Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

attheu.utah.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 352 posts

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#151

Post by davidw »

bevr1337 wrote: post #126
davidw wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's certainly some "environmentalism" out there that's using the banner of the environment for other ends. Here's one example: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-03-02/california-... I mostly agree with you, but it is worth paying attention to the details.

This article doesn't speak to me. What I read is, "Won't someone think of the poor UC system?" But the UC system is _massive_ > But Casa Joaquin’s neighboring, overwhelmingly white homeowners could have used CEQA to demand costly studies and multiple hearings before Berkeley officials. Important to note that white people are well-represented at UC Berkley too. https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/uc-berkeley-quick-fa…

They're talking about using environmental rules to block homes for people to live in, inside cities.

Using land efficiently in walkable places is one of the most environmentally friendly things we can be doing, and supposed "environmentalists" sought to block it using "environmental" rules!

If that's not NIMBYism to you, you have blinders on.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#152

Post by justin66 »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #69
lenerdenator wrote: post #37

I really want to see elimination of lead (projectiles, lead styphnate primers, etc.) in firearms next. When I go to the range, every once in a while, I'll see one of the older marksmen who's there with his squirrel hunting rifle, chambered in .22 LR. I've noticed that he seems to have a tremor in his hands when he's loading his magazines. Essential tremor is linked to lead exposure [0] Most .22 LR projectiles are eit…

Why would lead be in the gunsmoke? Everything leaded should be coming out the business end of the firearm, and it should be coming out with some gusto.

The base of the bullet is lead (with jacketed pistol rounds, that's often true even if it's a "full metal jacket" and some brands are trying to draw a distinction there with "total metal jacket" branding) and it's exposed to the explosion when the round fires. There's some vaporized lead, most if it will move downrange and some of it won't. Airborne lead is potentially more of a problem at an indoor range.

Copper, polymer-coated, or total metal jacket rounds will also result in less lead on the firearm, I'd think, and less on the user's hands. One old guy I know who had lead poisoning at one time believes the real risk is getting the lead on one's hands and then handling a cigarette.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#153

Post by ljlolel »

Faaak wrote: post #48
t1234s wrote: post #23

You used to be able to buy leaded 110 gas as Sunoco in the early 2000's. It would make your exhaust tips turn white and had a sort of candy like smell when combusted.

AFAIK that's why leaded paint is bad for children: it tastes sweet so they continue licking it/eating the chips of paint that fall off the wall

It’s why they added it to wine

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#154

Post by lowdownbutter »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #119
abfan1127 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"greater good" is arguably the most broad statement with a large history of hurting many people based on the "greater good".

For each instance did it help more than it hurt? Not to simplify but if you have to make a decision shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?

> shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?

no.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#155

Post by jmward01 »

cassepipe wrote: post #66
jmward01 wrote: post #14

I remember going to LA in the late 80's and my eyes watering (I also remember the pants-less man on the side of the strode but that is a different story). Environmental regulations are a win. Unfortunately there is a large segment of the population that doesn't believe something until it happens to them directly. That makes it a challenge to maintain environmental, or any regulations for that matter, over generations…

Did you intend to write "stroad" (street + road used to decry car-centric city design) ?

yep. If any city embodies the strode it is LA.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#156

Post by 9rx »

mattmaroon wrote: post #145
breakyerself wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl design was never in use in the US, but nuclear went through a long period of near universal public opposition to its expansion because of the high profile disasters that it caused. Now the cost of solar and storage are dropping at a rate I doubt nuclear is ever going to make a significant comeback. I'm not opposed to it, but I wonder if the economics will ever be favorable even with regulatory reform.

It would. People are still building some natural gas plants even despite renewables being cheaper and nuclear is far cheaper over its lifecycle than that and, other than regulatory issues, is basically better in every way.

> nuclear is far cheaper over its lifecycle than that

That is the case for base load generation, where the plant can operate near 100% capacity all the time. But that isn't were gas is usually being deployed; it being used for reserve generation. The economics of nuclear isn't as favourable in that application as it costs more or less the same to run at partial generation, or even no generation, as it does when it is going full blast.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#157

Post by [deleted] »

prasadjoglekar wrote: post #42
epistasis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal is mostly sticking around in the US because of federal overreach to keep unprofitable and ancient coal generators going long after anybody wants to pay for the high maintenance. Last week, a Colorado utility was "respectfully" asking to be able to close a plant: > TTri-State Generation and partner Platte River Power Authority had a “respectful” but emphatic response late Thursday to the Trump administration orde…

> There is no technical or economic reason to want coal power today. A quick look at the PJM interconnect data would disagree with you. About a quarter of the live power is coal. https://www.pjm.com/markets-and-operations.aspx That serves 65+ Million people in the north east and is keeping them from dying of cold this past week, including today (Temp outside in the mid-hudson valley is 15F / -9C), and overnight will…

[deleted]

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#158

Post by adrianN »

lenerdenator wrote: post #37

I really want to see elimination of lead (projectiles, lead styphnate primers, etc.) in firearms next. When I go to the range, every once in a while, I'll see one of the older marksmen who's there with his squirrel hunting rifle, chambered in .22 LR. I've noticed that he seems to have a tremor in his hands when he's loading his magazines. Essential tremor is linked to lead exposure [0] Most .22 LR projectiles are eit…

There was a big case in Berlin where policemen got sick after shooting at a range with insufficient ventilation.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#159

Post by prpl »

mattmaroon wrote: post #145
breakyerself wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl design was never in use in the US, but nuclear went through a long period of near universal public opposition to its expansion because of the high profile disasters that it caused. Now the cost of solar and storage are dropping at a rate I doubt nuclear is ever going to make a significant comeback. I'm not opposed to it, but I wonder if the economics will ever be favorable even with regulatory reform.

It would. People are still building some natural gas plants even despite renewables being cheaper and nuclear is far cheaper over its lifecycle than that and, other than regulatory issues, is basically better in every way.

There will continue to be new gas plants as long as there are coal plants which will be converted, usually around the time a major overhaul would need to be taken anyway.

Re: Banning lead in gas worked. The proof is in our hair

#160

Post by throwway120385 »

rayiner wrote: post #56
throwway120385 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really easy to sit and demand evidence before regulating something. But consider that if we waited for hard evidence to accumulate before banning lead in gasoline, we likely never would have banned it because the hard evidence wouldn't exist. I also don't agree on the principle that regulations are "harmful" or "helpful." Rather, you have to define who the regulation harms, and who it helps. For example antitrus…

We had research to support the EPA phase down of lead. Also, your assertion that lead “helps fuel companies” is fundamentally mistaken. Gasoline is a mass-produced commodity. Oil companies have single digit profit margins. These companies aren’t making Big Tech profit margins where they can absorb higher costs without passing them along to consumers. Cost savings from things like gasoline additives accrue to consumer…

tetra-ethyl lead helped significantly increase octane, allowing a lower-cost fuel to be used in gasoline engines.
Post reply on HN