29 ms·

Leaded gas was a known poison the day it was invented (2016)

611 points by mrfusion 5y ago

warning26 5y ago
Interesting, I had assumed they just didn’t know that lead was bad back then. What’s even weirder is how there are still people today who insist that banning leaded gasoline was an key example of government overreach. Someone once was arguing this point to me and I just had to drop the topic because it was such a baffling stance.
- heymijo 5y ago
  Two beliefs became entrenched: 1. that lead is natural to the human body, and 2. that a poisoning threshold for lead existed Robert Kehoe, working for GM, was the chief advocate for leaded gasoline, and really the only person/lab doing research on lead until Clair Patterson stumbled into it while measuring the age of the earth. [0,1] A modern equivalent might be if Facebook was the only organization researching social media's impact on society, while being able to set the paradigm/assumptions about said safety for half a century. So even when Patterson's research was published in 1965, it took time to change the paradigm, and more time to phase out lead's use. Should anyone want to read a narrative about the intertwined lives of Midgley, Patterson, Kehoe and lead, then this Mental Floss article is a good read. [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campaign_against_lead_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campai... [2] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-scientist-who-determined-age-earth-and-then-saved-it https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-sc...
- sircastor 5y ago
  Neil deGrasse Tyson said in an episode of Cosmos that even the Romans understood lead was dangerous, but it was a convenient metal to work with, so they used it anyway
  - lazide 5y ago
    More than just dangerous, it was a known death sentence to be working in lead mining/smelting and a common poison [https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective.html https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historic...]. Like you note, it was also extremely convenient and relatively cheap. Pretty sure at least some of the chemicals we’re using now in soaps or for food processing will have something nasty associated with them once time has passed.
    - nebula8804 5y ago
      It will probably be Triclosan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Health_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Health_concerns
      - ak217 5y ago
        It's already been phased out
  - tedd4u 5y ago
    And not just and convenient metal, but a preferred food and wine sweetener. For real!
    - jhallenworld 5y ago
      They should have used diethylene glycol, like the Austrians: https://www.thewinestalker.net/2015/04/austria.html https://www.thewinestalker.net/2015/04/austria.html I wonder which tastes better?
    - masklinn 5y ago
      Also an important pigment (white lead), which was not only widely used in paints until the 20th century (though the US amongst others still hasn't signed the 1923 white lead convention), but also hugely popular cosmetics (skin whiteners): lead powder, lead paints, lead/mercury, lead/vinegar (venetian ceruse).
  - 5y ago
- hippich 5y ago
  > Someone once was arguing this point to me and I just had to drop the topic because it was such a baffling stance. It is also possible that two of you were arguing about different things despite seemingly talking about the same one. For example, you could be arguing that preventing people poisoning by lead is good, where the other person were arguing that people should bear more responsibility instead of pushing it on the third-party. I.e. I don't think the person you were arguing with was thinking "yeah, breathing lead is a good idea, let's fill the air with lead!". Perhaps I am too naive...
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    That would be a generous interpretation.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      Overly generous. Much if not most of the damage of lead was done to unrelated third parties who did not necessarily have any relationship with those responsible for the use of lead. The person who makes that argument is telling those unrelated people, "wear hazmat gear 24/7 because somebody, somewhere may be killing you." The remainder of the damage from lead was done to employees, where the advice boils down to "don't work because your employer may be killing you."
      - hippich 5y ago
        Just for a second try to consider that you can not have the full mental picture of another person (simply because it would at the very least require brain at least twice as big as you have right now). So yes, in general, one should be very generous. Let's take someone with anarcho-capitalism views - the typical answer by an ancap to the lead poisoning problem will be - suing for damages. It is not that ancaps want everyone to get poisoned, they simply do not want to give so much power to a single entity to decide for them. In their opinion, the danger of tyranny is a greater threat to the people than lead poisoning. Or someone who is not necessary a proponent of free-market and such, but still sees a great danger to all the people of letting one entity to define rules. Not because they see that one particular entity as an evil (although trump's election could be such an example), but rather because that single entity is a single point of failure and when it fail - the whole nation fails. And in that mental model the danger of existence of such single point of failure is greater than danger of lead pollution. (Similarly, someone who is in favor of regulations is doing so not necessarily because they are trying to build some type of bad `X-ism`, but because they see a great danger if lead poisoning not stopped right away. And that danger in their opinion is greater than the danger of whatever that may come with regulations). I still believe that the majority of human beings are not evil and most of them would rather not harm someone. But I also realize that most humans will have slightly different priorities. When arguing, I think it is very important to argue about the same thing, otherwise agreement can not be achieved ever.
- wpietri 5y ago
  America has two radically different concepts of freedom that travel under the same name. Both start with "I should be free to do as I want". One ends with "as long as I don't harm others". The other ends with "regardless of harm to others". You were dealing with the latter. It of course sounds insane when you say it baldly like this, which is why it rarely gets stated openly. But a lot of traditional societal structures depend on harm to others, so there's a big constituency for the suffering of others when it benefits the speaker.
  - ithacaman 5y ago
    The complexity is in proving what harm is being done and to whom.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      Not generally. It mainly gets complex when the latter side wants to deny the harm. Then it's an ocean of motivated reasoning and endless arguments. We still have people arguing today that American slavery was good for the slaves.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - artificial 5y ago
        Excellent! Together we can ban fast food and sugar consumption for the greater good. Heart disease and diabetes from the scourge of empty calories finally eliminated. Hundreds of thousands saved each year from poor choices. Up next: sedentary lifestyle enablers :). It’s such a rabbit hole, who should know best?
        Klinky 5y ago
        Are you saying it's not worthy of deeper inspection? I mean you kind of make an excellent point, the fast food and processed foods industries create a lot of waste selling an unhealthy product while paying unlivable wages. Their product increases healthcare costs while enabling a sedentary and stressful commuter lifestyle.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Is nuclear energy "bad"? You'll find people arguing both sides of the issue today, but nobody argues that it is 100% safe. Sure, lead was a poison, but that didn't mean that its inhaled long term effects were known, and to say it was obvious in hindsight demonstrates a lack of empathy due to the curse of knowledge.
Symmetry 5y ago
I've got a sneaking suspicion we ought to go through everything else Thomas MIdgley Jr. invented and ban it, just to be sure. Leaded gas, CFCs, and the contraption he killed himself with is a worrying pattern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
- shucksley 5y ago
  The fact that commenters at HN resort to ad hominem is a worrying pattern.
- refurb 5y ago
  Says the internet warrior who has invented nothing.
  - jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
    You don't know that. Also you are trying to defend this guy (from the wikipedia article): "Environmental historian J. R. McNeill opined that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history",[21] and Bill Bryson remarked that Midgley possessed "an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny"." To put his other inventions under more scrutiny seems like a smart idea, but arguments for authority seem weirdly misplaced in this context.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Your hindsight is 20/20. Congratulations.
      - jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
        And Midgley should also have known better, with the lead poisoning and all. Again, if you only need common sense to spot a very bad idea, there is just no excuse. Your argument has no legs to stand on.
1970-01-01 5y ago
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27983845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27983845
dukeofdoom 5y ago
Thats interesting the guy who invented the mRNA technology thinks that vaccines make COVID-19 infections worse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-m...
air7 5y ago
> The most compelling option was actually ethanol. But from the perspective of GM, Kitman wrote, ethanol wasn’t an option. It couldn’t be patented and GM couldn’t control its production. And oil companies like Du Pont "hated it," he wrote, perceiving it to be a threat to their control of the internal combustion engine. I'm generally an avid beliver in free markets as an agent for positive change, so these types of "revelations" are really disheartening. What are the solutions to this? What governing system would have mass produced ethenol as the best antiknocker with no regard to the interests of top players? Perhaps the government should open companies that are meant to lose money and are tax supported (for-loss conpanies) that compete with the industry with solutions that are good for the people but bad for business?
- zionic 5y ago
  We could call it hybrid capitalism, mix the free market vs government run non profit.
  - shucksley 5y ago
    Or we could just call it what it is - fascism.
- foob 5y ago
  Intellectual property reform could be a solution. It sounds like they might have gone with ethanol if they weren't motivated by patents so that they could prevent free market competition. We see the same thing with pharmaceuticals and in many other industries. I'm not particularly convinced that intellectual property laws are anywhere close to a net positive for consumers or society at large.
  - laurent92 5y ago
    Patents, but also copyright on software. We gain nothing by rewriting the software every time, OSS should be the default. Same for music. It’s more controversial but Spotify is monetizing convenience, not music, which itself is available for free on P2P.
nso95 5y ago
Gasoline is poison in general though
- kaladin-jasnah 5y ago
  I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that leaded gasoline is much worse.
- sonthonax 5y ago
  Refined oils aren't that poisonous. You could probably drink a gulp of pure octane and suffer no more than alcohol like effects and an upset stomach.
  - space_rock 5y ago
    Ingestion of gasoline US CDC "350 g (12 oz.) can result in death for a 70 kg individual. As little as 10 to 15 g (less than one-half ounce) may be fatal in children. Symptoms of intoxication by ingestion of gasoline can range from vomiting, vertigo, drowsiness and confusion to loss of consciousness, convulsions, hemorrhaging of the lungs and internal organs, and death due to circulatory failure. Ingestion can cause irritation to the gastrointestinal mucosa and can be complicated by pulmonary aspiration, resulting in chemical pneumonitis." https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGDetails.aspx?mmgid=465&toxid=83 https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGDetails.aspx?mmgid=465&toxid...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - sonthonax 5y ago
      350g of gasoline (for a 70kg person) is a huge amount to accidentally ingest. That's an LD50 of 5g per kilo, which to put into perspective isn't really that toxic compared to ethanol which has an LD50 of about 7g per kilo. Highly refined gasoline that you can buy in pharmacies as mineral oil is safe to put on babies skin. It's not toxic in the order of magnitude that Tetraethyl-lead is.
  - 5y ago
shadytrees 5y ago
If you're interested in reading more about leaded gasoline, I highly recommend Jamie Lincoln Kitman's in-depth article about it from 2000. It makes the case that the US government played a key role in allowing bad science to spread https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lead/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lea...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
photochemsyn 5y ago
Pure gasoline is not that great of a motor fuel because it knocks (explodes when it's not supposed to during the internal combustion engine cycle). This is a major problem with high-compression airplane engines. However, tetra-ethyl-lead (think one lead atom bonded to four ethanols minus the oxygen atoms) was never necessary to combat the problem. Ethanol's anti-knock properties at a blend of 85% gasoline 15% ethanol were well known, and issues with corrosion in fuel lines had been dealt with. However, that meant giving farmers (the only ethanol producers) 15% of the profits, and the famously monopolistic Rockefeller didn't like that. Indeed, about that whole Rockefeller-financed ethanol temperance movement, and Prohibition in general... In addition, alkylation strategies in World War II by Shell produced 100-octane aviation gas for prop engines, with no lead. It's been reintroduced it seems (wiki): Shell Unleaded 100-Octane Fuel "In December 2013 Shell Oil announced that they had developed an unleaded 100 octane fuel and will submit it for FAA testing with certification expected within two to three years. The fuel is alkylate-based with an additive package of aromatics. No information has yet been published in its performance, producibility or price. Industry analysts have indicated that it will likely cost as much as or more than existing 100LL." In the long run though, electric airplanes look far more attractive for the short-haul prop-driven world.
- ohazi 5y ago
  > In the long run though, electric airplanes look far more attractive for the short-haul prop-driven world. In the interim, the Rotax 912/914 series is a nice, modern, reliable powerplant for smaller/lighter airplanes that will happily burn autogas.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  A Tesla battery weighs as much as a Cessna 172. I don't know how practical a battery powered GA aircraft with competitive range would be.
- stephen_g 5y ago
  Apparently there are diesel prop engines that can run with Jet A1 (see [1]). This is apparently especially convenient given that at some airports Avgas isn't easily available compared to jet fuel (at least here in Australia, according to a pilot/aviation YouTuber that I was watching about this just yesterday). 1. https://newatlas.com/cessna-turbo-182-nxt/23465/ https://newatlas.com/cessna-turbo-182-nxt/23465/
paulkrush 5y ago
I guess we live on the shoulders of nastiness and things get better. So TEL was part of our boot sequence. What nastiness are we subjecting ourselves to today? BTW: The guy that invented TEL also invented CFCs! See Thomas Midgley Jr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. This guy who invents awesome working chemicals that are tragically bad for people on a worldwide scale manages to exit life dues to his own inventions, unrelated to chemistry... Kind of Ironic! Thomas Midgley, Jr. (1889–1944) was an American engineer and chemist who contracted polio at age 51, leaving him severely disabled. He devised an elaborate system of ropes and pulleys to help others lift him from bed. He became accidentally entangled in the ropes and died of strangulation at the age of 55. However, he is better known for two of his other inventions: the tetraethyl lead (TEL) additive to gasoline, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  > Midgley's legacy has been scarred by the negative environmental impact of leaded gasoline and Freon. Environmental historian J. R. McNeill opined that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history", and Bill Bryson remarked that Midgley possessed "an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny".
  - jgtrosh 5y ago
    And yet, it is also considered that he has benefited more than harmed; simply by helping provide countless people with refrigeration.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      That only works if we presume that the only way we could have discovered refrigeration was via CFCs, which seems improbable to me. My chest freezer uses propane as a refrigerant; why couldn’t we have just jumped straight to that?
      - Baeocystin 5y ago
azinman2 5y ago
> A significant body of research links lead exposure in children to violent crime, he writes. I thought this was actually correlation vs causation, and it’s been shown that the methods that keep citing this aren’t very good but it’s out in the zeitgeist anyway so everyone keeps citing the same discredited work?
jabl 5y ago
There are many octane boosters in addition to lead and ethanol. Like N-methyl aniline, ethers like MTBE and ETBE, and modifying the gasoline composition to replace low-octane components with high-octane components like aromatics, and so-called super alkylate. Most of these have disadvantages of their own, and tend to be more expensive. So TEL won for a reason. Particularly if you ignore things like diffuse health effects.
- Neil44 5y ago
  Yes, not to mention the lubricant properties of the lead for the valve seats and guides.
  - jabl 5y ago
    Hardened materials for poppet valves and seats, like stellite, were invented and used before TEL. It was only after leaded gas became ubiquitous after WWII that manufacturers started saving a buck and stopped using them.
    - nate_meurer 5y ago
      Hardened valve seats are useful in racing engines and diesels, but car makers stopped using them in gasoline-fueled road cars simply because they weren't worth the cost regardless of whether the fuel was leaded. Reports of excessive valve seat recession after the phaseout of TEL were all anecdotal, and for every mechanic who swears there was a a rash of worn seats, there are others who say there wasn't. The theory that leaded gas prevents micro-weld induced valve abrasion has not been verified in controlled tests. The final report from the EPA's Valve Seat Recession Working Group found no evidence that leaded gas reduces engine wear under any but the most extreme operating conditions: https://archive.epa.gov/international/air/web/pdf/vsr-finaldraft.pdf https://archive.epa.gov/international/air/web/pdf/vsr-finald... "In real world conditions, virtually no evidence of excessive valve wear has been found in vehicle or engine operation in normal everyday use, and several studies that monitored vehicles in actual daily service in countries that eliminated lead found no excessive valve wear."
  - deleted 5y ago
magwa101 5y ago
Private profits, future liabilities. We have been trading the future for wealth today, all that wealth has to be paid back. Is all the generated wealth zero sum?
andi999 5y ago
Is this really the full story? Why did then the whole world follow suit (in using TEL instead of e.g. ethanol)? Here it seems the reason was production cost of TEL was lower than ethanol: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-a-brief-history-of-octane https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-a-brief-history-... Also, since there were less cars when this was decided and supposedly low dosage risk of lead was only known in the 60s, the original article seems to follow a bit of a narrow narrative. (For the workers the high risk was probably known though)
streamofdigits 5y ago
For every Thomas Midgley Jr. [0] there is a Clair Patterson [1] - and thats the problem. Artistic talent seems to have strong correlation with empathy and a sense of social responsibility. Scientific and technical (STEM) talent much less so. While the very pinnacle of science (people like Einstein) display (or convincigly fake) deep humanistic traits, the army of scientists / engineers that got educated since the early 20th century are basically just run-of-the-mill willing executioners, cogs in the machine, eager to turn in the prevailing direction, support whatever power structruce exists, with no strong conviction as to what "good" looks like. How digital technology has been developed and used is just the latest manifestation of this amoral stance. If we consider areas like biotech, the risks those over-eager idiot-savants help bring to life are potentially existential. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
etaioinshrdlu 5y ago
If pure gasoline knocks - explodes when it's not supposed to -- why can't we run it in a diesel engine, where self-ignition is the mode of operation?
- amateurICEguy 5y ago
  For starters gasoline would detonate at 12:1 ratios. Which isn't going to make your 17:1 diesel very happy. Also gasoline detonation causes a shock wave whereas diesel is more like a controlled burn as it is injected. That being said, there have been engines that run on diesel or gasoline. The M35 (deuce and half) has an engine that can run on just about any flammable material, preferably diesel. Gasoline's lack of lubrication will eventually kill it, but it'll run long enough to get you out of trouble.
nikkinana 5y ago
So was draino. Your point, asshole?
afroboy 5y ago
Algeria was the last country to ban leaded gas last month.
geomark 5y ago
Is this on HN because of the news that Algeria, the last country in the world that was still using leaded gas, has now stopped? [1] [1] https://news.sky.com/story/leaded-petrol-phased-out-in-the-algeria-the-last-country-to-stop-using-the-fuel-12395326 https://news.sky.com/story/leaded-petrol-phased-out-in-the-a...
jmacd 5y ago
I have a very distinct memory of disembarking from the Budapest to Belgrade night train to the smells of leaded fuel in Belgrade. Budapest was no standard of cleanliness at the time (late 90s), however Belgrade was truly still in its post-war phase and had all of the energy, anger and edge of a place that had been pretty beaten up. We were robbed, given a pistol in a nightclub (still have no idea what was going on there, I just remember being really surprised that pistols came in styrofoam and shrink-wrap packages when they are new... Being from Canada I had never even seen a pistol before), were surrounded by really beautiful people who we thought wanted something from us but who were only generous and kind, and .... the smell. The smell of that leaded fuel was everywhere. It smelled sweet and was so unique. It's what has stuck with me 20+ years later. One other side note from that trip. We were in the countryside (mean to be meeting a friend from home in his ancestral/family village but took the wrong bus) and someone in the village directed us in to a pub that was basically an old barn. Inside there were many middle eastern guys and a mix of Serbian and english speaking people. I was given a pin by one of the middle eastern guys after I threw an excellent game of darts on the dartboard next to him. Years later I had a job for a defense contractor and the subject of that trip and the pin came up. I showed him a picture of it and he recognized it instantly: al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. I looked it up and so it was. We were put up with a local elderly woman who served us some type of soup in the morning and then someone gave us a ride out of town to a bus stop that had service that day. We waited only an hour until the first car came along, reeking of leaded fuel.
- MikeDelta 5y ago
  Thank you for sharing this, what an adventure you had.

611 points by mrfusion 5y ago

Interesting, I had assumed they just didn’t know that lead was bad back then. What’s even weirder is how there are still people today who insist that banning leaded gasoline was an key example of government overreach. Someone once was arguing this point to me and I just had to drop the topic because it was such a baffling stance.

heymijo 5y ago
Two beliefs became entrenched: 1. that lead is natural to the human body, and 2. that a poisoning threshold for lead existed Robert Kehoe, working for GM, was the chief advocate for leaded gasoline, and really the only person/lab doing research on lead until Clair Patterson stumbled into it while measuring the age of the earth. [0,1] A modern equivalent might be if Facebook was the only organization researching social media's impact on society, while being able to set the paradigm/assumptions about said safety for half a century. So even when Patterson's research was published in 1965, it took time to change the paradigm, and more time to phase out lead's use. Should anyone want to read a narrative about the intertwined lives of Midgley, Patterson, Kehoe and lead, then this Mental Floss article is a good read. [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campaign_against_lead_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson#Campai... [2] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-scientist-who-determined-age-earth-and-then-saved-it https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-sc...
sircastor 5y ago
Neil deGrasse Tyson said in an episode of Cosmos that even the Romans understood lead was dangerous, but it was a convenient metal to work with, so they used it anyway
- lazide 5y ago
  More than just dangerous, it was a known death sentence to be working in lead mining/smelting and a common poison [https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historical-perspective.html https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/lead-poisoning-historic...]. Like you note, it was also extremely convenient and relatively cheap. Pretty sure at least some of the chemicals we’re using now in soaps or for food processing will have something nasty associated with them once time has passed.
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    It will probably be Triclosan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Health_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Health_concerns
    - ak217 5y ago
      It's already been phased out
- tedd4u 5y ago
  And not just and convenient metal, but a preferred food and wine sweetener. For real!
  - jhallenworld 5y ago
    They should have used diethylene glycol, like the Austrians: https://www.thewinestalker.net/2015/04/austria.html https://www.thewinestalker.net/2015/04/austria.html I wonder which tastes better?
  - masklinn 5y ago
    Also an important pigment (white lead), which was not only widely used in paints until the 20th century (though the US amongst others still hasn't signed the 1923 white lead convention), but also hugely popular cosmetics (skin whiteners): lead powder, lead paints, lead/mercury, lead/vinegar (venetian ceruse).
- 5y ago
hippich 5y ago
> Someone once was arguing this point to me and I just had to drop the topic because it was such a baffling stance. It is also possible that two of you were arguing about different things despite seemingly talking about the same one. For example, you could be arguing that preventing people poisoning by lead is good, where the other person were arguing that people should bear more responsibility instead of pushing it on the third-party. I.e. I don't think the person you were arguing with was thinking "yeah, breathing lead is a good idea, let's fill the air with lead!". Perhaps I am too naive...
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  That would be a generous interpretation.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Overly generous. Much if not most of the damage of lead was done to unrelated third parties who did not necessarily have any relationship with those responsible for the use of lead. The person who makes that argument is telling those unrelated people, "wear hazmat gear 24/7 because somebody, somewhere may be killing you." The remainder of the damage from lead was done to employees, where the advice boils down to "don't work because your employer may be killing you."
    - hippich 5y ago
      Just for a second try to consider that you can not have the full mental picture of another person (simply because it would at the very least require brain at least twice as big as you have right now). So yes, in general, one should be very generous. Let's take someone with anarcho-capitalism views - the typical answer by an ancap to the lead poisoning problem will be - suing for damages. It is not that ancaps want everyone to get poisoned, they simply do not want to give so much power to a single entity to decide for them. In their opinion, the danger of tyranny is a greater threat to the people than lead poisoning. Or someone who is not necessary a proponent of free-market and such, but still sees a great danger to all the people of letting one entity to define rules. Not because they see that one particular entity as an evil (although trump's election could be such an example), but rather because that single entity is a single point of failure and when it fail - the whole nation fails. And in that mental model the danger of existence of such single point of failure is greater than danger of lead pollution. (Similarly, someone who is in favor of regulations is doing so not necessarily because they are trying to build some type of bad `X-ism`, but because they see a great danger if lead poisoning not stopped right away. And that danger in their opinion is greater than the danger of whatever that may come with regulations). I still believe that the majority of human beings are not evil and most of them would rather not harm someone. But I also realize that most humans will have slightly different priorities. When arguing, I think it is very important to argue about the same thing, otherwise agreement can not be achieved ever.
wpietri 5y ago
America has two radically different concepts of freedom that travel under the same name. Both start with "I should be free to do as I want". One ends with "as long as I don't harm others". The other ends with "regardless of harm to others". You were dealing with the latter. It of course sounds insane when you say it baldly like this, which is why it rarely gets stated openly. But a lot of traditional societal structures depend on harm to others, so there's a big constituency for the suffering of others when it benefits the speaker.
- ithacaman 5y ago
  The complexity is in proving what harm is being done and to whom.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Not generally. It mainly gets complex when the latter side wants to deny the harm. Then it's an ocean of motivated reasoning and endless arguments. We still have people arguing today that American slavery was good for the slaves.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - artificial 5y ago
      Excellent! Together we can ban fast food and sugar consumption for the greater good. Heart disease and diabetes from the scourge of empty calories finally eliminated. Hundreds of thousands saved each year from poor choices. Up next: sedentary lifestyle enablers :). It’s such a rabbit hole, who should know best?
      - Klinky 5y ago
        Are you saying it's not worthy of deeper inspection? I mean you kind of make an excellent point, the fast food and processed foods industries create a lot of waste selling an unhealthy product while paying unlivable wages. Their product increases healthcare costs while enabling a sedentary and stressful commuter lifestyle.
darkerside 5y ago
Is nuclear energy "bad"? You'll find people arguing both sides of the issue today, but nobody argues that it is 100% safe. Sure, lead was a poison, but that didn't mean that its inhaled long term effects were known, and to say it was obvious in hindsight demonstrates a lack of empathy due to the curse of knowledge.

Symmetry 5y ago

I've got a sneaking suspicion we ought to go through everything else Thomas MIdgley Jr. invented and ban it, just to be sure. Leaded gas, CFCs, and the contraption he killed himself with is a worrying pattern. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

shucksley 5y ago
The fact that commenters at HN resort to ad hominem is a worrying pattern.
refurb 5y ago
Says the internet warrior who has invented nothing.
- jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
  You don't know that. Also you are trying to defend this guy (from the wikipedia article): "Environmental historian J. R. McNeill opined that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history",[21] and Bill Bryson remarked that Midgley possessed "an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny"." To put his other inventions under more scrutiny seems like a smart idea, but arguments for authority seem weirdly misplaced in this context.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Your hindsight is 20/20. Congratulations.
    - jbuhbjlnjbn 5y ago
      And Midgley should also have known better, with the lead poisoning and all. Again, if you only need common sense to spot a very bad idea, there is just no excuse. Your argument has no legs to stand on.

1970-01-01 5y ago

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27983845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27983845

dukeofdoom 5y ago

Thats interesting the guy who invented the mRNA technology thinks that vaccines make COVID-19 infections worse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-malone-vaccine-inventor-vaccine-skeptic/619734/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/robert-m...

air7 5y ago

> The most compelling option was actually ethanol. But from the perspective of GM, Kitman wrote, ethanol wasn’t an option. It couldn’t be patented and GM couldn’t control its production. And oil companies like Du Pont "hated it," he wrote, perceiving it to be a threat to their control of the internal combustion engine. I'm generally an avid beliver in free markets as an agent for positive change, so these types of "revelations" are really disheartening. What are the solutions to this? What governing system would have mass produced ethenol as the best antiknocker with no regard to the interests of top players? Perhaps the government should open companies that are meant to lose money and are tax supported (for-loss conpanies) that compete with the industry with solutions that are good for the people but bad for business?

zionic 5y ago
We could call it hybrid capitalism, mix the free market vs government run non profit.
- shucksley 5y ago
  Or we could just call it what it is - fascism.
foob 5y ago
Intellectual property reform could be a solution. It sounds like they might have gone with ethanol if they weren't motivated by patents so that they could prevent free market competition. We see the same thing with pharmaceuticals and in many other industries. I'm not particularly convinced that intellectual property laws are anywhere close to a net positive for consumers or society at large.
- laurent92 5y ago
  Patents, but also copyright on software. We gain nothing by rewriting the software every time, OSS should be the default. Same for music. It’s more controversial but Spotify is monetizing convenience, not music, which itself is available for free on P2P.

nso95 5y ago

Gasoline is poison in general though

kaladin-jasnah 5y ago
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that leaded gasoline is much worse.
sonthonax 5y ago
Refined oils aren't that poisonous. You could probably drink a gulp of pure octane and suffer no more than alcohol like effects and an upset stomach.
- space_rock 5y ago
  Ingestion of gasoline US CDC "350 g (12 oz.) can result in death for a 70 kg individual. As little as 10 to 15 g (less than one-half ounce) may be fatal in children. Symptoms of intoxication by ingestion of gasoline can range from vomiting, vertigo, drowsiness and confusion to loss of consciousness, convulsions, hemorrhaging of the lungs and internal organs, and death due to circulatory failure. Ingestion can cause irritation to the gastrointestinal mucosa and can be complicated by pulmonary aspiration, resulting in chemical pneumonitis." https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGDetails.aspx?mmgid=465&toxid=83 https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGDetails.aspx?mmgid=465&toxid...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - sonthonax 5y ago
    350g of gasoline (for a 70kg person) is a huge amount to accidentally ingest. That's an LD50 of 5g per kilo, which to put into perspective isn't really that toxic compared to ethanol which has an LD50 of about 7g per kilo. Highly refined gasoline that you can buy in pharmacies as mineral oil is safe to put on babies skin. It's not toxic in the order of magnitude that Tetraethyl-lead is.
- 5y ago

shadytrees 5y ago

If you're interested in reading more about leaded gasoline, I highly recommend Jamie Lincoln Kitman's in-depth article about it from 2000. It makes the case that the US government played a key role in allowing bad science to spread https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lead/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lea...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

photochemsyn 5y ago

Pure gasoline is not that great of a motor fuel because it knocks (explodes when it's not supposed to during the internal combustion engine cycle). This is a major problem with high-compression airplane engines. However, tetra-ethyl-lead (think one lead atom bonded to four ethanols minus the oxygen atoms) was never necessary to combat the problem. Ethanol's anti-knock properties at a blend of 85% gasoline 15% ethanol were well known, and issues with corrosion in fuel lines had been dealt with. However, that meant giving farmers (the only ethanol producers) 15% of the profits, and the famously monopolistic Rockefeller didn't like that. Indeed, about that whole Rockefeller-financed ethanol temperance movement, and Prohibition in general... In addition, alkylation strategies in World War II by Shell produced 100-octane aviation gas for prop engines, with no lead. It's been reintroduced it seems (wiki): Shell Unleaded 100-Octane Fuel "In December 2013 Shell Oil announced that they had developed an unleaded 100 octane fuel and will submit it for FAA testing with certification expected within two to three years. The fuel is alkylate-based with an additive package of aromatics. No information has yet been published in its performance, producibility or price. Industry analysts have indicated that it will likely cost as much as or more than existing 100LL." In the long run though, electric airplanes look far more attractive for the short-haul prop-driven world.

ohazi 5y ago
> In the long run though, electric airplanes look far more attractive for the short-haul prop-driven world. In the interim, the Rotax 912/914 series is a nice, modern, reliable powerplant for smaller/lighter airplanes that will happily burn autogas.
missedthecue 5y ago
A Tesla battery weighs as much as a Cessna 172. I don't know how practical a battery powered GA aircraft with competitive range would be.
stephen_g 5y ago
Apparently there are diesel prop engines that can run with Jet A1 (see [1]). This is apparently especially convenient given that at some airports Avgas isn't easily available compared to jet fuel (at least here in Australia, according to a pilot/aviation YouTuber that I was watching about this just yesterday). 1. https://newatlas.com/cessna-turbo-182-nxt/23465/ https://newatlas.com/cessna-turbo-182-nxt/23465/

paulkrush 5y ago

I guess we live on the shoulders of nastiness and things get better. So TEL was part of our boot sequence. What nastiness are we subjecting ourselves to today? BTW: The guy that invented TEL also invented CFCs! See Thomas Midgley Jr: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. This guy who invents awesome working chemicals that are tragically bad for people on a worldwide scale manages to exit life dues to his own inventions, unrelated to chemistry... Kind of Ironic! Thomas Midgley, Jr. (1889–1944) was an American engineer and chemist who contracted polio at age 51, leaving him severely disabled. He devised an elaborate system of ropes and pulleys to help others lift him from bed. He became accidentally entangled in the ropes and died of strangulation at the age of 55. However, he is better known for two of his other inventions: the tetraethyl lead (TEL) additive to gasoline, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

smnrchrds 5y ago
> Midgley's legacy has been scarred by the negative environmental impact of leaded gasoline and Freon. Environmental historian J. R. McNeill opined that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history", and Bill Bryson remarked that Midgley possessed "an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny".
- jgtrosh 5y ago
  And yet, it is also considered that he has benefited more than harmed; simply by helping provide countless people with refrigeration.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    That only works if we presume that the only way we could have discovered refrigeration was via CFCs, which seems improbable to me. My chest freezer uses propane as a refrigerant; why couldn’t we have just jumped straight to that?
    - Baeocystin 5y ago

azinman2 5y ago

> A significant body of research links lead exposure in children to violent crime, he writes. I thought this was actually correlation vs causation, and it’s been shown that the methods that keep citing this aren’t very good but it’s out in the zeitgeist anyway so everyone keeps citing the same discredited work?

jabl 5y ago

There are many octane boosters in addition to lead and ethanol. Like N-methyl aniline, ethers like MTBE and ETBE, and modifying the gasoline composition to replace low-octane components with high-octane components like aromatics, and so-called super alkylate. Most of these have disadvantages of their own, and tend to be more expensive. So TEL won for a reason. Particularly if you ignore things like diffuse health effects.

Neil44 5y ago
Yes, not to mention the lubricant properties of the lead for the valve seats and guides.
- jabl 5y ago
  Hardened materials for poppet valves and seats, like stellite, were invented and used before TEL. It was only after leaded gas became ubiquitous after WWII that manufacturers started saving a buck and stopped using them.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    Hardened valve seats are useful in racing engines and diesels, but car makers stopped using them in gasoline-fueled road cars simply because they weren't worth the cost regardless of whether the fuel was leaded. Reports of excessive valve seat recession after the phaseout of TEL were all anecdotal, and for every mechanic who swears there was a a rash of worn seats, there are others who say there wasn't. The theory that leaded gas prevents micro-weld induced valve abrasion has not been verified in controlled tests. The final report from the EPA's Valve Seat Recession Working Group found no evidence that leaded gas reduces engine wear under any but the most extreme operating conditions: https://archive.epa.gov/international/air/web/pdf/vsr-finaldraft.pdf https://archive.epa.gov/international/air/web/pdf/vsr-finald... "In real world conditions, virtually no evidence of excessive valve wear has been found in vehicle or engine operation in normal everyday use, and several studies that monitored vehicles in actual daily service in countries that eliminated lead found no excessive valve wear."
- deleted 5y ago

magwa101 5y ago

Private profits, future liabilities. We have been trading the future for wealth today, all that wealth has to be paid back. Is all the generated wealth zero sum?

andi999 5y ago

Is this really the full story? Why did then the whole world follow suit (in using TEL instead of e.g. ethanol)? Here it seems the reason was production cost of TEL was lower than ethanol: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-a-brief-history-of-octane https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-a-brief-history-... Also, since there were less cars when this was decided and supposedly low dosage risk of lead was only known in the 60s, the original article seems to follow a bit of a narrow narrative. (For the workers the high risk was probably known though)

streamofdigits 5y ago

For every Thomas Midgley Jr. [0] there is a Clair Patterson [1] - and thats the problem. Artistic talent seems to have strong correlation with empathy and a sense of social responsibility. Scientific and technical (STEM) talent much less so. While the very pinnacle of science (people like Einstein) display (or convincigly fake) deep humanistic traits, the army of scientists / engineers that got educated since the early 20th century are basically just run-of-the-mill willing executioners, cogs in the machine, eager to turn in the prevailing direction, support whatever power structruce exists, with no strong conviction as to what "good" looks like. How digital technology has been developed and used is just the latest manifestation of this amoral stance. If we consider areas like biotech, the risks those over-eager idiot-savants help bring to life are potentially existential. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Cameron_Patterson

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

etaioinshrdlu 5y ago

If pure gasoline knocks - explodes when it's not supposed to -- why can't we run it in a diesel engine, where self-ignition is the mode of operation?

amateurICEguy 5y ago
For starters gasoline would detonate at 12:1 ratios. Which isn't going to make your 17:1 diesel very happy. Also gasoline detonation causes a shock wave whereas diesel is more like a controlled burn as it is injected. That being said, there have been engines that run on diesel or gasoline. The M35 (deuce and half) has an engine that can run on just about any flammable material, preferably diesel. Gasoline's lack of lubrication will eventually kill it, but it'll run long enough to get you out of trouble.

nikkinana 5y ago

So was draino. Your point, asshole?

afroboy 5y ago

Algeria was the last country to ban leaded gas last month.

geomark 5y ago

Is this on HN because of the news that Algeria, the last country in the world that was still using leaded gas, has now stopped? [1] [1] https://news.sky.com/story/leaded-petrol-phased-out-in-the-algeria-the-last-country-to-stop-using-the-fuel-12395326 https://news.sky.com/story/leaded-petrol-phased-out-in-the-a...

jmacd 5y ago

I have a very distinct memory of disembarking from the Budapest to Belgrade night train to the smells of leaded fuel in Belgrade. Budapest was no standard of cleanliness at the time (late 90s), however Belgrade was truly still in its post-war phase and had all of the energy, anger and edge of a place that had been pretty beaten up. We were robbed, given a pistol in a nightclub (still have no idea what was going on there, I just remember being really surprised that pistols came in styrofoam and shrink-wrap packages when they are new... Being from Canada I had never even seen a pistol before), were surrounded by really beautiful people who we thought wanted something from us but who were only generous and kind, and .... the smell. The smell of that leaded fuel was everywhere. It smelled sweet and was so unique. It's what has stuck with me 20+ years later. One other side note from that trip. We were in the countryside (mean to be meeting a friend from home in his ancestral/family village but took the wrong bus) and someone in the village directed us in to a pub that was basically an old barn. Inside there were many middle eastern guys and a mix of Serbian and english speaking people. I was given a pin by one of the middle eastern guys after I threw an excellent game of darts on the dartboard next to him. Years later I had a job for a defense contractor and the subject of that trip and the pin came up. I showed him a picture of it and he recognized it instantly: al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. I looked it up and so it was. We were put up with a local elderly woman who served us some type of soup in the morning and then someone gave us a ride out of town to a bus stop that had service that day. We waited only an hour until the first car came along, reeking of leaded fuel.

MikeDelta 5y ago
Thank you for sharing this, what an adventure you had.