compared to appropriate controls.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Lycoming says their engines can run w/o lead, but they are taking a GA "solidarity" stance on the issue, which is why they believe that 100LL should stay.
Click to expand...
I quite agree with them. My (rental) airplane is fueled with autogas, it's a Rotax. But environmentalists must be put down. They are trying to destroy the FBOs that are named in the suit. Most of them have no money to defend themselves and no money to create the infrastructure to deliver ethanol-free autogas (in California). They aren't aiming at the lead, but at the aviation period. The paintiffs pretend to care about 100LL, being typical environmentalist liars, but actually they wish to destroy GA, if one judges by their actions.
 
ebacon said:
This was the first time I heard of it. Strange but sad.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/hold-your-wee-wii-lawsuit
Click to expand...

Yikes! I had no idea that two gallons of water could be enough to cause death!

This quote doesn't bode well for the defendants' chances in the lawsuit:

...when a caller who identified herself as a nurse warned that contestants could face illness or death, an on-air personality replied, 'Yeah, they signed releases so we're not responsible so it's okay.'
​
 
I have a truly hard time denigrating those who try and make the government follow its own rules, even if I don't like the results. Changing the rules might make some sense.
 
EdFred said:
You sure about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
Click to expand...

The amount, in sheer volume, is the difference. I'll tell you what: I'll give you seven daily glasses of potable water and seven daily glasses of powdered lead. Tell me which one will kill you. Oh, and you can use whatever you want to wash the lead down.

Now, like I stated previously, I don't support the enviros here. I think the suit itself is over the top. Still, the difference (in volume) from water poisoning to lead poisoning (in ppm) is staggering. As such, it's an invalid comparison. Now, if you want to talk about heavy-metal poisoning from other sources at low concentrations that hippies like, we could always talk about nuts.

Now, about the suit itself. Maybe the FBO's and fuel manufacturers should send out pink slip warning notices 30 days before the suit can go active. Basically tell everyone the gas they have in their tanks is it, and that includes JetA. Might as well get the turbines involved too. Call the bluff, literally shut down services on the day before the suit be opened up. Send letters to every local paper from every local FBO the week before detailing that you don't want to be sued so X million in tax revenue, income taxes, sales taxes, et al., is gone.

Finally file a notice to countersue for damages every single day you have to stay shut down to avoid your own liability should the FAA, Courts, et al, side with your position. This group, according to an AVWeb interview has a $2 million annual budget. Tally up the lost receipts and I'm sure it will come to more than that.

IANAL so that probably wouldn't work. Well, not all of it anyway. Nice thought though ;)
 
steingar said:
I have a truly hard time denigrating those who try and make the government follow its own rules, even if I don't like the results. Changing the rules might make some sense.
Click to expand...
But it would probably not prevent lawsuits which are often used as a tool to achieve a political goal when the usual methods fail.
 
zaitcev said:
I quite agree with them. My (rental) airplane is fueled with autogas, it's a Rotax. But environmentalists must be put down. They are trying to destroy the FBOs that are named in the suit. Most of them have no money to defend themselves and no money to create the infrastructure to deliver ethanol-free autogas (in California). They aren't aiming at the lead, but at the aviation period. The paintiffs pretend to care about 100LL, being typical environmentalist liars, but actually they wish to destroy GA, if one judges by their actions.
Click to expand...

How many of them bought houses near an airport? Valid question. Love to get a look at their books and see how many are real estate developer donations.

Oh, and not all enviros are liars. Some care about important things like drinking water and rivers not starting on fire. That hippy-loving, liberal, Nixon created the EPA. I call it illogical progression or a false comparison. People take X and extend it out past logic. They do this the other way too. You see it with enviros here or soccer moms that never go off road driving Hummers. Heck, it becomes part of an image on both sides. They need to identify with X so they do Y because Z said so.
 
Gary F said:
But it would probably not prevent lawsuits which are often used as a tool to achieve a political goal when the usual methods fail.
Click to expand...

How can a lawsuit succeed if no law if broken, no victim identified, and no obvious harm done?
 
Gary F said:
But it would probably not prevent lawsuits which are often used as a tool to achieve a political goal when the usual methods fail.
Click to expand...

That's been the modus operandi for over 150 years mate. Don't fool yourself into thinking the enviros are doing anything new here. Heck, business does it as often if not more.
 
steingar said:
How can a lawsuit succeed if no law if broken, no victim identified, and no obvious harm done?
Click to expand...

By bankrupting the defendant. The plaintiff may lose the lawsuit in court, but wins because he ran the other side out of business.
 
steingar said:
How can a lawsuit succeed if no law if broken, no victim identified, and no obvious harm done?
Click to expand...

Because 12 people (or a judge) can say it does. Even if an appeal is won, that can take years and millions in legal fees. Look at the SCO vs. Linux suit. Even without a jury that cost millions. Look at patent trolls. Not losing doesn't mean winning. American justice is very much about who can afford it.
 
Given the large sweep of the suit, one would think that the affected parties could pool their resources for representation. However, such argument is specious. I doubt there is a lawyer who can cogently argue that the government should break the law.
 
Speaking of Aviation Law Suits and not to hijack but Does anyone know what became of that law suit where the "olive" grower sued local balloon companies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top