100LL And Lead Exposure

[Henning]

We can start by telling these morons to use 100ll as mouth wash for all I care. You are right Henning..... as usual. Too many people here calling themselves "pilots" that are too stupid to understand what I was trying to do and say. Some got it, most didn't **** um.

I had hopes early on due I guess to the good fortune of meeting the people I did that pilots may break the 80/20 rule, but that hope never materialized either.

 

[Geico266]

You want to take a guess at my age?

Actually your advice didn't apply to me to begin with but I remember what my reaction would have been...

You can't be more that 28. Certainly think like an immature liberal.

I am beginning to figure you out, like most women. You are stuck on taking the opposite position just to spur debate and it gives you something to argue about. As we age we strive for relevance and look toward others for acceptance and acknowledgement.

Relevance to me is helping yet to be born children and parents of young women realize they need to protect their children from lead poisoning. Those who disagree can go straight to hell. Find your own cause.

 

[denverpilot]

AFAIK Geico isn't the father of anyone here on the board.

But he does have a pet Gecko with a British accent.

 

[SteveR]

IIRC, 100LL has 2 mg/gallon. 80 had .5 mg/gal. The old 100 had 4 mg/gallon.

So 100LL still has four times the lead of 80, and 80 was fairly close to regular auto gas of the '70s.

Note the mixed measures. Milligrams per gallon. How dumb.

Dan

My understanding is that essentially all 100LL already meets the 100VLL standard which is .56mg/gal.

 

[Everskyward]

You can't be more that 28. Certainly think like an immature liberal.

I am beginning to figure you out, like most women. You are stuck on taking the opposite position just to spur debate and it gives you something to argue about. As we age we strive for relevance and look toward others for acceptance and acknowledgement.

Relevance to me is helping yet to be born children and parents of young women realize they need to protect their children from lead poisoning. Those who disagree can go straight to hell. Find your own cause.

You might as well tell young women they shouldn't fly airplanes since that's more risky than handling avgas. They wouldnt have a reason to handle it then. Gotta protect those potential children.

 

[Henning]

You might as well tell young women they shouldn't fly airplanes since that's more risky than handling avgas. They wouldnt have a reason to handle it then. Gotta protect those potential children.

That's the truly annoying thing in America, the damned all or nothing attitude. Risk management and moderation is like a freaking unknown subject, it's all either black or white.

Please, come to Florida in the next week and I'll introduce you to the results of carelessness. I strongly believe everybody has the right to kill themselves and others, no worry, mutilating others though is a no-no in my book. Life is about quality, not quantity. If you are going to replicate, you have a responsibility to your replicant if not yourself and society not to **** it up.

 

[Everskyward]

That's the truly annoying thing in America, the damned all or nothing attitude. Risk management and moderation is like a freaking unknown subject, it's all either black or white.

Please, come to Florida in the next week and I'll introduce you to the results of carelessness.

Nope, no need to engage with you any more.

 

[azure]

Wow, I'm really trying to understand the antagonism over this subject... It's a good natured warning that if followed will cause no harm and if not heeded has the potential to instigate a tragic occurrence. It's really rather baffling to me.

(1) We're smart enough to draw the logical conclusion ourselves, we don't need an explicit warning from the guyz.

(2) It's none of your business!

(This from someone who doesn't have kids and never will...)

 

[Rigged4Flight]

Geico, please don't ever warn me about anything. Because I'm a male and older than 50, I'm sure that your warning to me will mean that either you hate other males or look down on (soon to be) senior citizens.

I'm sure I can figure out everything that can kill, injure or alter my DNA all by myself, and frankly I just don't need your patronizing attitude.




























Just kidding - please feel free to bring up anything you find that may cause harm to me or those I love. I may or may not take heed, but I will never take offense over having received a warning about something potentially harmful to me or mine. That would be foolish.

 

[Everskyward]

You can't be more that 28. Certainly think like an immature liberal.

Why thank you.

I should have stuck to mind your own business...



Most people don't like unsolicited advice, especially when it's of a personal nature and telling people they're most likely going to end up with kids "accidents happen" is pretty personal.

 

[denverpilot]

Don't fly in severe icing.




There. I've given unsolicited advice. Y'all can hate me for it.

 

[Henning]

Ego, the great human failing.

 

[Geico266]

Geico, please don't ever warn me about anything. Because I'm a male and older than 50, I'm sure that your warning to me will mean that either you hate other males or look down on (soon to be) senior citizens.

I'm sure I can figure out everything that can kill, injure or alter my DNA all by myself, and frankly I just don't need your patronizing attitude.





Just kidding - please feel free to bring up anything you find that may cause harm to me or those I love. I may or may not take heed, but I will never take offense over having received a warning about something potentially harmful to me or mine. That would be foolish.

Exactly! . You want healthy grandkids right? I want healthy kids able to work and pay my and hour's SS.

Just trying to bring it people's attention.

 

[spinfire]

There is presenting factual information and then there is preaching. The original post that started the thread (and many follow ups) had all of the latter and none of the former. When you add in comments like "accidents happen" you're just being disrespectful and condescending to your female pilot colleagues. Personally I think it is rude to single out a gender in such a way and it shows some of the baked in sexism that unfortunately pervades our culture.

Furthermore, while there is good evidence that preschool age exposure to lead is an issue there is inconclusive evidence regarding exposure at the level pilots might experience during pregnancy. If a new study has come out indicating that it may be harmful just link to that and let people draw their own conclusions about the risk and how to manage it. As pilots we are all in the business of understanding, managing and mitigating risk and there is **absolutely no reason** to think female pilots are any less capable of it.

That said, every time this debate comes up I am tired of seeing stupid anecdotes like "my dad used 100LL as mouthwash and everyone turned out OK" (slight exaggeration). Without naming specifics there are some such anecdotes in this thread and every other thread I have ever seen about lead in avgas. I don't think ANY came from female pilots (perhaps reinforcing my belief that they are MORE informed about the risks). Most of these posts contain basic misunderstandings about how lead poisoning works which disappoints me because we cannot manage risk properly if we misunderstand it.

For the women who were the target of the original post of this thread: please accept my apology if you found my earlier post preachy. That was not my intent. I wanted to correct some of the factual inaccuracies seen in several earlier posts. You were not the target of my reply in any way and I have no desire to single out a gender.

 

[Henning]

All you guys out there who may get pregnant, you want avoid poisoning yourselves with lead as it has a high probability of gorfing up your unborn child into a mutilated retard if you get pregnant while lead poisoned.

There, now there is no sexism Or pandering involved, just the facts. FMD sometimes this board is retarded...

 

[bluee]

I don't understand the antagonism in this thread. I read nothing more into it than a reminder to be safe. I was flying until I was seven months pregnant, and my pilot father said similar things to me. I did not find it offensive nor condescending, but an expression of concern about my welfare and the health of my child. My little girl was born nearly nine pounds and very healthy. Those offended, lighten up.

 

[Henning]

I don't understand the antagonism in this thread. I read nothing more into it than a reminder to be safe. I was flying until I was seven months pregnant, and my pilot father said similar things to me. I did not find it offensive nor condescending, but an expression of concern about my welfare and the health of my child. My little girl was born nearly nine pounds and very healthy. Those offended, lighten up.

Ego is heavy among pilots, it's the root cause of most all accidents.

 

[Henning]

I have been a proponent of getting rid of 100LL from the very beginning. Unlike others here, I know people who suffered lead poisoning handling leaded racing fuels and filling from jugs carelessly so I know it can happen, it's not an imaginary threat. That's one of the reasons that I bought this plane, I know it will be fine with no lead in the ful, when 94UL comes on the market, my plane will run on it just fine and I don't end up with lead gumming up my valve guides. Why do pilots desire living in antiquity? Because they are too cheap to change.

Why should I quit flying though? It is a simple matter to use due care to not spill fuel on myself and wash it off if I do. As for the lead poisoning everyone else, I could give a rats ass anymore, if I had machine guns I'd randomly strafe highways as I fly.

 

[bluee]

Ego is heavy among pilots, it's the root cause of most all accidents.

I thought fuel starvation/exhaustion was the cause of most accidents.

There will always be people who know more than me, and those who know less than me. That's life.

 

[Henning]

I thought fuel starvation/exhaustion was the cause of most accidents.

There will always be people who know more than me, and those who know less than me. That's life.

Ego is usually the root of why the fuel ran out before the trip did. I've done very well in life listening and learning from those smarter than me. Never have I insulted someone for teaching me something or making sure I was aware of a hazard; the concept alone is absurd to me.

 

[Henning]

So you're not concerned in the least about warning/protecting others, it's just a chance to be argumentative and cast some insults on anyone that disagrees with you.

At least that's honest and defines the true motivation for many posters.

I'm done being concerned with others, the are completely unappreciative. I did not get involved in this thread to warn anyone about anything, just to point idiotic egotistic obstinacy and unnecessary rudeness. As of the other day I have changed my outlook on things and decided that mankind is not worth saving so now I'm going to look and see if I can't find a way to trigger a mass extinction.

 

[bluee]

I'm done being concerned with others, the are completely unappreciative. I did not get involved in this thread to warn anyone about anything, just to point idiotic egotistic obstinacy and unnecessary rudeness. As of the other day I have changed my outlook on things and decided that mankind is not worth saving so now I'm going to look and see if I can't find a way to trigger a mass extinction.

That is the plot of 12 Monkeys.

 

[Henning]

[/B]

That is the plot of 12 Monkeys.

Everyone needs goals and a long term project.

 

[Dan Thomas]

My understanding is that essentially all 100LL already meets the 100VLL standard which is .56mg/gal.

Shell's MSDS on 100LL shows the tetraethyl lead content as follows:

Hazardous Components
<snip>
Tetraethyl lead 78-00-2 201-075-4 T+, N R26/27/28;
R61; R62;
R33; R50/53
0.00 - 0.125 %

Sticking with metric so it makes sense, 0.125% of a liter is 1.25 ml, multiplied by 3.78 to get the US gallon content we get 4.725 ml/gallon. TEL has an SG of 1.653 so 1.25 ml will be .75 mg/l, (3.0 mg per gallon), maybe less. And that's a maximum; zero is the minimum.

BP's MSDS has this:
Hazardous components: Lead alkyls (0.05-0.1%)...

Slightly less than Shell's max, much more than their minimum.

Our local Canadian fuel looks like this:

Contains 0-0.56g/L of lead [from Tetraethyl Lead].

That works out to 2.12 g/US gallon. 2012 mg per gallon. A huge number and probably in error.

Dan

 

[denverpilot]

While we're all giving parenting tips...

 

[spinfire]

One (of several) oddities in this thread is a health warning about touching 100LL and the "indisputable" health risks while most all of us still fly piston aircraft.

It would seem to me that those same posters putting out and supporting this warning should agree with the California lawsuit to ban 100LL?

If I was involved in that lawsuit I would use this thread as proof even the pilots know how dangerous this stuff is.

The health risks are indisputable. The Duke study is particularly troubling. Generally it isn't cruise flight which results in meaningful emissions but the departure end of runways and the run-up area have been shown to be troublesome sources of environmental lead. I should hope pilots know how dangerous the stuff is.

I don't agree with the California lawsuit. I don't think it is the right way to attack the problem. Prop 65 lawsuits are usually settled with a minor fine and lawyers pocketing legal fees. It is highly unlikely that this will even result in a reduction in leaded fuel usage in California.

On the other hand the "FoE" lawsuit in 2011 pushing the EPA to regulate aviation lead emissions seems to have had a positive effect and I support it. It has been a kick in the pants to the EPA, FAA, and the general aviation industry to find an alternative to leaded fuel. I support the EPA and FAA's cautious approach in balancing aviation safety against reduced emissions and I hope that in the next ten years a reasonable alternative to leaded fuel is found. Only then I hope we can move forward with a ban on leaded fuel.

Based on my reading of the data I don't think there is support for an immediate ban on leaded avgas. Due to the fact that there are so many few piston planes than cars the impact of leaded avgas is much less than TEL in car gas was in the middle part of the century. However, research indicates that if there is a safe lower limit for lead exposure we haven't found it yet. So I absolutely support efforts to push the development of unleaded fuels along. My biggest concern is that the FAA will not receive adequate funding to do the amount of testing required to move to a new fuel.

The embarrassment is that these lawsuits even had to be filed. General aviation has had 30 years to deal with this problem and for over 20 of them it did nothing but deny the growing mountains of evidence that lead is a serious problem. People talk about the ten year time cycle and all the complications of transitioning to a new fuel and I just have to wonder: if we got serious about this 10 years ago we'd be done by now.

 

[Jaybird180]

Geico

Thanks. We will be more mindful in the future.

Roger. Over and out.

 

[weilke]

The health risks are indisputable. The Duke study is particularly troubling.

Yes it is troubling, it is troubling how they justified to pick and choose the counties and airports and covariates that they decided to include in the analysis. In the end, they arrived at a 'significant' result only for the closest in residents (500ft, basically people living within the runway safety area), even at that the increase was 4.3% of a tiny number and not likely to be clinically significant. Assuming that most of these airports are arounf for a long time, the more likely mechanism for the marginally increased values is goint to be pickup from soil contaminated over the decades rather that airborne transfer.

 

[bbchien]

Hmm. I wonder if there are meaningful studies of rates of illness in states that mandate vapor recovery devices at the autofuel pumps, vs my state, which does not....

If anyone here has fueled a large aircraft, nothing is open to air. It's a closed system in which fuel is exchanged for air.

 

[spinfire]

In the end, they arrived at a 'significant' result only for the closest in residents (500ft, basically people living within the runway safety area).

I can only assume you haven't actually read the report since you didn't even get the units right.

Given that this thread is about the impact on pilots and their families the finding of increased blood lead levels within a 1000 *meter* radius is directly relevant. We spend far more time within this environment compared to the general population. I crouch down on the ramp and touch the pavement every time I do a preflight.

All I'm suggesting is that taking reasonable precautions - like washing your hands before eating - is prudent. We should also push for unleaded avgas. It makes the whole issue moot and solves a major perception problem for GA too.

 

[weilke]

Given that this thread is about the impact on pilots and their families the finding of increased blood lead levels within a 1000 *meter* radius is directly relevant.

The only significant number, and that was a weak effect at best, was within 500m.

We spend far more time within this environment compared to the general population. I crouch down on the ramp and touch the pavement every time I do a preflight.

While my wife would disagree, I don't actually live on the airport. So no matter how much time I spend there, my exposure will still be a small fraction of even the most 'exposed' duke study population.

All I'm suggesting is that taking reasonable precautions - like washing your hands before eating - is prudent.

Agreed.

We should also push for unleaded avgas. It makes the whole issue moot and solves a major perception problem for GA too.

There are many reasons to push for either an unleaded avgas or heavy fuel engines, the perceptions of the uninformed are not one of them.

 

[Henning]

Hmm. I wonder if there are meaningful studies of rates of illness in states that mandate vapor recovery devices at the autofuel pumps, vs my state, which does not....

If anyone here has fueled a large aircraft, nothing is open to air. It's a closed system in which fuel is exchanged for air.

It's just vented through charcoal to trap the VOCs. All systems are vented. As for any study, not sure.

 

[LineTechMiller]

As a Line Guy (Line tech), I have had my fair share of fueling mishaps regarding 100 LL. If possible, I would 100% wear protective gloves and long sleeves. 100 LL is not something to mess around with. I know I'm about a decade and a half too late, but I feel that people still look at this. To any newcomers, please, for the love of all that is good and kind in this world, wear PPEs when you are around 100 LL, UL94, and Jet A +/-!!!!!

 

[Mikey52]

We used to use the green gas as hand degreaser.

 

[Lndwarrior]

Holy necro-thread! I thought for a minute that the reports of Hennings death were greatly exaggerated, as some had suggested.

Didn't recall his mission of mass extinction of the human race. Perhaps in his next life time....

 

[JOhnH]

Well that was a nice stroll down memory lane.

 

[SkyChaser]

Whew, that was a rollercoaster!

 

[Salty]

Because of this thread I stopped rinsing my mouth out with 100LL before each flight.

 

[Half Fast]

In light of recent events, this Henning quote does seem a bit, uh, eerie.....

I strongly believe everybody has the right to kill themselves and others,....

 

[Half Fast]

Because of this thread I stopped rinsing my mouth out with 100LL before each flight.

I wonder when Sporty’s will begin selling 100LL-flavored breath mints.....