The source you cited conveniently links to a 404 page for the study it cites. But yes, I've read quite a bit about the Reid-Hillview Airport saga. These claims

The source you cited conveniently links to a 404 page for the study it cites. But yes, I've read quite a bit about the Reid-Hillview Airport saga. These claims of leaded gas hurting the children around airport is just the newest in a long list of excuses to close airports so their land can be redeveloped into more strip malls and condos. These neighborhood groups are biased towards wanting airports closed. It's textbook NIMBYism and they'll look for any excuse to achieve their goals. If it's not leaded gas, it's something else. > Instead, the FAA and pilots of piston driven planes have simply decided lead poisoning is a justifiable price to pay for people living near an airport in exchange for individuals getting to fly their quarter million+ $ aircraft. Don't buy a house near an airport if you're concerned about it then. The airport was there before the houses were. > Everything you suggest it is useful for could be performed with the already proven and no longer new unleaded alternative. Defending this practice is asinine. Where did I say I liked leaded gas exactly? I'm quite excited about G100UL being rolled out, even if it costs a bit more, so I can stop having this exact argument about how we need to close airports because of leaded gas. Everything with the FAA moves slowly, but it's moving. We're about to have unleaded gas for all planes. By the way, the average Cessna 172 is well under $100k (at least prior to the previous two years before asset prices for everything went through the roof). For every fancy late model Cirrus SR22T there's 10 more shitbox Cessna's from the 1970s barely hanging onto life. You think of private pilots as all extremely wealthy individuals. Most of us are solidly middle class. How many people have boats or RVs that cost the same or more? Small planes fall into that same category.