4 ms·
Maybe you should read a study before citing it: > On the basis of distance to airport coefficients, children living within 500 m, 1,000 m, or 1,500 m of an air
by S201 3y ago
Maybe you should read a study before citing it:
> 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.
> Based on the geospatial and statistical analysis presented above, lead from avgas may have a small (2.1–4.4%) but significant impact on blood lead levels in children who live in proximity to airports where avgas is used. The magnitude of the estimated effect of living near airports was largest for those children living within 500 m and decreased in a monotonic fashion out to 1,500 m.
2-4% higher doesn't exactly scream environmental crisis to me. Especially when it's limited to an area under a mile from known locations and can be easily avoided if one wishes.
> Although controlling for individual- and group-level confounders attenuated the association between logged blood lead levels and residential proximity to an airport, evidence of a deleterious relationship remained. In the adjusted models, control variables behaved as expected: Relative to being screened in the winter season, children tested in the spring, summer, or fall had increased blood lead levels, on average. Residence in poor and minority neighborhoods was also associated with elevated lead levels. In contrast, recently constructed housing units were associated with decreased mean lead levels.
Interesting how the correlation isn't as strong as one would imply and there's other factors at play too. If you close all of the airports it's not going to drop lead exposure to zero.
So let me re-iterate my original point again: Obviously 4.4% elevated lead levels (in the worst case, ~1,500ft from an airport) isn't something to accept as "this is fine." Instead of taking the burn it down approach, close all airports, ground the GA fleet, and destroy an entire industry, let's get the FAA off their butts and get G100UL rolled out across the board so we can stop this silly argument about a tiny percentage of lead exposure. Which, mind you, is peanuts compared to lead pipes still in use.
- hgomersall 3y agoThere are more recent papers than that. In any case, I've read enough medical papers to realise that they generally assume a unimodal distribution and force everything into that. Getting a measurable increase in blood lead level would be enough for me to never take my family to live near an airport. So the poor get stuck with such choices, which was the point of the GP.
- S201 3y agoThere are also many studies demonstrating the negative health effects of living within a similar radius to a highway or any other major road, which encompasses most land in every major city. It's not like car emissions are perfectly clean because of unleaded gas and catalytic converters. They're cleaner than before the introduction of those things, but any emissions still carry health impacts so why are we demonizing the comparatively tiny GA fleet here? The only escape from any form of human pollution is to live far out in a rural area, but I'm willing to bet you've made a tradeoff of the convenience and economical benefits of being near a city/some town in exchange for exposure to some degree of pollution.
- hgomersall 3y agoIndeed, that's why those that live near busy roads tend to be poor.