5 ms·

While leaded gas is technically still sold your comment is misleading to the point where it's basically just a lie. 100LL (aka avgas) has nowhere near the lead

While leaded gas is technically still sold your comment is misleading to the point where it's basically just a lie. 100LL (aka avgas) has nowhere near the lead concentration that automotive fuels use, is used in much lower volume and with much less proximity to people than leaded automotive fuel. If you are concerned about lead exposure test for lead in and around where you live and what you consume. That is the primary vector of lead exposure in 2022. If you want to waste time with low effort comments direct them at the FAA because they are obstructing the current drop in unleaded replacement.

wszfahwbwbaha 4y ago
- googlryas 4y ago
  The low effort isn't in the concern, but just in literally the amount of effort OP put into their comment. They could at least attempt to quantify the effect they believe this has on people living near airports.
  - blululu 4y ago
    I don’t know if there is any known level of safe lead exposure. In terms of direct impact, this is going to be hard to measure but the risk is nonetheless real. In fact the difficulty of measuring the consequences of mass lead exposure was one of the best arguments out forth my oil refining companies back in the day to support leader gasoline. Not sure why all the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to avoid exposure to a dangerous chemical.
    - mcguire 4y ago
      "From 1976-1980 to 2015-2016, the geometric mean blood lead level (BLL) of the US population aged 1 to 74 years dropped from 12.8 to 0.82 μg/dL, a decline of 93.6%. Yet, an estimated 500 000 children aged 1 to 5 years have BLLs at or above the blood lead reference value of 5 μg/dL established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Low levels of exposure can lead to adverse health effects. There is no safe level of lead exposure, and child BLLs less than 10 μg/dL are known to adversely affect IQ and behavior. When the exposure source is known, approximately 95% of BLLs of 25 μg/dL or higher are work-related among US adults. Despite much progress in reducing exposure to lead in the United States, there are challenges to eliminating exposure." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522252/)
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - googlryas 4y ago
      You're right that no level of lead exposure is considered safe, but that doesn't mean that any lead exposure is going to have any kind of measurable effect on an organism. Shouldn't the impact of leaded avgas be easier to measure, since the concentrations should be higher around airports which send up a lot of leaded avgas planes? It's a different situation than where every car was burning leaded gas and everyone was pretty much exposed to it. The effects should be much more localized and therefore easier to study. The risk may be real, but it may be dwarfed by other sources of lead, making it a silly thing to worry yourself about. For example, you might get more lead into your body from 8oz of fruit juice than you would living a year near an airport.
mcguire 4y ago
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1003231 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1003231 "On the basis of distance to airport coefficients, children living within 500 m, 1,000 m, or 1,500 m of an airport had average blood lead levels that were 4.4, 3.8, or 2.1% higher, respectively, than other children." On the other hand, in 1971 lead averaged 2.5 g/gal. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522252/ which has a nifty graph of leaded gas use and air lead concentrations with the neat note, "The increase in air lead concentration between 2000 and 2001 is likely due to changes at sites near stationary industrial sources. The decline in air lead concentrations between 2001 and 2002 is likely due to lower lead concentrations at sites in Herculaneum, Missouri.") 100LL has about 2.1 g/gal. (https://www.exxonmobil.com/en/aviation/products-and-services/products/avgas-100ll https://www.exxonmobil.com/en/aviation/products-and-services...) Ah-hah: Herculaneum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum,_Missouri#Lead_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum,_Missouri#Lead_pol...

wszfahwbwbaha 4y ago

googlryas 4y ago
The low effort isn't in the concern, but just in literally the amount of effort OP put into their comment. They could at least attempt to quantify the effect they believe this has on people living near airports.
- blululu 4y ago
  I don’t know if there is any known level of safe lead exposure. In terms of direct impact, this is going to be hard to measure but the risk is nonetheless real. In fact the difficulty of measuring the consequences of mass lead exposure was one of the best arguments out forth my oil refining companies back in the day to support leader gasoline. Not sure why all the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to avoid exposure to a dangerous chemical.
  - mcguire 4y ago
    "From 1976-1980 to 2015-2016, the geometric mean blood lead level (BLL) of the US population aged 1 to 74 years dropped from 12.8 to 0.82 μg/dL, a decline of 93.6%. Yet, an estimated 500 000 children aged 1 to 5 years have BLLs at or above the blood lead reference value of 5 μg/dL established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Low levels of exposure can lead to adverse health effects. There is no safe level of lead exposure, and child BLLs less than 10 μg/dL are known to adversely affect IQ and behavior. When the exposure source is known, approximately 95% of BLLs of 25 μg/dL or higher are work-related among US adults. Despite much progress in reducing exposure to lead in the United States, there are challenges to eliminating exposure." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522252/)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - googlryas 4y ago
    You're right that no level of lead exposure is considered safe, but that doesn't mean that any lead exposure is going to have any kind of measurable effect on an organism. Shouldn't the impact of leaded avgas be easier to measure, since the concentrations should be higher around airports which send up a lot of leaded avgas planes? It's a different situation than where every car was burning leaded gas and everyone was pretty much exposed to it. The effects should be much more localized and therefore easier to study. The risk may be real, but it may be dwarfed by other sources of lead, making it a silly thing to worry yourself about. For example, you might get more lead into your body from 8oz of fruit juice than you would living a year near an airport.

mcguire 4y ago

https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1003231 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1003231 "On the basis of distance to airport coefficients, children living within 500 m, 1,000 m, or 1,500 m of an airport had average blood lead levels that were 4.4, 3.8, or 2.1% higher, respectively, than other children." On the other hand, in 1971 lead averaged 2.5 g/gal. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522252/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6522252/ which has a nifty graph of leaded gas use and air lead concentrations with the neat note, "The increase in air lead concentration between 2000 and 2001 is likely due to changes at sites near stationary industrial sources. The decline in air lead concentrations between 2001 and 2002 is likely due to lower lead concentrations at sites in Herculaneum, Missouri.") 100LL has about 2.1 g/gal. (https://www.exxonmobil.com/en/aviation/products-and-services/products/avgas-100ll https://www.exxonmobil.com/en/aviation/products-and-services...) Ah-hah: Herculaneum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum,_Missouri#Lead_pollution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum,_Missouri#Lead_pol...