7 ms·

My big complaint is that a) Leaded aviation fuel, an absolutely KNOWN hazard, has been given a pass for literal DECADES. b) At some point you have to just put

My big complaint is that a) Leaded aviation fuel, an absolutely KNOWN hazard, has been given a pass for literal DECADES. b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban the sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather in the old planes. c) Ban the sale of leaded gas to fill planes with changes in registrations after 1/1/2023. d) Ban the sale of leaded gas period after 1/1/2025. Industry has been given (more) than enough time to solve this - and does not care. I live near an airport, with a pregnant wife and a young child. The total hassle it is to deal with just old lead paint if you try and follow code is rediculous, but they still have planes flying over burning LEADED fuel!! WHY? Most planes don't need leaded gas. Jet-A / Diesel etc can also be used in planes. And yes, I understand small, old GA planes may be impacted, but this has been on the radar for decades now. "There is no known safe blood lead concentration; even blood lead concentrations as low as 5 µg/dL may be associated with decreased intelligence in children, behavioural difficulties and learning problems. As lead exposure increases, the range and severity of symptoms and effects also increase."

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
Wait until you read up on Toxicologic Assessment of Jet Fuel which covers mostly JP-8, the military stuff, but it is also used in trucks, because they can! Or Toxicologic Profile of Jet Fuel which also covers the civil stuff, Jet A. No Chemtrailer here, btw.
nawgz 5y ago
Damn, it makes so much sense that aviation fuel is leaded. I have been a fortunately healthy person for my life, but at one point I lived downtown San Jose (which for the non-locals has an airport in the middle of the city), right under the main landing/takeoff path. I got sick 6x a year or more. After 1 and 2/3 years, I realized that it was probably the planes and moved away, and now I haven't been sick since except maybe once or twice (over 3y). Just awful.
- slownews45 5y ago
  It's unlikely to have been a direct cause given the (relatively) low levels of lead avgas generates, but it almost certainly has some effect. The question is, given that it's so clearly a poison (maybe a top 10 poison) - why spray it into the air above residential neighborhood? Lead impacts are around things like "anaemia, hypertension, renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the reproductive organs. The neurological and behavioural effects of lead are believed to be irreversible." Reality is measurable increases in lead concentrations in blood near airports is very small. But does look like it exists.
- mlyle 5y ago
  Large airplanes/jets do not use leaded fuels. Only small piston planes. Even right under the takeoff path, aviation lead exposure would only be a moderate proportion of your total lead exposure.
  - nawgz 5y ago
    Interesting, I see what you are saying. Well, I guess aviation fuel byproducts aren't great to have sprayed on your home every day either way :)
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  While it's unlikely that you had significant lead exposure due to this as others have pointed out, I also wouldn't discount your issues with getting sick more often, particularly if it was upper respiratory illnesses - people who live under airport flight paths are exposed to up to 4x as much harmful exhaust gas byproducts, superfine particulates, and other nasty particles* vs baseline. It's amazing that airports aren't required to purchase and relocate the (typically poor) people who are absolutely getting their lifespans shortened by living near an airport. *(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32639745/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32639745/)
  - lovecg 5y ago
    Most airports, at the time there were built were located in a relatively remote area. The city typically moves closer to the airport, not the other way around. It would require an unreasonable amount of foresight to buy out all this (at the time quite empty) land ahead of time.
mlyle 5y ago
> b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban the sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather in the old planes. A measure like this may be reasonable. But C/D totals the entire piston aircraft fleet-- $50B+ of capital equip, plus the whole infrastructure and industry around it-- for only a very moderate change in lead exposure. Best estimates I've seen is that this would lower the total population burden from lead by well under 5%. Much more sane, IMO, to put in a progressively escalating tax on leaded aviation fuels that over time becomes steep. Then airplanes can gradually transition as overhauls become due, etc, as the pressure from operating costs mounts. Presumably those burning the most fuel would transition first, and an industry capable of retrofitting a few percent of the aircraft per year would spring up.
- gbrown 5y ago
  > Best estimates I've seen is that this would lower the total population burden from lead by well under 5%. That sounds pretty great actually, for such a simple solution.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    It's not absolutely a sure thing that there's any significant burden from aviation. Blood tests come up with a tiny, barely detectable difference near airports (well under 5% for those nearest the airport, and confounded: airports are correlated with low SES and therefore lead paint, etc, is also more prevalent). The most pessimistic estimates from first principles come up with 2-3% of the total population lead burden (more than an order of magnitude above what the blood tests imply, and the blood tests likely overstate the problem). If you threw a few billion more at leaded paint remediation, I think you'd make much more of a difference. I think the aviation lead problem should get fixed, but because it's such a small part of the overall problem it makes sense to take a graduated approach instead of giving GA businesses the death penalty. Tax leaded aviation fuels, and use the proceeds to pay for leaded paint remediation.
    - slownews45 5y ago
      If the tax was substantial I'd support this. Graduated approach ignores the decades that have ALREADY been provided as an exception to the lead fuel rules that apply everywhere else - it's already been graduated.
throwaway803453 5y ago
I was a child in a major city when leaded gasoline was prevalent and I live by an airport now. I probably see as many propeller airplanes in a year as I did automobiles in 5 minutes as a child playing in the street. This is also comparing an airplane off in the distance to a car running a few dozen feet away. So perhaps your recommended ban wouldn't move the needle at all when it comes to blood lead concentrations. Or perhaps this is the benefit of having younger people in government. Because 50 year old like me thinks "massive progress made, don't waste time on diminishing returns" by comparing the current situation to the distant past. Whereas someone younger sees the threat differently. Frankly, the propellor airplanes I do see are mostly military which will likely not be impacted by any regulations. I am also making the assumption only propellor airplanes could be using unleaded gas.
- mlyle 5y ago
  Military propeller airplanes are almost all turboprops and do not burn leaded gasoline. edit: perhaps "all", not "almost all", in the US.
lutorm 5y ago
Most planes don't need leaded gas. Jet-A / Diesel etc can also be used in planes. And yes, I understand small, old GA planes may be impacted, but this has been on the radar for decades now. This comment makes me think you don't actually understand the situation. The vast majority of aviation fuel used IS Jet-A, which does not contain lead. Small piston engine general aviation aircraft are the only ones that use leaded gas, and most of those can not use anything else that exists currently. I too have a pregnant wife and a young child, but I worry far, far more about residual lead paint exposure than I do about avgas. Both get tested regularly and show no detectable levels (<2ug/dL), so that makes me feel like the risk exposure is acceptable. Yes, your quote about "no known safe level" is true, but at undetectable levels I'm confident it's in the noise along with all other environmental factors we don't know about. If you're worried about lead exposure, are you testing?
- KiranRao0 5y ago
  I'm very happy with the recent progress in GA Avgas. My flying club recently switched from 100LL [1] to UL94 [2] with no appreciable change in aircraft performance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#100LL_(blue) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#100LL_(blue) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#UL94_(formerly_94UL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#UL94_(formerly_94UL)
- slownews45 5y ago
  There has been no push in the market to get small GA off leaded gas. There has been no extra tax even. As a result, new planes, being delivered today, are shipping with engines requiring leaded gas, which perpetuates this problem. After decades - does it make public policy sense to still sell NEW planes that REQUIRE leaded gas? I don't believe so. Literally every other method of propulsion, some with much stronger claims in terms of life utility, have moved off leaded gas. Ie, the ambulance, the race cars the everything, except GA. Reality -> GA has a well connected / rich pool of users with influence. If you had a bunch of poor minorities spraying even trace amounts of lead over someone's nice golf course my guess is you'd be getting well off activists to shut you down in no time for environmental or other reasons.
  - deleted 5y ago
Aloha 5y ago
Only piston engined planes used any fuel with lead, virtually no commercially operated flights use piston engines (sightseeing and bush pilots aside), so the vast majority, basically 95% of traffic in the skies is already using Jet-A, which does not contain lead.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago

Wait until you read up on Toxicologic Assessment of Jet Fuel which covers mostly JP-8, the military stuff, but it is also used in trucks, because they can! Or Toxicologic Profile of Jet Fuel which also covers the civil stuff, Jet A. No Chemtrailer here, btw.

nawgz 5y ago

Damn, it makes so much sense that aviation fuel is leaded. I have been a fortunately healthy person for my life, but at one point I lived downtown San Jose (which for the non-locals has an airport in the middle of the city), right under the main landing/takeoff path. I got sick 6x a year or more. After 1 and 2/3 years, I realized that it was probably the planes and moved away, and now I haven't been sick since except maybe once or twice (over 3y). Just awful.

slownews45 5y ago
It's unlikely to have been a direct cause given the (relatively) low levels of lead avgas generates, but it almost certainly has some effect. The question is, given that it's so clearly a poison (maybe a top 10 poison) - why spray it into the air above residential neighborhood? Lead impacts are around things like "anaemia, hypertension, renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the reproductive organs. The neurological and behavioural effects of lead are believed to be irreversible." Reality is measurable increases in lead concentrations in blood near airports is very small. But does look like it exists.
mlyle 5y ago
Large airplanes/jets do not use leaded fuels. Only small piston planes. Even right under the takeoff path, aviation lead exposure would only be a moderate proportion of your total lead exposure.
- nawgz 5y ago
  Interesting, I see what you are saying. Well, I guess aviation fuel byproducts aren't great to have sprayed on your home every day either way :)
idiotsecant 5y ago
While it's unlikely that you had significant lead exposure due to this as others have pointed out, I also wouldn't discount your issues with getting sick more often, particularly if it was upper respiratory illnesses - people who live under airport flight paths are exposed to up to 4x as much harmful exhaust gas byproducts, superfine particulates, and other nasty particles* vs baseline. It's amazing that airports aren't required to purchase and relocate the (typically poor) people who are absolutely getting their lifespans shortened by living near an airport. *(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32639745/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32639745/)
- lovecg 5y ago
  Most airports, at the time there were built were located in a relatively remote area. The city typically moves closer to the airport, not the other way around. It would require an unreasonable amount of foresight to buy out all this (at the time quite empty) land ahead of time.

mlyle 5y ago

> b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban the sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather in the old planes. A measure like this may be reasonable. But C/D totals the entire piston aircraft fleet-- $50B+ of capital equip, plus the whole infrastructure and industry around it-- for only a very moderate change in lead exposure. Best estimates I've seen is that this would lower the total population burden from lead by well under 5%. Much more sane, IMO, to put in a progressively escalating tax on leaded aviation fuels that over time becomes steep. Then airplanes can gradually transition as overhauls become due, etc, as the pressure from operating costs mounts. Presumably those burning the most fuel would transition first, and an industry capable of retrofitting a few percent of the aircraft per year would spring up.

gbrown 5y ago
> Best estimates I've seen is that this would lower the total population burden from lead by well under 5%. That sounds pretty great actually, for such a simple solution.
- mlyle 5y ago
  It's not absolutely a sure thing that there's any significant burden from aviation. Blood tests come up with a tiny, barely detectable difference near airports (well under 5% for those nearest the airport, and confounded: airports are correlated with low SES and therefore lead paint, etc, is also more prevalent). The most pessimistic estimates from first principles come up with 2-3% of the total population lead burden (more than an order of magnitude above what the blood tests imply, and the blood tests likely overstate the problem). If you threw a few billion more at leaded paint remediation, I think you'd make much more of a difference. I think the aviation lead problem should get fixed, but because it's such a small part of the overall problem it makes sense to take a graduated approach instead of giving GA businesses the death penalty. Tax leaded aviation fuels, and use the proceeds to pay for leaded paint remediation.
  - slownews45 5y ago
    If the tax was substantial I'd support this. Graduated approach ignores the decades that have ALREADY been provided as an exception to the lead fuel rules that apply everywhere else - it's already been graduated.

throwaway803453 5y ago

I was a child in a major city when leaded gasoline was prevalent and I live by an airport now. I probably see as many propeller airplanes in a year as I did automobiles in 5 minutes as a child playing in the street. This is also comparing an airplane off in the distance to a car running a few dozen feet away. So perhaps your recommended ban wouldn't move the needle at all when it comes to blood lead concentrations. Or perhaps this is the benefit of having younger people in government. Because 50 year old like me thinks "massive progress made, don't waste time on diminishing returns" by comparing the current situation to the distant past. Whereas someone younger sees the threat differently. Frankly, the propellor airplanes I do see are mostly military which will likely not be impacted by any regulations. I am also making the assumption only propellor airplanes could be using unleaded gas.

mlyle 5y ago
Military propeller airplanes are almost all turboprops and do not burn leaded gasoline. edit: perhaps "all", not "almost all", in the US.

lutorm 5y ago

Most planes don't need leaded gas. Jet-A / Diesel etc can also be used in planes. And yes, I understand small, old GA planes may be impacted, but this has been on the radar for decades now. This comment makes me think you don't actually understand the situation. The vast majority of aviation fuel used IS Jet-A, which does not contain lead. Small piston engine general aviation aircraft are the only ones that use leaded gas, and most of those can not use anything else that exists currently. I too have a pregnant wife and a young child, but I worry far, far more about residual lead paint exposure than I do about avgas. Both get tested regularly and show no detectable levels (<2ug/dL), so that makes me feel like the risk exposure is acceptable. Yes, your quote about "no known safe level" is true, but at undetectable levels I'm confident it's in the noise along with all other environmental factors we don't know about. If you're worried about lead exposure, are you testing?

KiranRao0 5y ago
I'm very happy with the recent progress in GA Avgas. My flying club recently switched from 100LL [1] to UL94 [2] with no appreciable change in aircraft performance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#100LL_(blue) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#100LL_(blue) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#UL94_(formerly_94UL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#UL94_(formerly_94UL)
slownews45 5y ago
There has been no push in the market to get small GA off leaded gas. There has been no extra tax even. As a result, new planes, being delivered today, are shipping with engines requiring leaded gas, which perpetuates this problem. After decades - does it make public policy sense to still sell NEW planes that REQUIRE leaded gas? I don't believe so. Literally every other method of propulsion, some with much stronger claims in terms of life utility, have moved off leaded gas. Ie, the ambulance, the race cars the everything, except GA. Reality -> GA has a well connected / rich pool of users with influence. If you had a bunch of poor minorities spraying even trace amounts of lead over someone's nice golf course my guess is you'd be getting well off activists to shut you down in no time for environmental or other reasons.
- deleted 5y ago

Aloha 5y ago

Only piston engined planes used any fuel with lead, virtually no commercially operated flights use piston engines (sightseeing and bush pilots aside), so the vast majority, basically 95% of traffic in the skies is already using Jet-A, which does not contain lead.