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

231–240 of 352 posts

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

#231

Post by tjohns »

moffkalast wrote: post #210
ck2 wrote: post #34

unless you live next to an airport or even remotely close to it then lead is being sprayed all over you, your car and home, daily for THREE DECADES NOW no rush, not like it's poison or does permanent damage to your health/IQ https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

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.

Piston aircraft are vital to training new pilots. Without the piston fleet, you wouldn't have anybody flying anything larger.

Not to mention they're frequently used for air ambulance flights, survey work, and law enforcement. The "satellite" view on most online mapping tools is recorded from a piston aircraft.

Also, the current proposed plan is to migrate off of leaded gasoline for most of the country by 2030, which is actually quite ambitious given that acceptable alternative fuels didn't exist until literally a few years ago.

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

#232

Post by tjohns »

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.

At least in the US, the current proposed plan is to phase out leaded avgas by 2030: https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/draft_unleaded_avgas...

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

#233

Post by hilbert42 »

Braxton1980 wrote: post #215
lowdownbutter wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> shouldn't you always decide to help the most people? no.

Why?

Hundreds of book on utilitarianism have been published since Bentham (ca 1800) first argued 'why'. They argue the matter from evey perspective ad nauseam.

Check your public library.

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

#234

Post by moffkalast »

tjohns wrote: post #231
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.

Piston aircraft are vital to training new pilots. Without the piston fleet, you wouldn't have anybody flying anything larger. Not to mention they're frequently used for air ambulance flights, survey work, and law enforcement. The "satellite" view on most online mapping tools is recorded from a piston aircraft. Also, the current proposed plan is to migrate off of leaded gasoline for most of the country by 2030, which…

They can run in regular gas reliably enough for training, they can run on jet-a, they can run on batteries. Anything vital can run on jet-a without any barriers.

Excuses are made because it requires retiring or refitting old aircraft, and people need to be forced to do it. Simple as. I will die on this hill.

> The "satellite" view on most online mapping tools is recorded from a piston aircraft.

It is not. You're thinking of lidar.

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

#235

Post by filleduchaos »

moffkalast wrote: post #210
ck2 wrote: post #34

unless you live next to an airport or even remotely close to it then lead is being sprayed all over you, your car and home, daily for THREE DECADES NOW no rush, not like it's poison or does permanent damage to your health/IQ https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

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.

Piston-engine aircraft both have much more vital roles than people flying them for fun (for example they form practically all of "last mile" air service as well as pretty much all of ag flying) and very much do not have viable alternatives as far as both cost and operational efficiency go.

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

#236

Post by filleduchaos »

moffkalast wrote: post #234
tjohns wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Piston aircraft are vital to training new pilots. Without the piston fleet, you wouldn't have anybody flying anything larger. Not to mention they're frequently used for air ambulance flights, survey work, and law enforcement. The "satellite" view on most online mapping tools is recorded from a piston aircraft. Also, the current proposed plan is to migrate off of leaded gasoline for most of the country by 2030, which…

They can run in regular gas reliably enough for training, they can run on jet-a, they can run on batteries. Anything vital can run on jet-a without any barriers. Excuses are made because it requires retiring or refitting old aircraft, and people need to be forced to do it. Simple as. I will die on this hill. > The "satellite" view on most online mapping tools is recorded from a piston aircraft. It is not. You're thin…

Wait, you think workhorse aircraft today can run on batteries?

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

#237

Post by colechristensen »

breakyerself wrote: post #86
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…

Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough. If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm…

>Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated.

Ok, strong example here: the long term efforts to stop forest fires caused build up of fuel that should have burned up in small fires which then instead burned up ecosystems which evolved for small forest fires and instead were destroyed in large ones.

That's a well intentioned environmental policy that had terrible effects.

Fuel efficiency programs with the goal of reducing emissions with exceptions for work vehicles killed small trucks and meant a ton of people who do approximately 0 work drive around enormous vehicles that were designed big to match the exception criteria.

That's another one.

Ethanol to replace gasoline is also an enormous negative consequence waste that started as an environmental program.

Things don't just work because you want them to and programs aren't automatically right because of what they intend to do.

Far too many people argue for things they don't understand at all because of the surface intention of them and treat discussion about them blasphemy. (I chose uncontroversial negative examples because I don't want to get sidetracked into arguments about my examples with zealots)

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

#238

Post by colechristensen »

throwway120385 wrote: post #31
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…

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…

So we should legislate evidence free based on the vibes of whichever tribe is currently in power?

We're doomed.

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

#239

Post by BurningFrog »

pixl97 wrote: post #219
BurningFrog wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEQA is pretty universally considered a disaster. The alternative is not to have no environmental regulation. California could copy the regulations of any of the 49 other states and be much better off.

>California could copy the regulations of any of the 49 other states and be much better off. Says whom? California has a huge population. California has a massive water shortage problem. California has wide areas vulnerable to wildfires. California has piles of small ecosystems that are fragile and can be easily wiped out. Saying California could copy some states like Iowas regulations makes negative sense.

The major problems with CEQA are:

- the extreme cost and time spent on mandatory Environmental Impact Reports

- it allows pretty much anyone to sue projects over just about anything, which can also add many years before projects can start

None of this has anything to do with California specific environmental concerns

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

#240

Post by __alexs »

coob wrote: post #127
breakyerself wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost every environmental regulation has come after it was already shown that there was some harm that needed to be mitigated. The worst environmental crisis in human history is going largely unchecked. I find it hard to take seriously any argument that environmental regulation has gone too far as opposed to not nearly far enough. If there's a specific regulation that can be shown to be doing more harm than good I'm…

Nah some environmental regulation is batshit. Literally, in the UK you can’t build if there’s a protected bat species in the area.

This is not true, there is just a specific protocol you have follow to do the building work. Yes it increases costs, but it doesn't explicitly prevent them.
Post reply on HN