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

221–230 of 352 posts

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

#221

Post by pixl97 »

breakyerself wrote: post #94
nxm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less that but rather the hypocrisy of promoting burdensome regulations and bans implemented in one county (e.g. Germany) which hurts domestic industry and raises costs for its citizens, all while being silent on countries like China and India continuing to massively build more and more coal fired power plants

1. Germany industrialized 100 years before China. It's been burning large quantities of coal for far longer. 2. Germany or at least the EU can and should impose a carbon fee on imports related to a given nations carbon emissions/reductions. 3. Economically transitioning to renewables is better for a nations economy than continuing to burn fossil fuels anyway. Renewables are cheaper. Pointing to another bad actor as a…

I will say on point one, the rate which a country can scale usage throws this off. For example the first 50 years of Germany's usage likely represents far less than a current Chinese year of usage.

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

#222

Post by anigbrowl »

cfiggers wrote: post #28

In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be force…

Aren't you just waving a flag for less regulation by rushing to align yourself with this inarguable example of regulatory success? Rather than discussing the issue of what impact lead had, or how we might apply this longitudinal method to other other problems (making hair archives into a general environmental data resource), or develop longitudinal methods in general, You've chosen to issue a clarion calla gainst 'bad regulation'.

Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be forcefully rejected.

....nobody was arguing this. It's a classic straw man fallacy. Further, you're leveraging a lot of emotional terms while providing zero examples, inviting potential sympathetic readers to just project their feelings onto any regulations they happen to dislike rather than establish any sort of objective criteria or lay out any map/model of regulatory credibility that could be subject to challenge or criticism.

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

#223

Post by accidentallfact »

That is expected. The problem is that people are not getting healthier, or more intelligent, quite the opposite.

Obviously there is an absolutely massive problem that you're missing as you're congratulating yourself on "succeeding" with a massive effort with no clear result.

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

#224

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

accidentallfact wrote: post #223

That is expected. The problem is that people are not getting healthier, or more intelligent, quite the opposite. Obviously there is an absolutely massive problem that you're missing as you're congratulating yourself on "succeeding" with a massive effort with no clear result.

Good experiment… I guess turn the lead back on and we’ll see!

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

#225

Post by accidentallfact »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #224
accidentallfact wrote: post #223

That is expected. The problem is that people are not getting healthier, or more intelligent, quite the opposite. Obviously there is an absolutely massive problem that you're missing as you're congratulating yourself on "succeeding" with a massive effort with no clear result.

Good experiment… I guess turn the lead back on and we’ll see!

Well, at the very least you need to agree that its effect was smaller than the harm done by whatever the actual problem is.

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

#226

Post by dyauspitr »

breakyerself wrote: post #109
edm0nd wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you know that Captain Planet was straight up created to be pro environmentalist and anti-oil propaganda? >Captain Planet and the Planeteers (1990–1996) was a pioneering animated series designed by Ted Turner and producer Barbara Pyle as environmental, pro-social "edutainment" to influence children towards ecological activism. It aimed to combat pollution and encourage environmental stewardship, often using over-t…

The only problem with captain planet was the lack of nuance. Most people driving environmental degredation aren't over the top villains. Just executives acting in the best interest of their shareholders, but in general influencing kids to care about the environment is a pretty positive/pro-social thing to do.

I mean that’s what I meant by my comment. The government now are literally cartoon villains like the over the top characters on Captain Planet.

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

#227

Post by GeoAtreides »

rayiner wrote: post #43
cfiggers wrote: post #28

In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be force…

Lead is a textbook example of a good regulation. It’s something where the industry was doing something very harmful-aerosolizing lead and pumping it into the air—which had quite small economic benefits and was relatively easily replaced. Some regulation achieves this kind of improvement, and we’re probably under regulated in those areas. Particulate matter, for example, is extremely harmful. But many regulations do n…

>was relatively easily replaced.

It wasn't easily replaced. For many decades there weren't any alternatives for anti-knock additives.

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

#228

Post by moffkalast »

mfkp wrote: post #220
moffkalast wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it's absurd how aviation is somehow exempt from these rules, especially since piston engine aircraft carry virtually no vital role in anything except people flying them for fun. There have been viable alternatives for a long long time now. I guess people who have money for personal airplanes also have the money to lobby when it matters for their interests. Pricks, I hope they die of dementia.

Wow, very angry and uninformed comment. No airplane owners are lobbying for lead. As a pilot with a personal airplane that runs on avgas, we all want lead to go away too. But it's a problem with FAA regulations, and an infrastructure problem where every airport nationwide needs to have separate fuel tanks/trucks with leaded fuel and the newer lead-free alternatives simultaneously, which is a massive expense. Plus, th…

Yeah well, I'm sure you know what's also a massive expense in aviation? Everything. If a regulation was made that required it, people would do it regardless of how much it costs and it would finally become a reliable option if it was widely available. No regular car gas station would stock lead free if it wasn't mandated.

And well it's fine by me if you want to literally breathe lead every time you fly, you do you, but who the fuck gives you the right to poison everyone else around you? Like if anyone did what you do they'd justifiably spend their life in prison.

I find it horrid that there is even a debate around lead free alternatives. Oh woe is me, my 80s engine will last 100 hours less! Jesus fucking christ. You sound like a 3M lawyer advocating for PFAS. "The alternatives are inconvenient and expensive so we're gonna keep poisoning everyone until they aren't because we can."

> I guess we just shouldn't train new pilots then.

There are literally countless options man. There's even electrics now, you don't exactly need long range for training and small turboprop jet-a options for long hauls. I know the lead is making it hard to think, but for the sake of people breathing your exhaust please do try.

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

#229

Post by tjohns »

wat10000 wrote: post #179
cfiggers wrote: post #28

In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated. Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be force…

This sounds nice, but in the context of actual politics it's completely meaningless. It's like saying that some people are dangerous criminals who need to be locked up, and other people are upstanding citizens who should be free to live their lives. Everybody would agree with this. The disagreement is in how you sort people. What category encompasses someone who belongs to the opposing political party? That sort of t…

There definitely is urgency to phase out leaded aviation gasoline. The FAA is proposing that we phase it out by 2030 - just 4 years from now - even though we still haven't agreed on which of the 3 competing gas blends to standardize on, the pumping infrastructure only exists at a small number of airports, and even though there's still open concerns about them causing engine damage.

They just published a draft version of the transition plan here: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/draft_unleaded_avgas...

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

#230

Post by [deleted] »

jabl wrote: post #85
gambiting wrote: post #44

Fun fact - leaded petrol isn't actually banned in the UK, you can legally buy it and use it. The legislation at the time of bans just made it so that leaded petrol could only be a small % of overall petrol sales by any given fuel station, arguing that it allowed time for owners of unleaded-incompatible cars to purchase it. And....it worked pretty much exactly as designed - initially only the largest stations carried…

I recall there's one factory on the planet still producing TEL, so once they decide it's no longer profitable it's over. Aviation gasoline is probably the one market that still keeps it afloat, when/if piston aviation switches over the remaining market is small and insignificant.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN