3 ms·

> Sure, this would incur cost for some, but c'est la vie. How easily we discount costs that affect only other people.

by beervirus 6y ago

hedora 6y ago
Like 16 million cases of lead poisoning because people that can afford a plane don’t upgrade their engines?
- leetcrew 6y ago
  the actual quote from the scientific american article: > The EPA estimates that 16 million Americans live close to one of 22,000 airports where leaded avgas is routinely used—and three million children go to schools near these airports. 16 million people living near airports where leaded avgas is used is not the same thing as 16 million confirmed cases of lead poisoning. there's no need to exaggerate.
  - the8472 6y ago
    So merely 16 million people with subclinical heavy metal accumulation, which is tied to lower IQs and increased crime rates. Nice.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      everyone has subclinical heavy metal accumulation.
      - the8472 6y ago
        And assuming a linear no-threshold risk model we want to keep it as low as possible. People spraying leaded exhaust over cities for fun is not consistent with that.
leetcrew 6y ago
flying is already an inherently expensive, niche hobby. it's cool that it exists at all, but I don't think it would be some enormous injustice to price a few more people out. a reasonable solution might be to grandfather in all existing engines that are only certified for leaded fuel. as long as the use is non-commercial and/or doesn't exceed some number of hours per year, you can keep using that engine until it dies. once it does (or you want a new plane) you have to use unleaded fuel.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > it's cool that it exists at all, but I don't think it would be some enormous injustice to price a few more people out. Except for all the flight schools that are part of the pipeline for training pilots. A lot of smaller shops use airplanes from many decades ago, and mandating that they swap in a new engine (at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars) for each plane (in their fleet), could be ruinous.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    ultimately some businesses are going to need to feel the consequences of environmentally unsustainable practices. as another example, there might not be a future for cheap cruise ships that burn bunker fuel. if it would be truly ruinous to the pilot training pipeline, you could grandfather in the smaller flight schools. my main thought here is that we should not continue to manufacture engines that burn leaded fuel. there's plenty of room to compromise over who gets to continue using engines that already exist.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > my main thought here is that we should not continue to manufacture engines that burn leaded fuel. I don't disagree with you, but there are many thousands of perfectly good planes from previous decades that are in good shape (they have to be inspected annually) that will be a long legacy. Right now I can find 63 pre-1960 single-piston aircraft for sale, with the cheapest being US$ 42K from 1945 as I type this: * https://www.controller.com/listings/search?Category=6&ScopeCategoryIDs=13&Year=1928%2A1959&sort=2 https://www.controller.com/listings/search?Category=6&ScopeC... One of the oldest is a 1928 biplane ($130K). If you're a WW2 enthusiast there's a 1940 Hawker Hurricane for US$ 2.7M.

> Sure, this would incur cost for some, but c'est la vie. How easily we discount costs that affect only other people.

hedora 6y ago

Like 16 million cases of lead poisoning because people that can afford a plane don’t upgrade their engines?

leetcrew 6y ago
the actual quote from the scientific american article: > The EPA estimates that 16 million Americans live close to one of 22,000 airports where leaded avgas is routinely used—and three million children go to schools near these airports. 16 million people living near airports where leaded avgas is used is not the same thing as 16 million confirmed cases of lead poisoning. there's no need to exaggerate.
- the8472 6y ago
  So merely 16 million people with subclinical heavy metal accumulation, which is tied to lower IQs and increased crime rates. Nice.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    everyone has subclinical heavy metal accumulation.
    - the8472 6y ago
      And assuming a linear no-threshold risk model we want to keep it as low as possible. People spraying leaded exhaust over cities for fun is not consistent with that.

leetcrew 6y ago

flying is already an inherently expensive, niche hobby. it's cool that it exists at all, but I don't think it would be some enormous injustice to price a few more people out. a reasonable solution might be to grandfather in all existing engines that are only certified for leaded fuel. as long as the use is non-commercial and/or doesn't exceed some number of hours per year, you can keep using that engine until it dies. once it does (or you want a new plane) you have to use unleaded fuel.

throw0101a 6y ago
> it's cool that it exists at all, but I don't think it would be some enormous injustice to price a few more people out. Except for all the flight schools that are part of the pipeline for training pilots. A lot of smaller shops use airplanes from many decades ago, and mandating that they swap in a new engine (at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars) for each plane (in their fleet), could be ruinous.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  ultimately some businesses are going to need to feel the consequences of environmentally unsustainable practices. as another example, there might not be a future for cheap cruise ships that burn bunker fuel. if it would be truly ruinous to the pilot training pipeline, you could grandfather in the smaller flight schools. my main thought here is that we should not continue to manufacture engines that burn leaded fuel. there's plenty of room to compromise over who gets to continue using engines that already exist.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > my main thought here is that we should not continue to manufacture engines that burn leaded fuel. I don't disagree with you, but there are many thousands of perfectly good planes from previous decades that are in good shape (they have to be inspected annually) that will be a long legacy. Right now I can find 63 pre-1960 single-piston aircraft for sale, with the cheapest being US$ 42K from 1945 as I type this: * https://www.controller.com/listings/search?Category=6&ScopeCategoryIDs=13&Year=1928%2A1959&sort=2 https://www.controller.com/listings/search?Category=6&ScopeC... One of the oldest is a 1928 biplane ($130K). If you're a WW2 enthusiast there's a 1940 Hawker Hurricane for US$ 2.7M.