3 ms·

I should moderate my comment a bit. I'm not expecting the replacement to be equally or more toxic, but I have skepticism that it's going to be non-toxic. Presu

by ethbro 9y ago

I should moderate my comment a bit. I'm not expecting the replacement to be equally or more toxic, but I have skepticism that it's going to be non-toxic. Presumably you're tangential to the chemical-synthesis industry? It seems like there's a disturbingly low bar for "We found a compound that will do a thing! Okay, as long as it isn't food / a drug / incorporates already banned substances... put it into production!" (20 years pass) Substantial toxicity found.

jabl 9y ago
Well, sure it's going to be toxic. Drink enough gasoline and you'll die, whether it's aviation gasoline or not. And aromatics are carcinogenic etc. (then again, aromatics are present in many other fuels such as regular gasoline and kerosine). I think the best one can hope for is that the 100LL replacement won't be significantly nastier than regular car gasoline. But already that would IMHO be a significant step forward compared to the status quo. And no, I don't work for the chemical industry, or anything related to that really. But yes, I've heard of such cases where the replacement for some banned product turns out to be even worse. I do think one should be very careful about trusting environmental statements by the chemical industry, or any industry for that matter. Just like one shouldn't trust them blindly, I don't think a blanket dismissal of anything new they are doing is warranted either.