3 ms·

Blood lead levels are overwhelmingly affected by local exposure, basically the history of lead use where you live, work and your food is from. While leaded avg

Blood lead levels are overwhelmingly affected by local exposure, basically the history of lead use where you live, work and your food is from. While leaded avgas is not great the FAA just approved a replacement and I'm sure it will be in use quickly because "hurr durr muh lead" is the rallying cry of obnoxious suburbanites who just bought a house beside an airport and now want it shut down and everyone involved in general aviation has a large incentive to silence that screeching. Now, before any jerks show up to strawman me as endorsing lead exposure so they can bust out their favorite "no safe level" quip that they love to circle jerk it to, I'm not. I'm saying that while the effect is measurable it's not meaningful in light of the fact that you or anyone else's lead exposure is overwhelmingly dominated by local sources.

than3 4y ago
The problem with this line of plausible but non-scientific thought is that you base it solely on 'blood lead levels' as though they would be constant, without explaining the process taken to test. The latter part is critically important with heavy metals. Heavy metals in general never stay in the blood very long, the body binds them as quickly as it can, and the only way to accurately test involves taking a chelator first (to cause it to release into the blood stream) and then testing for acute poisoning (by causing it). There may be newer methods that have been developed since, but as of 2008 that was true. Anyone who has suffered mercury or lead poisoning that was diagnosed by a medical professional would be aware of this, which is why there is no safe level, it bioaccumulates, and is a time-bomb for acute poisoning if it ever gets released. Incidentally cilantro is a powerful chelator, and is used in food. Many people who have suffered poisoning get powerful headaches and other poisoning symptoms which can mimic many symptoms on the ADD/Autism/ADHD spectrum when eating this food, and often themselves don't know why.
belorn 4y ago
For some reasons, every area in close proximity to airports with moderate to high piston engine aircraft traffic have exceptional high local exposure (according to EPA). There could be a correlation or even a causation link. EPA at least think so, which is why they changed the rules in 2008 by issuing a new minimum standard. The new replacement fuels are good, but they have one general large drawback. They require a recertification of the engine/frame of the plane. According to the lobby group AOPA, it will cost the industry in excess of $150 billion annually in the US alone. In response, EPA issued an statement that there will be no phase-out date for planes to meet the new minimum standard, saying that it is the FAA responsibility to issue a process so that airplanes fulfills the new minimum standard. The FAA in turn said that regulating lead in avgas is an EPA responsibility, and they will not issue a phase-out date for planes to meet the new minimum standard. That has been the last word from both agencies since 2010.
- cjrp 4y ago
  > The new replacement fuels are good, but they have one general large drawback. They require a recertification of the engine/frame of the plane. According to the lobby group AOPA, it will cost the industry in excess of $150 billion annually in the US alone. Also (at least in the UK), UL91 (the unleaded-alternative for some aeroplanes) is more expensive than 100LL. E.g. looking at a nearby (GA) airport, the price for 100LL is £2.22/litre and UL91 is £2.60. You can sometimes use Mogas (literally automotive unleaded) but this has some temperature restrictions due to the vapour point.
- than3 4y ago
  That's not surprising when you factor in fuel procedures for pilots dealing with mechanical or other malfunctions that require the plane to land with a mostly full tank. https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-fuel-dumping/ https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-fuel-dumping/

than3 4y ago

The problem with this line of plausible but non-scientific thought is that you base it solely on 'blood lead levels' as though they would be constant, without explaining the process taken to test. The latter part is critically important with heavy metals. Heavy metals in general never stay in the blood very long, the body binds them as quickly as it can, and the only way to accurately test involves taking a chelator first (to cause it to release into the blood stream) and then testing for acute poisoning (by causing it). There may be newer methods that have been developed since, but as of 2008 that was true. Anyone who has suffered mercury or lead poisoning that was diagnosed by a medical professional would be aware of this, which is why there is no safe level, it bioaccumulates, and is a time-bomb for acute poisoning if it ever gets released. Incidentally cilantro is a powerful chelator, and is used in food. Many people who have suffered poisoning get powerful headaches and other poisoning symptoms which can mimic many symptoms on the ADD/Autism/ADHD spectrum when eating this food, and often themselves don't know why.

belorn 4y ago

For some reasons, every area in close proximity to airports with moderate to high piston engine aircraft traffic have exceptional high local exposure (according to EPA). There could be a correlation or even a causation link. EPA at least think so, which is why they changed the rules in 2008 by issuing a new minimum standard. The new replacement fuels are good, but they have one general large drawback. They require a recertification of the engine/frame of the plane. According to the lobby group AOPA, it will cost the industry in excess of $150 billion annually in the US alone. In response, EPA issued an statement that there will be no phase-out date for planes to meet the new minimum standard, saying that it is the FAA responsibility to issue a process so that airplanes fulfills the new minimum standard. The FAA in turn said that regulating lead in avgas is an EPA responsibility, and they will not issue a phase-out date for planes to meet the new minimum standard. That has been the last word from both agencies since 2010.

cjrp 4y ago
> The new replacement fuels are good, but they have one general large drawback. They require a recertification of the engine/frame of the plane. According to the lobby group AOPA, it will cost the industry in excess of $150 billion annually in the US alone. Also (at least in the UK), UL91 (the unleaded-alternative for some aeroplanes) is more expensive than 100LL. E.g. looking at a nearby (GA) airport, the price for 100LL is £2.22/litre and UL91 is £2.60. You can sometimes use Mogas (literally automotive unleaded) but this has some temperature restrictions due to the vapour point.
than3 4y ago
That's not surprising when you factor in fuel procedures for pilots dealing with mechanical or other malfunctions that require the plane to land with a mostly full tank. https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-fuel-dumping/ https://simpleflying.com/aircraft-fuel-dumping/