100LL And Lead Exposure

Didn’t read the entire thread but…
Has even a preliminary study of the 100LL-exposed population (crew, mechanics, line people) been done to show a possible increase in lead levels vs the general population? Seems like one the easier studies to carry out.

Maybe both sides are afraid of the results.
 
Personally, I don't believe that lead is 1/10th the villain that it's made out to be. I've handled 60/40 solder most every day of my life since I was 10 years old. I used to hold it in my mouth. I worked in my uncle's gas station in the 60's as a teen, pumping thousands of gallons of highly leaded fuel and taking zero precautions. I'm 60 now and I'm still considered to be a pretty sharp engineer.

And BTW, lead does not cause cancer.
Solid lead, and liquid mercury, can be handled with little danger. Certain compounds, not so much. Tetraethyl lead is bad, bad, bad, and bad. Warm up that mercury and inhale deeply, and become a mad hatter.
It is exactly the villain it's made out to be. It's not crying wolf.
 
Has even a preliminary study of the 100LL-exposed population (crew, mechanics, line people) been done to show a possible increase in lead levels vs the general population? Seems like one the easier studies to carry out.
Folks have conducted studies with the data we have... which includes blood lead levels of impoverished children nationwide. Someone would have to fund gathering aviation folk blood data, and the folk would have to cooperate. But the driving force is small... unlike for children under 5, where lead has life-long negative effects. Kind of pushing a rope?

Paul
 
Folks have conducted studies with the data we have... which includes blood lead levels of impoverished children nationwide. Someone would have to fund gathering aviation folk blood data, and the folk would have to cooperate. But the driving force is small... unlike for children under 5, where lead has life-long negative effects. Kind of pushing a rope?

Paul
FWIW I found at least one study that looked at aviation workers specifically


Full paper is behind paywall, eventually I’ll access it with my creds but haven’t yet.
 
we are operating on fear for the children....vs science.
:eek:
Well, that's an unfair characterization. There's a lot of decent science looking at the prevalence and effects of lead.

Joel Davis said:
Piston GA is barely supporting the existance of one fuel (100LL). There’s just not enough money there to support three separate supply chains.
Hello Joel,

I guess it depends on how you define supply chain. There are currently 8 refineries in North America blending 100LL. It seems very unlikely to me that those 8 will be our sole source or perhaps even *a* source of 100UL.

However, just like there's 8 places of manufacture today, blending 100LL to their own, different recipes... in the future there can well be separate supply chains for 100R (Swift Fuels) G100UL (GAMI) and Lyondell's fuel... if they call come to pass. (Today's 100LL blenders all fall under specification D910, but they do NOT have the same recipes.)

The blenders will all be making other products besides unleaded avgas, just like today the 8 refineries are making a whole slate of products. Each blender has their own supply chain... and largely, those supply chains don't overlap, except for, today, tetra-ethyl lead.

So just as there's not much synergy today amongst the eight refineries blending 100LL, so to in the future the blenders of 100UL won't be joined at the hip. Assuming the fungibility issues can be addressed, it may well be that each of the three formulations cited above fit one blender or another's circumstances better... for instance, Gulf Coast guys largely are close to aromatics sources of supply, so G100UL is easy. And mid-continent guys are closer, instead, to the Alberta on-purpose ETBE plant, so that Swift's or Lyondell's formulation might be easier. In fact, supply chain optimiization may well dictate that different blenders choose different compatible formulae from the three offerings.

Anyway... that's how the blend optimization world appears to me.

Paul
 
FWIW I found at least one study that looked at aviation workers specifically


Full paper is behind paywall, eventually I’ll access it with my creds but haven’t yet.
That is interesting... but this article is even more interesting... not just blood lead levels of aviators, but an actual health impact: a greater risk of death from heart disease.

doi: 10.3390/ijerph19105941.

Cardiovascular Mortality and Leaded Aviation Fuel: Evidence from Piston-Engine Air Traffic in North Carolina​

It's not a smoking gun, but they tried hard to correct for other factors, and still found that exposure to lead emissions from aircraft does increase the risk of death due to heart disease.


Not to make light of this... but I wonder, though, if you can really correct the data for the stress called by those phone calls, "Hey Joe, you'll never believe what we found while doing your annual!"

Paul
 
Last edited:
FWIW I found at least one study that looked at aviation workers specifically


Full paper is behind paywall, eventually I’ll access it with my creds but haven’t yet.
Did I miss it?
I don’t see a comparison to non-airport cohorts; the general public.
 
Did I miss it?
I don’t see a comparison to non-airport cohorts; the general public.
Didn’t claim it did. Just saying that aviation workers have been subject to study. That being said I’m sure there are numerous studies of lead blood levels in the general population as a point of comparison. For all I know the paper itself does within the body. I haven’t read the full thing as it’s paywalled. Just saw the abstract.

The post I was replying to was just saying it was in likely that any study of specifically aviation workers existed. I simply provided an example where they were.
 
People have shared some great peer-reviewed articles on the health risks to flight crews and airport workers, but there is also a documented risk to people living near aiports:

Forbes: Lead Exposure Risk Near Airports

As local and municipal airfields come under increasing opposition from the communities they depend on, look for more and more of them to start citing the risks to public health caused by AvGas as one more reason to close a field.
 
115/145, JP -4, 5606, MEK, dope and paint thinners, Imron, solder, leaded

mo-gas , mineral spirits and zinc chromate has been in my life for 60+

years. Do they neutralize each other?
 
115/145, JP -4, 5606, MEK, dope and paint thinners, Imron, solder, leaded

mo-gas , mineral spirits and zinc chromate has been in my life for 60+

years. Do they neutralize each other?

Only if you swallow them after you mix them in a solvent. Like alcohol.
 
Like everything else in life you just need to be careful. We can't protect you nor can the federal administration. You have to protect YOU.

.....and so it goes......
 
115/145, JP -4, 5606, MEK, dope and paint thinners, Imron, solder, leaded

mo-gas , mineral spirits and zinc chromate has been in my life for 60+

years. Do they neutralize each other?

I just keep thinking of how many more brain cells I would’ve had right now.
Oh well, prob would still be making dufus mistakes.
 
FWIW I found at least one study that looked at aviation workers specifically


Full paper is behind paywall, eventually I’ll access it with my creds but haven’t yet.

This copied from article.

Blood lead level and types of aviation fuel in aircraft maintenance crew

Won-Ju Park 1 , Hye-Min Gu, Suk-Ho Lee
Affiliations expand
PMID: 24261063 DOI: 10.3357/asem.3647.2013
Abstract

Introduction: This study inquired into any significant difference in blood lead levels (BLLs) among aircraft maintenance crews at the air-bases, each with a different aviation fuel in use, and confirmed an environmental impact of leaded aviation gasoline (AVGAS).

Methods: This study included a total of 256 male aircraft maintenance personnel, among whom 105 used only AVGAS as their aviation fuel, while 151 used only jet propellant 8 (JP-8), a kerosene variety. BLLs were measured and the data on related factors were obtained.

Results: The arithmetic and geometric means of BLLs of the personnel at the airbases that used only AVGAS were 4.20 microg x dl(-1) and 4.01 microg x dl(-1) and that used only JP-8 were 3.79 microg x dl(-1) and 3.57 microg x dl(-1), respectively. The BLLs of the maintenance crew of the main workspace that was located within a 200-m distance from the runway were higher than those of the main workspace that was located 200 m or farther from the runway. The longer the work hours in the runway or the longer the work duration, the higher the BLLs of the maintenance crew.

Discussion: This investigation exposed the fact that a body's BLL could be increased by AVGAS emissions through the examination of aircraft maintenance crew. This result is in agreement with results of previous studies that suggest proximity to an airport may be associated with elevated BLLs for adults and children. Collectively, the results of the current study and previous research suggest that long-duration inhabitation and/or activities in close proximity to an air facility should be limited given that lead poses known health risks.

Don't know what is profane, or illegal, as copied from a govt website.
Each of the authors have more published research mostly from Korea.
 
Last edited:
The biggest question I have after reading what Mikey posted is, why does the control group have so much lead in their blood?
 
The biggest question I have after reading what Mikey posted is, why does the control group have so much lead in their blood?

It's my understanding that older folks can have elevated levels because we... I meant they ... grew up in a time with leaded gas, etc, and some of that lead ended up in their bones... with it slowly leeching out (or whatever the correct term is) of the bones into the blood. It wasn't all that long ago when the average BLL was nearly 10 µg/dL in the USA. Now it's much lower.
 
Back
Top