8 ms·

The absolute terrible thing about leaded gasoline is that they were already aware of several other additives (including ethanol, IIRC) that have the desired ant

The absolute terrible thing about leaded gasoline is that they were already aware of several other additives (including ethanol, IIRC) that have the desired anti-knocking properties. But they went with tetraethyl lead anyway because it is cheaper and provided a few cents more profit per gallon. A cent was worth more back then than it does now, but still :-(

boomboomsubban 4y ago
They also were aware very early on of the health risks lead caused. Midgley himself suffered from lead poisoning. Then they poisoned the world for those few cents per gallon.
- di4na 4y ago
  Note that despite suffering from it he kept doing stunt in public without realising it was a danger. Local rationality is a thing. It is not all a plot to suck money out. He believed his own shit.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    Money tends to do that to people.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      The love of money is the root of all evil.
somenameforme 4y ago
I would also emphasize a more social issue to this. There's also a tendency for society to discount the dangers of something when the impact is sporadically distributed or long-term. Beyond the endless corporate lobbying and sold out scientists/politicians working to convince everybody that leaded fuel was 100% safe, I think there was also probably a mindset of many in society that 'Well, if leaded fuel is so poisonous and I'm breathing it in everyday, then why am I perfectly fine?' And with such "logic" dismiss any concerns about its safety.
- starkparker 4y ago
  The Nation's story on it dives much deeper. There was an out and out panic about lead and leaded gasoline in the 1920s that GM and Ethyl/du Pont had to squash, which Midgely happily participated in. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lead/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lea...
  - Weneedlead 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
      A gimmick account dedicated to lead advocacy. Interesting. Could you source any scientific papers (or even a schizo blog post!) we could read through? Because your Venezuelan eyesight anecdote is not very convincing.
      - Weneedlead 4y ago
        [dead]
        JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
        I don't follow. #2 is on nicotine exposure, and #3 concluded lead exposure is bad. "Conclusion: Lead poison has a great effect on vision and eye health of the workers, its lead to decrease of vision result in development amblyopia, it also has influence on ocular media and causes severe allergic reaction Thus, all the workers in this field should wear the protection tools provided in the factory, and there is a critical need for examining their ocular health annually."
        Weneedlead 4y ago
        Tobacco smoke contains heavy metals, smoking rises lead levels. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322790056_Blood_Lead_Levels_among_Cigarette_Smokers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322790056_Blood_Lea... 11 out of the 76 short term exposed workers had myopia, while 10 out of 124 long term exposed workers had myopia, which is much less.
olliej 4y ago
They also knew it was toxic, but deliberately put on displays claiming that it wasn’t, even midgley would pour it over his hands despite knowing the danger and intentionally avoiding it in all other cases. They also used medical testing to mislead: showing people could consume it and lead wouldn’t be detected in their urine. Apparently that showed it was safe, and no one said “then where did the lead go?”. Happily he also invented the machine that killed him so at least he was egalitarian in his harm.
- Weneedlead 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - moring 4y ago
    Why is that question important? It's interesting from a scientific point-of-view, but the answer doesn't change the fact that it is there. The answer might help us predict where to find much or little of it, though.
    - Weneedlead 4y ago
      The fact that it has always been there casts a great doubt on the claims about its toxicity. It can be found through the ages in human remains and in geological remains that clearly predate people.
      - jamespo 4y ago
        Irrelevant
  - versteegen 4y ago
    This is nonsense. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485653/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485653/ says > There is no such level of lead that appears to be necessary or beneficial to the body and no “safe” level of exposure to lead has been found. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poison... says > There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects. > The body stores lead in the teeth and bones, where it accumulates over time. Lead stored in bone may be released into the blood during pregnancy, thus exposing the fetus. Undernourished children are more susceptible to lead because their bodies absorb more lead if other nutrients, such as calcium or iron, are lacking.
zoltrix303 4y ago
The most interesting to me is the correlation between the delinquency among children and teens, and the years of introduction of tetraethyl lead in gasoline for anti-knocking properties. I read somewhere that Thomas Midgley Jr could be considered, in modern history, to be the organism with highest impactful on earth with his invention of Chlorofurocarbons and their impact on the ozone layers. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesi...
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Sort of like the anti Norman Borlaug.
Ekaros 4y ago
But how many gallons were sold with lead added? I would imagine that is quite substantial number, so in the end we are talking about large sums of money...
- samtho 4y ago
  The “couple of cents” seemed like an off the cuff remark to indicate that leaded gas was less expensive than alternatives, but I would be interested in hearing about this delta as a percent rather than a fixed cost. Given inflation, gas price fluctuations, and the sheer volume in which fuel was sold, measuring it as a “couple of cents” is completely meaningless.
  - jabl 4y ago
    It's hard to have any conclusive number on this, it's not only about inflation etc. but also the cost of alternative ways of achieving the required octane (e.g. increasing production of reformate or alkylate, or the refinery buying external blendstocks like ethanol or MTBE), which varies a lot over time (due to technical advancements) and place (what kind of equipment does a refinery have installed), etc. From a 1998 article (https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/d3706d00-3d97-495d-8b8c-744cab1e7e3e/HandbookRemovalOfLeadFromGasolineTechnicalConsiderations.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=jqeKLR https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/d3706d00-3d97-495d-8b8c-.... ) it estimates between $0.01-$0.03/liter for lead removal. US gasoline prices in 1990-2000 were at around $1.20/gallon which works out to about $0.32/liter. Taking the middle value of $0.02/liter for lead removal that would be around 6%. Just as a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I think in reality in many places that cost delta at pump the is lower since the usage of ethanol as an octane enhancer shifts the cost to various agricultural subsidy programs.
    - vitus 4y ago
      Wapo article from 1984 [0] asserts that 85-octane nonleaded gasoline was consistently about 2 cents cheaper to make than 87-octane leaded gasoline. That said, that was with numerous advancements over the preceding 60 years which most likely would never have happened if we hadn't developed engines capable of taking advantage of high-octane fuels. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1984/04/01/cost-benefit-foes-surprised/ca65d1a9-aa94-461f-a882-10853c1f375a/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1984/04/01/c... "But, as DeMuth noted, the EPA study is concerned about total costs and benefits to society, not just to one group. The study makes no attempt to predict what would happen to prices at the pump. It points out instead that the cost of manufacturing 87-octane unleaded gasoline, according to market prices, is consistently less than 2 cents a gallon more than for making 89-octane leaded gasoline. Average pump prices are about 7 cents more, however." I believe this is the EPA study: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100YK16.TXT https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100YK16.TXT (I clicked the "download as pdf" adobe acrobat icon on the right) "The DOE model estimates that at current lead levels (1.10 gplg) the marginal manufacturing cost differential between unleaded and leaded regular grades of gasoline is less than two cents per gallon. Retail prices, however, diverge by an average of about seven cents per gallon (Weekly Petroleum Status Report, 1984, various issues)." 7 cents per gallon is right around that 2 cents per liter that you cite, naturally.
Weneedlead 4y ago
[flagged]
- noduerme 4y ago
  > never get drunk psychologically What? It's hard to make heads or tails of this comment. Are you saying that asocial psychopaths wouldn't exist if we'd kept lead in gasoline? [edit] also realizing this is this account's first HN post... I probably shouldn't be responding
  - Weneedlead 4y ago
    Yes, they never get to the stage when you talk nonsense when they drink alcohol. (they can't readily tell, it seems, they need to test you in some way) I'm saying that the majority is now psychopaths. I'm still more inclined that the drop in IQ is an artifact, but even if intelligence is improved in some way, it's useless when the person is asocial. Not my first post, not that it matters.
    - orf 4y ago
      It’s very hard to tell the difference between both your comments and conspiratorial ramblings (psychopaths have an unnaturally high alcohol tolerance?), hence the flagging and downvoting. It’s also hard to tell what your point actually is. I’d advise re-thinking how you structure your thoughts or writing.
      - Weneedlead 4y ago
        Lead deficiency makes people asocial, which is why we've seen the downturn of western industries. That was my point.
ElfinTrousers 4y ago
A cent was worth more back then, but I guarantee you any oil company today that could save a cent per gallon at the cost of human lives would do it without hesitation.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

They also were aware very early on of the health risks lead caused. Midgley himself suffered from lead poisoning. Then they poisoned the world for those few cents per gallon.

di4na 4y ago
Note that despite suffering from it he kept doing stunt in public without realising it was a danger. Local rationality is a thing. It is not all a plot to suck money out. He believed his own shit.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Money tends to do that to people.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    The love of money is the root of all evil.

somenameforme 4y ago

I would also emphasize a more social issue to this. There's also a tendency for society to discount the dangers of something when the impact is sporadically distributed or long-term. Beyond the endless corporate lobbying and sold out scientists/politicians working to convince everybody that leaded fuel was 100% safe, I think there was also probably a mindset of many in society that 'Well, if leaded fuel is so poisonous and I'm breathing it in everyday, then why am I perfectly fine?' And with such "logic" dismiss any concerns about its safety.

starkparker 4y ago
The Nation's story on it dives much deeper. There was an out and out panic about lead and leaded gasoline in the 1920s that GM and Ethyl/du Pont had to squash, which Midgely happily participated in. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lead/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lea...
- Weneedlead 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
    A gimmick account dedicated to lead advocacy. Interesting. Could you source any scientific papers (or even a schizo blog post!) we could read through? Because your Venezuelan eyesight anecdote is not very convincing.
    - Weneedlead 4y ago
      [dead]
      - JPws_Prntr_Fngr 4y ago
        I don't follow. #2 is on nicotine exposure, and #3 concluded lead exposure is bad. "Conclusion: Lead poison has a great effect on vision and eye health of the workers, its lead to decrease of vision result in development amblyopia, it also has influence on ocular media and causes severe allergic reaction Thus, all the workers in this field should wear the protection tools provided in the factory, and there is a critical need for examining their ocular health annually."
        Weneedlead 4y ago
        Tobacco smoke contains heavy metals, smoking rises lead levels. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322790056_Blood_Lead_Levels_among_Cigarette_Smokers https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322790056_Blood_Lea... 11 out of the 76 short term exposed workers had myopia, while 10 out of 124 long term exposed workers had myopia, which is much less.

olliej 4y ago

They also knew it was toxic, but deliberately put on displays claiming that it wasn’t, even midgley would pour it over his hands despite knowing the danger and intentionally avoiding it in all other cases. They also used medical testing to mislead: showing people could consume it and lead wouldn’t be detected in their urine. Apparently that showed it was safe, and no one said “then where did the lead go?”. Happily he also invented the machine that killed him so at least he was egalitarian in his harm.

Weneedlead 4y ago
[flagged]
- moring 4y ago
  Why is that question important? It's interesting from a scientific point-of-view, but the answer doesn't change the fact that it is there. The answer might help us predict where to find much or little of it, though.
  - Weneedlead 4y ago
    The fact that it has always been there casts a great doubt on the claims about its toxicity. It can be found through the ages in human remains and in geological remains that clearly predate people.
    - jamespo 4y ago
      Irrelevant
- versteegen 4y ago
  This is nonsense. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485653/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3485653/ says > There is no such level of lead that appears to be necessary or beneficial to the body and no “safe” level of exposure to lead has been found. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poisoning-and-health https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/lead-poison... says > There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects. > The body stores lead in the teeth and bones, where it accumulates over time. Lead stored in bone may be released into the blood during pregnancy, thus exposing the fetus. Undernourished children are more susceptible to lead because their bodies absorb more lead if other nutrients, such as calcium or iron, are lacking.

zoltrix303 4y ago

The most interesting to me is the correlation between the delinquency among children and teens, and the years of introduction of tetraethyl lead in gasoline for anti-knocking properties. I read somewhere that Thomas Midgley Jr could be considered, in modern history, to be the organism with highest impactful on earth with his invention of Chlorofurocarbons and their impact on the ozone layers. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesi...

pfdietz 4y ago
Sort of like the anti Norman Borlaug.

Ekaros 4y ago

But how many gallons were sold with lead added? I would imagine that is quite substantial number, so in the end we are talking about large sums of money...

samtho 4y ago
The “couple of cents” seemed like an off the cuff remark to indicate that leaded gas was less expensive than alternatives, but I would be interested in hearing about this delta as a percent rather than a fixed cost. Given inflation, gas price fluctuations, and the sheer volume in which fuel was sold, measuring it as a “couple of cents” is completely meaningless.
- jabl 4y ago
  It's hard to have any conclusive number on this, it's not only about inflation etc. but also the cost of alternative ways of achieving the required octane (e.g. increasing production of reformate or alkylate, or the refinery buying external blendstocks like ethanol or MTBE), which varies a lot over time (due to technical advancements) and place (what kind of equipment does a refinery have installed), etc. From a 1998 article (https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/d3706d00-3d97-495d-8b8c-744cab1e7e3e/HandbookRemovalOfLeadFromGasolineTechnicalConsiderations.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=jqeKLR https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/d3706d00-3d97-495d-8b8c-.... ) it estimates between $0.01-$0.03/liter for lead removal. US gasoline prices in 1990-2000 were at around $1.20/gallon which works out to about $0.32/liter. Taking the middle value of $0.02/liter for lead removal that would be around 6%. Just as a back-of-the-envelope calculation. I think in reality in many places that cost delta at pump the is lower since the usage of ethanol as an octane enhancer shifts the cost to various agricultural subsidy programs.
  - vitus 4y ago
    Wapo article from 1984 [0] asserts that 85-octane nonleaded gasoline was consistently about 2 cents cheaper to make than 87-octane leaded gasoline. That said, that was with numerous advancements over the preceding 60 years which most likely would never have happened if we hadn't developed engines capable of taking advantage of high-octane fuels. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1984/04/01/cost-benefit-foes-surprised/ca65d1a9-aa94-461f-a882-10853c1f375a/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1984/04/01/c... "But, as DeMuth noted, the EPA study is concerned about total costs and benefits to society, not just to one group. The study makes no attempt to predict what would happen to prices at the pump. It points out instead that the cost of manufacturing 87-octane unleaded gasoline, according to market prices, is consistently less than 2 cents a gallon more than for making 89-octane leaded gasoline. Average pump prices are about 7 cents more, however." I believe this is the EPA study: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100YK16.TXT https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=9100YK16.TXT (I clicked the "download as pdf" adobe acrobat icon on the right) "The DOE model estimates that at current lead levels (1.10 gplg) the marginal manufacturing cost differential between unleaded and leaded regular grades of gasoline is less than two cents per gallon. Retail prices, however, diverge by an average of about seven cents per gallon (Weekly Petroleum Status Report, 1984, various issues)." 7 cents per gallon is right around that 2 cents per liter that you cite, naturally.

Weneedlead 4y ago

[flagged]

noduerme 4y ago
> never get drunk psychologically What? It's hard to make heads or tails of this comment. Are you saying that asocial psychopaths wouldn't exist if we'd kept lead in gasoline? [edit] also realizing this is this account's first HN post... I probably shouldn't be responding
- Weneedlead 4y ago
  Yes, they never get to the stage when you talk nonsense when they drink alcohol. (they can't readily tell, it seems, they need to test you in some way) I'm saying that the majority is now psychopaths. I'm still more inclined that the drop in IQ is an artifact, but even if intelligence is improved in some way, it's useless when the person is asocial. Not my first post, not that it matters.
  - orf 4y ago
    It’s very hard to tell the difference between both your comments and conspiratorial ramblings (psychopaths have an unnaturally high alcohol tolerance?), hence the flagging and downvoting. It’s also hard to tell what your point actually is. I’d advise re-thinking how you structure your thoughts or writing.
    - Weneedlead 4y ago
      Lead deficiency makes people asocial, which is why we've seen the downturn of western industries. That was my point.

ElfinTrousers 4y ago

A cent was worth more back then, but I guarantee you any oil company today that could save a cent per gallon at the cost of human lives would do it without hesitation.