Is our 100LL causing IQ loss?

Where's the control group in this study?
Seems like leaded fuel helped IQ since it was eliminated from autogas, and our IQs have gone down since.

Also, there's a correlation between the decline of pirates and global warming.


"The team found that each year, these IQ losses result in about $1 billion in damages from lifetime earnings reductions, with an additional $0.5 billion in economy-wide losses due to decreases in labor productivity. Its findings appear in the journal Environmental Science and Technology."

1 billion lost in lifetime earnings. Over 300,000,000 people in the US, that means over our lifetime, each person will earn $3.33 dollars less over their life span. OR even if worded badly, each person will make $3.33 less per year. The horror
 
EdFred said:
Where's the control group in this study?
Seems like leaded fuel helped IQ since it was eliminated from autogas, and our IQs have gone down since.

Also, there's a correlation between the decline of pirates and global warming.
Click to expand...

There's also a correlation between swimming pool drownings and power generated by nuclear power plants.

.... I wonder if people are swimming more in reactor cooling pools...
 
The basic premise does not seem in the least controversial. Lead is a persistent toxin with mostly neurological effects. No one is really arguing about that.

The question is only: How much? How much is it really affecting us? $1.5B out of an economy of $17T? Seems a little high to me, but it's in the realm of conceivable.

Doesn't really matter. The net gain from piston engine aircraft is higher than $1.5B each year, so if we're looking at it that way, it's still a win. But really, since we're on the path to unleaded already and dates have been aggressively set, there's nothing really actionable in the data. We're getting to unleaded avgas as fast as our government knows how. It tells us that there's an effect, it's measurement shows that we should do something about it. But it does not show an effect large enough to end all non-essential piston flight.
 
arnoha said:
The basic premise does not seem in the least controversial. Lead is a persistent toxin with mostly neurological effects. No one is really arguing about that.

The question is only: How much? How much is it really affecting us? $1.5B out of an economy of $17T? Seems a little high to me, but it's in the realm of conceivable.

Doesn't really matter. The net gain from piston engine aircraft is higher than $1.5B each year, so if we're looking at it that way, it's still a win. But really, since we're on the path to unleaded already and dates have been aggressively set, there's nothing really actionable in the data. We're getting to unleaded avgas as fast as our government knows how. It tells us that there's an effect, it's measurement shows that we should do something about it. But it does not show an effect large enough to end all non-essential piston flight.
Click to expand...

No, it tells us there's people loud enough to ***** about it. Not that there's actually any effect.
 
"To obtain their results, the researchers developed an inventory of general aviation emissions across the continental U.S., and modeled its impact on atmospheric lead concentrations using the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality Model (CMAQ). Based on these GA-specific contributions to overall atmospheric lead levels, they quantified associated IQ deficits nationwide and their annual economic impacts."

Now... I love me some science as much as the next guy and I'm willing to sign off on being able to develop a decent model for quantifying exhaust and the lead contained within that exhaust. But how do you quantify a nationwide IQ drop? And how do you associate that drop specifically with leaded GA fuel exhaust? Seems like that's reaching a bit.
 
EdFred said:
No, it tells us there's people loud enough to ***** about it. Not that there's actually any effect.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have said, taking the data at face value.

As mentioned earlier, this is one study with a single number from a group that probably has reason to make the number look as large as possible. So, let's call $1.5B per year as a maximum figure. Even at that figure, we're already on a path to correct it as quickly as we know how. There's nothing extra to do.

As to whether there's an effect at all? We're spewing a known toxin into the air, as we do in several other areas in our lives (drive your car? BBQ? Use electricity made by burning anything at all? Buy anything made of particleboard? Or plastic?). Of course there's an effect. The question is in quantifying it. It could be negligible. It could be horrendous. These guys quantify it at $1.5B per year.

To which I say, we're already taking the best available path for a worst-case $1.5B loss. Let's keep chugging along at it.
 
ircphoenix said:
"To obtain their results, the researchers developed an inventory of general aviation emissions across the continental U.S., and modeled its impact on atmospheric lead concentrations using the Community Multi-Scale Air Quality Model (CMAQ). Based on these GA-specific contributions to overall atmospheric lead levels, they quantified associated IQ deficits nationwide and their annual economic impacts."

Now... I love me some science as much as the next guy and I'm willing to sign off on being able to develop a decent model for quantifying exhaust and the lead contained within that exhaust. But how do you quantify a nationwide IQ drop? And how do you associate that drop specifically with leaded GA fuel exhaust? Seems like that's reaching a bit.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Measuring IQ, an already questionable term, and then somehow equating that to a dollar loss? Too many fudge factors there.

Not that I'm crying about not having to deal with lead in my fuel in the near future!
 
arnoha said:
Agreed. Measuring IQ, an already questionable term, and then somehow equating that to a dollar loss? Too many fudge factors there.

Not that I'm crying about not having to deal with lead in my fuel in the near future!
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm pretty sure the consensus is that lead as a heavy metal is not a good substance to have floating around in your brain. And I'm not a fan of breathing it in when I'm filling the tanks because lord knows what impact it is having on my long term health (if any). So I certainly am not opposed to eliminating lead from our fuel.

... just not entirely sure how you can say there is X IQ drop and it is specifically caused by Y micrograms of lead in the atmosphere specifically from Z piston aircraft emissions.
 
Any lead amount is harmful is the body. The key is the amount at which the "average" human would start having an reaction to it. Regardless we should be trying to find a new type of fuel, which is currently being done.

IQ is to much of a variable to be used in any scientific way. Three different tests will give you three different answers.
 
sounds like a hit piece. I say that because they need to overlay data of IQs from places where there isn't any GA traffic vs where there is GA traffic and then adjust those findings with Age, sex, and ethnicity.

until they do that, I am not listening to them.
 
Just goes to show you, if you take the time to write the dribble, SOMEONE will publish it.

I think I lost a few IQ points reading that mindless trash
 
EdFred said:
No, it tells us there's people loud enough to ***** about it. Not that there's actually any effect.
Click to expand...

There have been *tons* of studies. You can click through to one from the article posted and you can find a bunch more by doing a google scholar search. There is no safe dose of lead and there is no reasonable question on that subject. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one.
 
172andyou said:
There have been *tons* of studies. You can click through to one from the article posted and you can find a bunch more by doing a google scholar search. There is no safe dose of lead and there is no reasonable question on that subject. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Click to expand...

How is the general populous ingesting all this lead we are supposedly dispersing on them? Where does lead come from originally? Where does it end up?

Also funny how it's ONLY the tiny dangerous aircraft that is the issue here. Not the millions of pounds of it used in the electronics industry every year.
 
Joshuajayg said:
I know that a 180gr. dose of lead at a high rate of speed is deadly too. Maybe I should publish something on that.
Click to expand...

We'd need a control group. You shoot these "scholars" with the 180gr of lead, and I'll take on another group with copper, and we can publish our results.
 
EdFred said:
How is the general populous ingesting all this lead we are supposedly dispersing on them? Where does lead come from originally? Where does it end up?

Also funny how it's ONLY the tiny dangerous aircraft that is the issue here. Not the millions of pounds of it used in the electronics industry every year.
Click to expand...

Lead ingestion by the population is a complex topic. In the past, it was predominately breathed in. Lead oxide dust from exhaust would lodge in the lungs and be absorbed. Of course, this mechanism exists around GA airports and along well traveled routes. Lead in fuel is half of all airborne emissions. Some of this lead would also travel long distances, as the particles are small enough to be kept aloft.

Another route is via post-fall dust. The lead dust coats surfaces as it falls from the sky. Disturbing the surface results in airborne lead that can be inhaled. Of course, this same lead that has fallen can leach into the groundwater, which is another source of ingestion.

Lead is also bioaccumulative. (Though, to a far lesser extent than mercury.) So these mechanisms that place the lead in contact with us directly also does so for our food. In particular, the further up the food chain and the fattier, the more lead there can be.

So, we breath it, drink it, and eat it.

As to where the lead in our bodies originates from, that's something I haven't found a comprehensive study on yet. There are individual studies, such as the amount from lead paint and studies like this that relate to fuel. That would be a very nice piece to have. It's better than a proxy measurement like 50% of airborne lead comes from Avgas. As you imply, that would be a great study to fund. (If you were referencing the source of lead directly, 98% comes from battery recycling and the other 2% is mined.)

Where it ends up is actually the easiest the measure, as that's just a direct measurement of air, soil and water lead levels. Those are published pretty regularly.
 
So where was the massive IQ loss pre-19-whatever-year-before-Pb-auto-fuel-was-banned?

Sounds like just another way to villainize those evil 1%'ers in their fling death traps.
 
Pseudo science designed to show the outcome they want. All too common these days. As Joshuajayg pointed out, I'm more worried about the 180 grain dosage.
 
The IQ loss is from chewing on all those lead pencils those guys used. And calling it graphite is just a coverup by the Islamic State who actually are substituting lead for graphite in pencils to destroy the American way of life.

I found this out in a dream that came to me while fueling a Cherokke 160 without a respirator.

Cheers
 
mscard88 said:
MIPA

Mogas International Pilots Association
Click to expand...


That's more of a gaggle or a gathering right?* Although I've never been to every airport but I've never seen a mogas pump.


*Sarcasm - its the fabric of my being
 
You've heard of the NGPA? They used to advertise in Flying magazine.
 
I think reading useless "studies" is making people stupider.

Everybody seems to confuse facts and factually based data with "opinions" and "made up BS"

You know what they say: "remember only half of what you see and nothing that you hear"
 
Acrodustertoo said:
I think reading useless "studies" is making people stupider.

Everybody seems to confuse facts and factually based data with "opinions" and "made up BS"

You know what they say: "remember only half of what you see and nothing that you hear"
Click to expand...

Which is this entire thread. We're just chewing the fat. There's no one in this thread, including me, who's an authority on a single lick of this. It's fun. :)
 
arnoha said:
Which is this entire thread. We're just chewing the fat. There's no one in this thread, including me, who's an authority on a single lick of this. It's fun. :)
Click to expand...
What I meant by "everybody" was in reference to the sheeples of the world who seem to be scared of everything around them. Like all the airplanes dumping fuel on the great people of Arizona! Pilots know better and are smarter than that, right?
 
Acrodustertoo said:
What I meant by "everybody" was in reference to the sheeples of the world who seem to be scared of everything around them. Like all the airplanes dumping fuel on the great people of Arizona! Pilots know better and are smarter than that, right?
Click to expand...

On that particular item, yes (well, sort of -- a lot of people DO dump fuel on the ramp, just not at those quantities).

But there are definitely severe OWTs that pilots sometimes subscribe to. Like the assumption that more gadgets are always better.
 
MAKG1 said:
On that particular item, yes (well, sort of -- a lot of people DO dump fuel on the ramp, just not at those quantities).

But there are definitely severe OWTs that pilots sometimes subscribe to. Like the assumption that more gadgets are always better.
Click to expand...

OWT? Haven't seen that one before.
 
Now I have not done any studies nor do I have any degrees in this area but to apply a bit of common sense..

Back in the 50s, all the cars were burning leaded fuel. Now, it was a health risk(more to those handling the fuel probably than bystanders) but people weren't dropping like flies either.... and at lot more people are around a lot more cars than piston airplanes.

That said, put a mogas pump on my field and I'll buy the STC.
 
cowman said:
Back in the 50s, all the cars were burning leaded fuel. Now, it was a health risk(more to those handling the fuel probably than bystanders) but people weren't dropping like flies either.... and at lot more people are around a lot more cars than piston airplanes.
Click to expand...

I was raised on a steady diet of asbestos burgers with a side of Pb paint chips (kids will eat anything!) and I turned out all right...
 
cowman said:
Now I have not done any studies nor do I have any degrees in this area but to apply a bit of common sense..

Back in the 50s, all the cars were burning leaded fuel. Now, it was a health risk(more to those handling the fuel probably than bystanders) but people weren't dropping like flies either.... and at lot more people are around a lot more cars than piston airplanes.

That said, put a mogas pump on my field and I'll buy the STC.
Click to expand...

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.
 
There is little doubt that leaded aviation gas causes decreased IQ in folks exposed to it. This cannot be denied. No more certain proof of this fact exists than the fact that people who live near airports who are exposed to these emissions have their IQ lowered to the point where they do not recall that the airport was there before they were and that they cannot understand the many benefits that GA provides. Poor bastards. I hear it even affects city government types in Santa Monica. Though evidence suggests they might have actually began life with a deficit in the intelligence department. Science, *******!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top