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

241–250 of 352 posts

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

#241

Post by hilbert42 »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #227
rayiner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"…there weren't any alternatives for anti-knock additives.".

Presumably, you mean there weren't any alternatives for anti-knock additives for around the same price as tetraethyllead.

Octane ratings can be increased sans Pb if needed. Trouble is the extra refining and reduced yield increases costs which consumers weren't prepared to pay for.

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

#242

Post by spongebobstoes »

breakyerself wrote: post #161
derektank wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>do you want to go back to polluted air and water just because a small minority of regulations need to be repealed or amended? >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.

When I say they're mostly good, but we should fix what's broken and people start hitting me with examples of broken regulation I can only interpret that as an example for why environmental regulation should be opposed by default. So I respond accordingly. I've never said all environmental regulation is good. That would be stupid, but you should have evidence based reasons for wanting to repeal or modify a regulation.…

current environmental regulations act to slow progress on solar power installation

we should either delete the regulations, or add exemptions for the infrastructure we need to build to avoid climate disaster

this is a time sensitive issue for our environment. every day spent debating regulatory nuance is a day wasted

at this point I prefer drastic decisive action over continued inaction: delete the regulations and re-introduce them

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

#243

Post by moffkalast »

filleduchaos wrote: post #236
moffkalast wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

I know a Velis Electro can fly for an hour, that's plenty of time for flight school. I'm sure there's better options now too. If something needs to take longer than that and is worth doing, then do it with a turboprop.

That's besides the fact that there are genuine certified unleaded alternative fuels for piston aircraft now. Fucking "we oh can't do it" lead apologists smh.

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

#244

Post by rayiner »

cassepipe wrote: post #63
rayiner wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Can you tell more about particulate matter ? You mean small particles in the air right, so air pollution right ?

Sibling comments are good. I'll add that the biggest concern is PM2.5 (particulates smaller than 2.5 micrometers). They're thought to be responsible for 70,000 excess deaths in the U.S. annually, more than homicides or drug overdoses: https://www.stateofglobalair.org/health/pm

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

#245

Post by j45 »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #203
j45 wrote: post #194

The concerning thing is how lead, arsenic are being found in things they are not reported in or labelled as being safe.

I wonder how big a factor this is in creating podcast bros/tech bros. Is there actually a pipeline from 'get guy to start working out' to becoming a dumb bro? https://www.consumerreports.org/lead/protein-powders-and-sha...

Seems to be a regularish occurrence far beyond the podcast/tech crowd in many areas.

Blind doubting of things can be as bad as blindly believing they're safe, if we don't know who's, or if anyone is keeping the safety honest. Capitalism can too often lean towards optimizing profit.

Testing for lead, etc can be done independently pretty easily and consistently enough to get a statistically high enough correlation of what's going on.

I get the stereotypes - but consuming anything in an unbalanced way will lead to being out of balance. Food, caffiene, alcohol, supplements.

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

#246

Post by wat10000 »

tjohns wrote: post #229
wat10000 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Leaded gasoline for cars started phasing out 52 years ago. It was fully banned 30 years ago. If there was any urgency behind getting rid of leaded avgas it would have been gone in that timeframe.

The FAA started looking at it 14 years ago. They planned to finish phasing it out in 2023. Three years after that, leaded avgas remains ubiquitous, and there's a plan to finish phasing it out in six years. (The 2030 date excludes Alaska, which is planned for 2032.) That's not what urgency looks like.

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

#247

Post by wk_end »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #204
an_account wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CEQA in California is very often used to block apartments in existing urban areas. So, instead, California continues to mostly build single family housing sprawl into natural habitats. A clear example of environmental regulation hurting the environment and the climate. And of course the affordability of housing.

Government should be active and in charge of urban planning. It is a matter of the common good. One of the biggest problems today is that urban planning has basically evaporated. Local and state governments don't plan towns anymore. Things are left to developers who have no other concern than to run a street off a major road and plop a few houses down, sell, and move on to the next project. No thought is given to tra…

I don't know where you live, and this is going to be very dependent on where you live, but in most places that are experiencing these issues I think you actually have the problem backwards. For any given parcel of land, building upwards would be the more profitable move. Local governments deliberately legislate planning that prioritizes single-family homes, cars, and sprawl; developers are then forced to operate within these constraints. They'd rather be building density!

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

#248

Post by danlitt »

freshpots wrote: post #192
danlitt wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particulate matter is relatively large particles, so far as air pollution goes. Think things like soot or smoke, rather than specific chemicals. Burning wood and coal produces far more particulates than, say, natural gas or gasoline-gas.

They're not necessarily large, and the worst for humans is small particulate which gets into the bloodstream through lungs, PM2.5. https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.ht... Breathing in unhealthy levels of PM2.5 can increase the risk of health problems like heart disease, asthma, and low birth weight. Unhealthy levels can also reduce visibility and cause the air to appear hazy. Outdoor sources i…

I agree with everything you wrote. I meant to contrast them with "chemical" air pollution, and 2.5 μm is much larger than a molecule!

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

#249

Post by jmward01 »

alistairSH wrote: post #107
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…

Yet, there are ample cases of the workers living near a factory and constantly getting cancer. PG&E in Hinckley, CA comes to mind as the most well known, due to the media/movie about Erin Brockovich.

But their CEOs don't live next to the factories. My, completely impossible, thought experiment would have all management living near the plant. I bet if the CEO lived with the water near the factory they would make sure it was clean.
Post reply on HN