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

81–90 of 352 posts

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

#81

Post by DiggyJohnson »

empyrrhicist wrote: post #73
rayiner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Until the price of gas starts to remotely reflect the medium to long term costs of climate change I basically always celebrate anything that increases gas or carbon-based energy prices. Like, it sucks... but there's lots of data that consumers respond to these prices in their choices. The way I think about it, the entirety of global civilization is massively, massively subsidizing carbon emission.

Do you know of any research or calculations of what that number ought to be?

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

#83

Post by rayiner »

empyrrhicist wrote: post #73
rayiner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Until the price of gas starts to remotely reflect the medium to long term costs of climate change I basically always celebrate anything that increases gas or carbon-based energy prices. Like, it sucks... but there's lots of data that consumers respond to these prices in their choices. The way I think about it, the entirety of global civilization is massively, massively subsidizing carbon emission.

I agree. I’m just addressing the notion raised in the post above that oil companies will bear cost increases in an industry where everyone sells an identical product and consumers can just cross the street to save $0.10 a gallon.

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

#84

Post by stetrain »

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 ?

Right but specifically solid particles in the air, not just gasses (CO2, NOX, etc.).

For example smoke and soot from combustion or dust particles from tires and brakes.

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

#85

Post by jabl »

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.

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

#86

Post by breakyerself »

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 cool with revisiting anything, but the common sense wisdom around environmental regulation has been corrupted by corporate public relations campaigns.

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

#87

Post by jabl »

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.

Because the heat and pressure from the propellant and rifling vaporizes or rubs off some of that lead. A very small percentage, granted, but still.

Particularly for unjacketed bullets like 22LR. Even jacketed bullets tend to not be jacketed at the base.

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

#88

Post by vel0city »

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 material that burns in primers is often lead styphnate. This burns and sends lead particles throughout the air.

With rounds that aren't well jacketed like those 22s that are just bare lead, you also get some of the round scraping in the barrels that comes off as dust.

There's tons of lead in the air at shooting ranges.

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

#89

Post by danlitt »

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 ?

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.

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

#90

Post by MuskIsAntidemo »

nxm wrote: post #62
FatherOfCurses wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be uncontroversial that introducing shit into an environment where it doesn't belong is a bad idea, yet many people remain unconvinced that dumping tons of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere or tons of fertilizer by-products into the oceans is a bad idea.

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

[dead]
Post reply on HN