3 ms·
483 tons seems like a very small amount of pollution when you consider that it is spread over the entire country (even albeit concentrated near airports).
by CompelTechnic 8y ago
483 tons seems like a very small amount of pollution when you consider that it is spread over the entire country (even albeit concentrated near airports).
- tzs 8y ago16 million Americans live close to those airports, and 3 million kids go to schools near those airports. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation-fuel/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation-...
- 5580 8y agoI live within a mile of one of the busier regional airports in the US. As an aviation buff, I like seeing the planes go by, but I hate thinking about what I breathe when they are gone. My next move will definitely factor in locality to a regional airport.
- jwess 8y agoThe problem with lead is that it tends to bio-accumulate in various types of body tissue, making blood lead levels hard to bring down. Chronic exposure builds up over time. I also disagree that 483 tons is "a very small amount of pollution". Lead cannot be compared with more typical pollutants like CO2. A better comparison might be mercury, which measured 52 tons emitted in 2011. I still won't say 52 tons is small, but it's a lot better than 483! I want to reiterate that small propeller planes that seat 2-6 people make up virtually the entire market for leaded aviation fuel. Larger propeller planes typically have turboprop engines which burn kerosene like most jet/commercial aircraft. There is a big cost upon society caused by a small number of people, for something that is completely unnecessary (private air travel).