4 ms·
Here's the thing that makes tire dust and lead different: at least we get some measurable value from the tires. You can argue that our transportation system is
by jeffbee 2y ago
Here's the thing that makes tire dust and lead different: at least we get some measurable value from the tires. You can argue that our transportation system is wasteful, that we can use better means and modes, smaller vehicles and tires, but it remains true that we get non-zero benefit from the process any way you look at it.
In the case of leaded gas we got literally no benefit. There was never a legitimate reason to put lead in motor fuels.
- JoshTko 2y agoI'm sure there can be many mitigation approaches that could reduce tire dust exposure by an order of magnitude if regulated. Vehicle weight limits in high density residential areas, plastic mix % in tires, toxic chemical limits in tires, etc.
- benterix 2y ago> smaller vehicles and tires That's the easy model where you basically know what you are doing is wrong but you like it so you decide to do less of it. The net result is still positive. An alternative approach is to try to actually innovate and/or invest in means of transport that don't require tyres nor friction for braking (e.g. eddy current brakes).
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoDidn't (early) engines run significantly better with it? Less knocking, if nothing else? That was the stated rationale, anyway. It was an anti-knock compound. So, was that false? Did it not help knocking at all? Or was reducing knocking not a benefit at all?
- maxerickson 2y agoYou also have to consider alternatives. Ethanol was skipped because it was more expensive, and then we circled back around once we realized that we were contaminating ground water with MTBE.
- nayuki 2y ago> In the case of leaded gas we got literally no benefit. There was never a legitimate reason to put lead in motor fuels. That's not true. The benefit was anti-knocking without using more expensive high-octane fuel (or later, ethanol). It was still a terrible, terrible decision though, given the centuries of knowledge that lead is a poison.
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoEthanol was a choice at the time. The fuel companies didn't like the idea of putting what was essentially a competing fuel in their fuel to make it work better and went with the known poison instead.
- int_19h 2y agoEthanol has its own downsides. When thinking about the explanations, keep in mind that leaded gas adoption was near-universal, including economies where "companies" or "competing fuel" weren't really a thing in that sense - e.g. USSR. They still went for leaded gas because of its objective benefits. And even today, we still use leaded gas for aviation... It is a horrible trade-off either way, but it was not done for no gain at all.
- IncreasePosts 2y agoSure there was - lead in fuel increased fuel economy/engine performance.