Is our 100LL causing IQ loss?

I worked in the Centers for Disease Control's Lead Poisoning Prevention branch in the 90s. (I'm a software developer, not an epidemiologist, but I learned rather a lot about lead exposure.) A low level of exposure to lead has little effect on adults. However, for children, and particularly for infants and those in utero, there is no known safe level of exposure. Not only does lead exposure cause a decrease in the child's potential intelligence, it also causes potential behavior problems, including anger issues and lack of impulse control.

I don't fly power planes any longer, so I don't have a personal stake in this. As an ex PPSEL, I'm kind of embarrassed that we still have lead in our fuel and the sooner it's gone, the better.
 
Usually when one sees an entire nation drop in IQ points, one looks to see what's wrong with the education system first.

But then again, the researchers themselves also got stupider, so I could see why they would jump to "lead in the environment" first.

The brain damage creates bad science, which leads to more brain damage...
 
I definitely see the circling of the wagons. Any threat to our fuel supply is a threat to our hobby, so the reaction is predictable.

You guys can relax, though. The threat is nearly mitigated. Both of them, actually, and soon. We're on a path to a new, lead-free fuel. Lead concerns, at that point, will no longer threaten either our hobby or our kids.

And good thing, too. The FAA had our backs (I can't believe I just typed that) and fought the EPA to retain 100LL until their own glacial process for a new fuel was completed. It wasn't going to last forever, though. At some point, either the EPA was going to find an override or Congress would. Whether you think it's good science or bad science, it doesn't matter. It would become a political game and that's all about perception. I guarantee that the image of a bunch of rich fly-boys and their toys dousing the homes of suburbia with lead fall-out is not going to play well. The will would be made to start pulling out the ban-hammer instead of the replace-it-gradually hammer.

I'm shocked it hadn't happened already, but we have been perilously close to being policed instead of the current situation of policing ourselves. We fly today only because unlead is on the way. It also means that any need we had to defend 100LL is gone. Kaput and done. Instead, we should highlight that we are nearly out of the leaded fuel business and it's going as fast as is governmentally possible.
 
arnoha said:
I definitely see the circling of the wagons. Any threat to our fuel supply is a threat to our hobby, so the reaction is predictable.

You guys can relax, though. The threat is nearly mitigated. Both of them, actually, and soon. We're on a path to a new, lead-free fuel. Lead concerns, at that point, will no longer threaten either our hobby or our kids.

And good thing, too. The FAA had our backs (I can't believe I just typed that) and fought the EPA to retain 100LL until their own glacial process for a new fuel was completed. It wasn't going to last forever, though. At some point, either the EPA was going to find an override or Congress would. Whether you think it's good science or bad science, it doesn't matter. It would become a political game and that's all about perception. I guarantee that the image of a bunch of rich fly-boys and their toys dousing the homes of suburbia with lead fall-out is not going to play well. The will would be made to start pulling out the ban-hammer instead of the replace-it-gradually hammer.

I'm shocked it hadn't happened already, but we have been perilously close to being policed instead of the current situation of policing ourselves. We fly today only because unlead is on the way. It also means that any need we had to defend 100LL is gone. Kaput and done. Instead, we should highlight that we are nearly out of the leaded fuel business and it's going as fast as is governmentally possible.
Click to expand...

^^ Like any of us care. The giant piston twins and singles that are mostly used for business actually need the lead. Many of our spam cans do not.

We'll use whatever the government allows us to use, and like it. Whatever is available we'll pump into the tanks and go.

I won't be holding my breath for any massive changes anytime soon, considering that various government agencies will have to come up with cleanup plans that don't interrupt the flow of business fuel while they figure out how to get every bit of lead out of every nook and cranny of every small airport.

No politician is going to touch that expense with a ten foot pole. Not even the hardest core statist demanding more money on top of $20T in loans.

They'll show up for photo ops at companies that make replacements and smile for the camera to placate their green voters, in a 3 MPG armored vehicle, and that's where their involvement will stop.

The only thing that will bring an alternative fuel to the market is the market. Once a true replacement that is *significantly cheaper* in operating cost shows up, there will be fiscal momentum to flush the tanks and fill with whatever the replacement is.

That'll happen QUICK if the cost can be brought down and the high compression stuff can run safely on it.

But government ban 100LL? The politicians wouldn't dare without a real replacement for high compression engines. They'd be out of a job the next election.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
^^ Like any of us care. The giant piston twins and singles that are mostly used for business actually need the lead. Many of our spam and do not.

We'll use whatever the government allows us to use, and like it. Whatever is available we'll pump into the tanks and go.

I won't be holding my breath for any massive changes anytime soon, considering that various government agencies will have to come up with cleanup plans that don't interrupt the flow of business fuel while they figure out how to get every bit of lead out of every nook and cranny of every small airport.

No politician is going to touch that expense with a ten foot pole. Not even the hardest core statist demanding more money on top of $20T in loans.

They'll show up for photo ops at companies that make replacements and smile for the camera to placate their green voters, in a 3 MPG armored vehicle, and that's where their involvement will stop.

The only thing that will bring an alternative fuel to the market is the market. Once a true replacement that is *significantly cheaper* in operating cost shows up, there will be fiscal momentum to flush the tanks and fill with whatever the replacement is.

That'll happen QUICK if the cost can be brought down and the high compression stuff can run safely on it.

But government ban 100LL? The politicians wouldn't dare without a real replacement for high compression engines. They'd be out of a job the next election.
Click to expand...

The claim is that both Shell 100UL and Swift 102UL are drop-in replacements. I never said ban...we're still quite a ways from that. Instead, what is likely to happen is the release of UL will cause the only manufacturer of TEL to stop mass-manufacturing it as it becomes less and less profitable. With no pressing reason to force the manufacture of TEL anymore, 100LL will dry up.

Remember that this fuel has to be completely miscible with 100LL and still functional. That means it can drop right into the 100LL pump with no modification and no cleaning once fleet-wide certification is granted. Which is supposed to happen in 2018.

I'm hopeful. I want to keep flying!
 
arnoha said:
The claim is that both Shell 100UL and Swift 102UL are drop-in replacements. I never said ban...we're still quite a ways from that. Instead, what is likely to happen is the release of UL will cause the only manufacturer of TEL to stop mass-manufacturing it as it becomes less and less profitable. With no pressing reason to force the manufacture of TEL anymore, 100LL will dry up.

Remember that this fuel has to be completely miscible with 100LL and still functional. That means it can drop right into the 100LL pump with no modification and no cleaning once fleet-wide certification is granted. Which is supposed to happen in 2018.

I'm hopeful. I want to keep flying!
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about it. People always figure out ways to do things they want to do. It's not like changing the engine tech to something newer than the 1930s would be all that hard with hoards of people crawling up politician's butts to push the certification process of better and newer tech along, if some mass "dry up" happened.

FAA would get run completely over in such a "mass-extinction" type of event. Like dead and flat in the road after a thousand cars drove over them.

My airplane will run on no-lead just fine right now. Can't find any reasonable source that isn't infested with corn juice. Notably, caused by similar pressure on politicians from a very large lobby or twenty. Growing plants to make into bad gasoline, is stupid. But that's what we are doing for now, since the money says to.
 
the problem is.....70% of the 100LL is consumed by 20% of the GA population and that subgroup needs the lead. :(
 
denverpilot said:
Usually when one sees an entire nation drop in IQ points, one looks to see what's wrong with the education system first.

But then again, the researchers themselves also got stupider, so I could see why they would jump to "lead in the environment" first.

The brain damage creates bad science, which leads to more brain damage...
Click to expand...

$$$ creates bad science. My biggest criticism of the environmental movement is that it is a multi-billion dollar industry, subject to the same "say this and we'll give you $$$" as any other industry. Scientific opinions/statements can be bought, and a lot of people have a lot to lose at this point if the world were to suddenly discover facts supporting climate change being false, real but due to a lesser effect by humans, or real but not man-made.
 
deonb said:
Lead has never been about fatalities, but developmental disorders. There might for example be a correlation between when lead was phased out of fuels vs. the lower crime rate.

Who knows if that is true, but that's the kind of information you'd have to look at to study the effects - not direct fatalities.
Click to expand...

you need to also add in Roe vs Wade at that same exact time. Some people claim that unleaded gas caused crime to decline, others claim allowing abortions caused crime to decline.

There are so many things that are correlated, it doesn't necessarily mean causation.

I don't have an issue with phasing out 100LL if it's replacement isn't more expensive, isn't more prone to causing an issue with the fuel system and is readily available.
 
Omalley1537 said:
$$$ creates bad science. My biggest criticism of the environmental movement is that it is a multi-billion dollar industry, subject to the same "say this and we'll give you $$$" as any other industry. Scientific opinions/statements can be bought, and a lot of people have a lot to lose at this point if the world were to suddenly discover facts supporting climate change being false, real but due to a lesser effect by humans, or real but not man-made.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Damn, don't make me lose my coffee like that.

Hint: don't believe everything you hear from the Koch brothers. They aren't even close to neutral observers on this topic.

Science does not work like that. On the rare occasions where someone does make a false claim, they get skewered, as it makes everyone who depends on that look suspcisious, too.

Dollars in science. That's a good laugh, too. You miss several zeroes when you compare it to oil exploration. VERY small potatoes.

It amazes me to no end that people actually buy that conspiracy theory crap. Scientists depend on other scientists being honest to do their jobs adequately.
 
MAKG1 said:
It amazes me to no end that people actually buy that conspiracy theory crap. Scientists depend on other scientists being honest to do their jobs adequately.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. My M.S. thesis involved rebuilding climate data via isotope analysis. I did all the field work, lab work and analysis... nobody slipped in there midway to contaminate my work or to convince me to alter my results. My findings of course supported anthropogenic-driven climate change and my own parents - who are nutty conspiracy theorists - actually asked me if I got paid by the government to skew my data! Even though I told them that was absurd, they still weren't convinced and to this day believe that my "liberal" professors must have encouraged me to make such a correlation. Funny enough, my lead advisor was a very right wing conservative.

As far as $$$ in science - ha! I was so poor I could barely afford the ramen I was buying.
 
MAKG1 said:
HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Damn, don't make me lose my coffee like that.

Hint: don't believe everything you hear from the Koch brothers. They aren't even close to neutral observers on this topic.

Science does not work like that. On the rare occasions where someone does make a false claim, they get skewered, as it makes everyone who depends on that look suspcisious, too.

Dollars in science. That's a good laugh, too. You miss several zeroes when you compare it to oil exploration. VERY small potatoes.

It amazes me to no end that people actually buy that conspiracy theory crap. Scientists depend on other scientists being honest to do their jobs adequately.
Click to expand...

Then please explain why proponents of climate change want to prosecute those who disagree rather than scientifically proving them wrong. Not all scientists are as pure an the driven snow.
 
Norman said:
Then please explain why proponents of climate change want to prosecute those who disagree rather than scientifically proving them wrong. Not all scientists are as pure an the driven snow.
Click to expand...

Special snowflakes. Figure out which part of that you want to emphasize.
 
Norman said:
Then please explain why proponents of climate change want to prosecute those who disagree rather than scientifically proving them wrong. Not all scientists are as pure an the driven snow.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you review the literature before claiming the denier crowd hasn't been proven wrong scientifically? It's pretty obvious that you haven't.

I don't know what prosecution you're referring to, but there has certainly been slander involved. Would you like to be called a crook without evidence?

You can't prosecute, nor sue, successfully without proof. Don't claim the Koch brothers are the small guys. There is a TON of money in the denier camp.
 
MAKG1 said:
HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Damn, don't make me lose my coffee like that.

Hint: don't believe everything you hear from the Koch brothers. They aren't even close to neutral observers on this topic.

Science does not work like that. On the rare occasions where someone does make a false claim, they get skewered, as it makes everyone who depends on that look suspcisious, too.

Dollars in science. That's a good laugh, too. You miss several zeroes when you compare it to oil exploration. VERY small potatoes.

It amazes me to no end that people actually buy that conspiracy theory crap. Scientists depend on other scientists being honest to do their jobs adequately.
Click to expand...
MAKG1 said:
Shouldn't you review the literature before claiming the denier crowd hasn't been proven wrong scientifically? It's pretty obvious that you haven't.

I don't know what prosecution you're referring to, but there has certainly been slander involved. Would you like to be called a crook without evidence?

You can't prosecute, nor sue, successfully without proof. Don't claim the Koch brothers are the small guys. There is a TON of money in the denier camp.
Click to expand...

I think most people have an issue with the models rather than the data.
 
These threads are so predictable...the same players making their same old unsubstantiated arguments...

It's also predictable that I'll take one quick look and then put it on ignore since I typically rely on facts to formulate my opinions and not close-minded, dismissive, insult ridden, dart throwing.

See you later boys!
 
I'm all for no lead, e85, or dilythium crystals as long as they don't bugger up my investment in my motorized vehicles. If I recall, when no lead was forced upon the boaters, it buggered up the engines and other stuff costing owners thousands. So go ahead and screw up airplane motors. Would the NTSB actually tell us it was the fuel that caused the corrosion that caused the lose of fuel causing a dead stick landing into the ground?
 
MAKG1 said:
Shouldn't you review the literature before claiming the denier crowd hasn't been proven wrong scientifically? It's pretty obvious that you haven't.

I don't know what prosecution you're referring to, but there has certainly been slander involved. Would you like to be called a crook without evidence?

You can't prosecute, nor sue, successfully without proof. Don't claim the Koch brothers are the small guys. There is a TON of money in the denier camp.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah. I forgot your leader said it's "settled science". Have another glass of Kool Aid. :popcorn:
 
Norman said:
Oh yeah. I forgot your leader said it's "settled science". Have another glass of Kool Aid. :popcorn:
Click to expand...
There is no leader of science.

And there are no chemtrails either.

Some people will believe anything. Just who do you think my "leader" is?

The number of people who can tell me what my conclusions are before I make them, or who can change them based only on authority, is a very short list -- no one is on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top