Swift 100R gets ASTM Approval

[Racerx]

None of these things are really an issue, internal corrosion is often overblown to sell overhauls, and the most simple way to stop that’s is to take her for a rip more often.

Oil changes are not a big deal, o2 sensors..I would rather less electric stuff to break personally

With the prices of these solution in search of a problem fuels, it’s good they fight internal corrosion, the fleet will probably be doing less flying with super expensive gas.

Must not live where the flying weather sucks 3 months out of the year. I believe you are in the minority of not wanting an unleaded solution.

 

[decalogue]

Must not live where the flying weather sucks 3 months out of the year. I believe you are in the minority of not wanting an unleaded solution.

I get pretty bad weather, just changes my flying a little

If the “solution” costs the same or less as 100ll, doesn’t require me to change stuff on my plane, doesn’t damage my plane, sure.

I would LOVE to run auto fuel, but my engine is larger injected, that’s not in the cards

But there is no real factual reason to get rid of 100ll

 

[cowman]

I don’t love the lead deposits in my engine or scrubbing them off my belly. If we were talking about a modest increase in fuel price and no major hassles to get rid of that I’d go for it. The trouble is it doesn’t seem like that price increase is going to be modest at all nor will this be hassle free.

In the end though it’s not going to be up to me or most of us in the pilot community. We’ll get what we get and either pay to keep flying or not I’m afraid.

 

[decalogue]

the current avgas TEL supplier in england has been trying to get out of the business for over a decade and would love to have gotten out of supplying it but no one wanted the business due to small market and the numerous law suits, not even importers from China.

Why would they want to get out of it??

They have a legal monopoly as far as most believe.

I’d wager it’s more they are being forced out of it.

The types who push to ban GA (which is what this really is) are a very interesting bunch. They are the sad angry crabs who stay on the bottom of the bucket and pull any of the other crabs back down who climb for freedom.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

The "benefit" would be that you could continue to fuel and fly your plane after 100LL is no longer available.

You can do that with alcohol free pump gas & an STC in a Cessna 150.

 

[Racerx]

Why would they want to get out of it??

They have a legal monopoly as far as most believe.

I’d wager it’s more they are being forced out of it.

The types who push to ban GA (which is what this really is) are a very interesting bunch. They are the sad angry crabs who stay on the bottom of the bucket and pull any of the other crabs back down who climb for freedom.

Because it's very expensive to maintain the equipment due to its corrosive properties.

Innospec Wants To Discontinue Producing Tetraethyl Lead (TEL) By 2030

Containing the corrosive properties of TEL production could be too costly to continue.

avweb.com

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

I think you're spot on. I was at a Q&A session with at Oshkosh last year. I was asking fairly basic marketing and business questions, and their approach is a head scratcher. They are relying on FBO's to sell their version because pilots will be demanding it, and pilots will buy their stuff somewhere else if the FBO doesn't carry it, and pilots will all do STC's although no mechanism for anyone to check if the plane has it, etc. etc. etc. Can't understand why 94 UL isn't catching on, just because 25% or so of the GA fleet can't use it. Shouldn't be a problem for FBO's to install a second tank/second fueling system to carry their fuel.

So yes, I get the feeling that the nice folks at Swift are engineers in need of some business people to guide them.

If they want their fuel out there, they need to get into the fuel dispensing business. One reason Tesla succeeded is that it built its own charging network.
Want to sell 94UL? Supply the skid-mounted, complete fueling systems TO the FBOs.

 

[Racerx]

The other argument I hear is the false only one place to get TEL point, this doesn’t hold water since there are like 8 different TEL plants in china alone, same place we get all those EV batteries from

• Shanghai Rokem (Shanghai, China)
• ZXCHEM (Hainan, China)
• Beijing Hua Di Union (Beijing, China)
• Yishui Jiuhex (Yishui, China)
• Nanchang Haixu (Nanchang, China)
• Hua Ya Guo Lian (Dongying, China)
• Qingdao Hongchi (Qingdao, China)
• Guangdong Zhongpeng (Guangdong, China)

Found the quote from @PaulMillner about the TEL produced in China.

"the current TEL made in Liverpool is water white... the Chinese TEL is inky black... something unsavory in the mix there!"

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

Because is more expensive than 100LL?
And even when priced the same (I recall an airport had it at the same price as 100LL a while back), you need an STC for it?
Who in their right mind would buy it?

I bought the STC just to support the company. There isn't any 94UL within 300 miles of me.
Have it at the same price as 100LL? I'll buy it.

 

[Racerx]

If they want their fuel out there, they need to get into the fuel dispensing business. One reason Tesla succeeded is that it built its own charging network.
Want to sell 94UL? Supply the skid-mounted, complete fueling systems TO the FBOs.

At 65k a pop for a 5,000 gallon unitized set up that's wishful thinking.

 

[decalogue]

Because it's very expensive to maintain the equipment due to its corrosive properties.

Innospec Wants To Discontinue Producing Tetraethyl Lead (TEL) By 2030

Containing the corrosive properties of TEL production could be too costly to continue.

avweb.com

Lots of business have lots of upkeep, but being the only show in town, many businesses would give their first born to be in that position

[press X for doubt]

Found the quote from @PaulMillner about the TEL produced in China.

"the current TEL made in Liverpool is water white... the Chinese TEL is inky black... something unsavory in the mix there!"

We could source TEL from China tomorrow, and it wouldn’t matter to me what color the stuff is.

The Chinese already manufacture vastly more complex products that flood the U.S. market, EV batteries, tires, iPhones, you name it.

The idea that they somehow couldn’t produce tetraethyllead is laughable.


That said, I can easily see the Chinese government either refusing to sell it or quietly helping fund a Western ban on 100LL. General aviation is the pipeline that produces pilots, and hobbling that pipeline would be a cheap, effective strategic win for them.

Most of the domestic push to eliminate 100LL comes from three predictable groups

1. Hard-core environmentalists who want the rest of us stacked in high-density urban housing, riding government transit, while they keep their own rural retreats. You can usually smell the cats from a mile away


2. People with skin in the game, snakeoil salesmen and manufacturers peddling expensive “alternatives.” Think heavy, clunky diesel engines that won’t run on 100LL, cost a fortune, and have to be yanked and replaced at TBO, and all the “alternate” 100LL mixes

3. Ideological activists who scream “lead, lead, lead!” Their arguments collapse the moment you scratch the surface.

The studies they wave around are often hidden behind court orders, and when they finally surface, they frequently say the opposite of what’s claimed. Follow the money on some of these groups and the picture would be interesting.

When the actual data show that continued use of 100LL is not a meaningful problem, when general aviation in the West remains strong, uniquely accessible to blue collar pilots, and one of the last pure expressions of individual freedom left in aviation, plus a great way to make more civil and military aviators and keep our crown as the king of aviation, why are certain people so determined to kill it?

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

At 65k a pop for a 5,000 gallon unitized set up that's wishful thinking.

Agreed, and so is expecting FBOs to do it on their own because Swift thinks it's a good idea.

 

[Jim_R]

You can do that with alcohol free pump gas & an STC in a Cessna 150.

Maybe if you're flying a 150 you're not flying across the country. But if you do fly far enough away from home to need a fill-up to make the return trip, good luck with that approach.

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

Maybe if you're flying a 150 you're not flying across the country. But if you do fly far enough away from home to need a fill-up to make the return trip, good luck with that approach.

Fair enough! Although I expect that if 100LL were to go away without a replacement, you would see many 100LL tanks converted to Premium, alcohol-free automotive gas.

 

[decalogue]

Maybe if you're flying a 150 you're not flying across the country. But if you do fly far enough away from home to need a fill-up to make the return trip, good luck with that approach.

Takes little more planning but auto fuel isn’t that big of a deal.

 

[Hang 4]

Innospec is a roughly 1.8 billion gross revenue specialty chemical company. 2019 was the last year they reported TEL business separately. TEL revenue was $21 million with a gross profit of $1.7 million. The assets they use to produce it, used to produce TEL for the entire automotive fuel base, so it's a non trivial plant to shut down. (They currently have an impairment on the book of $63 million, most of which is the UK TEL site). As an asset, it was on the books for roughly $250 million in 2019 when they stopped reporting the TEL business separately. There's no way they want to keep producing TEL any longer than they have to. Once they close that plant, their financial operations look a whole lot better.

Avgas is a trivial part of the overall gasoline market. The automotive gas market was 136 Billion gallons in 2022, avgas was 0.2bn. (source US Energy Information Administration). Point of that being, avgas is not exactly a strategic business for the Oil Majors. They make because they have the infrastructure in place. 100LL can't be intermixed anywhere in the supply chain due to the lead.

We could source TEL from China tomorrow, and it wouldn’t matter to me what color the stuff is.

Do you have any experience qualifying raw materials for the Oil Majors? They care a whole lot about way more than just the "color". They have a risk exposure to environmental and product liability that is non-trivial. The effort to qualify some fly by night Chinese chemical supplier might make it attractive to just abandon the 100LL market. They don't care what "you think"

That said, I can easily see the Chinese government either refusing to sell it or quietly helping fund a Western ban on 100LL. General aviation is the pipeline that produces pilots, and hobbling that pipeline would be a cheap, effective strategic win for them.

Guess where a significant percentage of the pilots training in the US are from? China. China has no training infrastructure, which is why they send their pilots here. Nice conspiracy theory though.

 

[Dana]

You can do that with alcohol free pump gas & an STC in a Cessna 150.

Only if you live in a state where alcohol free pump gas may be sold (I don't).

 

[decalogue]

Innospec is a roughly 1.8 billion gross revenue specialty chemical company. 2019 was the last year they reported TEL business separately. TEL revenue was $21 million with a gross profit of $1.7 million. The assets they use to produce it, used to produce TEL for the entire automotive fuel base, so it's a non trivial plant to shut down. (They currently have an impairment on the book of $63 million, most of which is the UK TEL site). As an asset, it was on the books for roughly $250 million in 2019 when they stopped reporting the TEL business separately. There's no way they want to keep producing TEL any longer than they have to. Once they close that plant, their financial operations look a whole lot better.

Avgas is a trivial part of the overall gasoline market. The automotive gas market was 136 Billion gallons in 2022, avgas was 0.2bn. (source US Energy Information Administration). Point of that being, avgas is not exactly a strategic business for the Oil Majors. They make because they have the infrastructure in place. 100LL can't be intermixed anywhere in the supply chain due to the lead.

Do you have any experience qualifying raw materials for the Oil Majors? They care a whole lot about way more than just the "color". They have a risk exposure to environmental and product liability that is non-trivial. The effort to qualify some fly by night Chinese chemical supplier might make it attractive to just abandon the 100LL market. They don't care what "you think"


Guess where a significant percentage of the pilots training in the US are from? China. China has no training infrastructure, which is why they send their pilots here. Nice conspiracy theory though.

There still is basically zero factual and honorable reason to kill 100LL

Thus I look at alternate reasons.

On beech one of the snake oil 100ll “replacement” fuel guys was actively talking about pushing to get 100ll banned, gee wonder why.

China plays the long game, could see them paying to have instructors come to China and start spooling up their own training system, they already have been buying up lots of GA companies.
Not sure their exact plans, but going off their history and recent actions, it’s FAR from the land of “conspiracy theory”

 

[Half Fast]

There still is basically zero factual and honorable reason to kill 100LL

True. Which doesn’t matter in the least. Even if the reasons to eliminate 100LL are complete BS, it’s going to be eliminated. We have to deal with that reality.

 

[decalogue]

True. Which doesn’t matter in the least. Even if the reasons to eliminate 100LL are complete BS, it’s going to be eliminated. We have to deal with that reality.

The acceptance of very bad decisions is not conducive to a healthy nation.

Not sure about anyone here but I have contacted my elected officials about this as well as discussed with my local aviation community and airport management, for whatever good that is

 

[Racerx]

There still is basically zero factual and honorable reason to kill 100LL

Agree to disagree. And I'm the guy that uses 100ll to clean the belly of the plane. There's some very good reasons we should look forward to unleaded fuel. You're choosing to ignore or dismiss those reasons.

I welcome unleaded fuel. As long as it doesn't strip my paint or result in timing changes. Even if its little more expensive. Some of the cost is offset a .5 gph less fuel burn when matching get using Gami gas.

 

[Bell206]

The irony of this whole discussion is the law behind it has been on the books for many years, yet its only in the final years that everyone has taken notice. Same goes for unpopular ADs and other rules where few actually participate in the process to challenge it like the Piper spar AD. Perhaps the lower 48 owners should follow a similar path to how AK gets an upper hand since they already have a 2 year extension (2032) on the end of 100LL. Regardless, the only option is to change the law or be content with unleaded avgas.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

There still is basically zero factual and honorable reason to kill 100LL

Neurotoxin is one good reason. That's why lead was removed from everywhere else. Tetraethyl lead is readily adsorbed through the skin.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/tetraethyllead

"... the Chinese TEL is inky black... something unsavory in the mix there!"

Perhaps. Or simply heated to decomposition. Like anywhere else, people there make both quality or poor products.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I get pretty bad weather, just changes my flying a little

If the “solution” costs the same or less as 100ll, doesn’t require me to change stuff on my plane, doesn’t damage my plane, sure.

I would LOVE to run auto fuel, but my engine is larger injected, that’s not in the cards

But there is no real factual reason to get rid of 100ll

There's no factual reason to remove a form of lead that easily invades the human body?

 

[decalogue]

Neurotoxin is one good reason. That's why lead was removed from everywhere else. Tetraethyl lead is readily adsorbed through the skin.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/tetraethyllead

Perhaps. Or simply heated to decomposition. Like anywhere else, people there make both quality or poor products.

No one is saying to drink or bathe in 100LL


But for use in aircraft the facts say, over and over, it’s no factor

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

Only if you live in a state where alcohol free pump gas may be sold (I don't).

Check with your local wholesaler. You may have to buy it 300 gallons at a time, but you can generally buy what you want from them.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

No one is saying to drink or bathe in 100LL

Of course no one is saying that. That statement is a non sequitur. I've never noticed anyone wearing personal protection equipment when fueling their planes. Not even gloves except when it is cold. I have seen many times people overfilling the tank with the overflow running down the training edge onto the person doing the fueling. That's where you get your exposure to lead. As lead is a cumulative toxin, it is wise to limit your exposure to the stuff. As TEL is lipophilic, it enters the body very readily.

But for use in aircraft the facts say, over and over, it’s no factor

You have probably been thinking only about airborne emissions. That's not anywhere near the same as exposure due to spills on a person, or breathing the vapor during refueling.
This reference indicates that workers at an an airport where 100LL was used had higher blood levels than those working at an airport that used only jet fuel: https://asma.kglmeridian.com/view/journals/asem/84/10/article-p1087.xml

It's a fact that people are using lead as a reason to close airports, as mentioned by @Hang 4 . I think it is less environmentalists and more developers who want to build houses, but that is a separate discussion. Removing the lead removes some of their "ammunition".

 

[decalogue]

Only if you live in a state where alcohol free pump gas may be sold (I don't).

If your home field is correct, sure you do.

Most marinas with fuel will have non ethanol, ethanol is not compatible with most marine applications.

Here one on the CT river

Fuel - Chester Boat Basin

Fuel dock is opened during normal business hours. We only sell ValvTect marine grade Gas & Diesel. It is pre-treated for the ethanol and 89 Octane.

chesterboatbasin.com

 

[decalogue]

Of course no one is saying that. That statement is a non sequitur. I've never noticed anyone wearing personal protection equipment when fueling their planes. Not even gloves except when it is cold. I have seen many times people overfilling the tank with the overflow running down the training edge onto the person doing the fueling. That's where you get your exposure to lead. As lead is a cumulative toxin, it is wise to limit your exposure to the stuff. As TEL is lipophilic, it enters the body very readily.

You have probably been thinking only about airborne emissions. That's not anywhere near the same as exposure due to spills on a person, or breathing the vapor during refueling.
This reference indicates that workers at an an airport where 100LL was used had higher blood levels than those working at an airport that used only jet fuel: https://asma.kglmeridian.com/view/journals/asem/84/10/article-p1087.xml

It's a fact that people are using lead as a reason to close airports, as mentioned by @Hang 4 . I think it is less environmentalists and more developers who want to build houses, but that is a separate discussion. Removing the lead removes some of their "ammunition".

I have not been drenched in 100LL or fallen into a fuel tank in the decades and decades I’ve been at this, not even when I was a student pilot.

Again if you are not drinking or swimming in it, it’s no factor.


The people who use it to try to close airports would just pick some other nonsense if they got laughed out of public opinion with the lead nonsense.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I have not been drenched in 100LL or fallen into a fuel tank in the decades and decades I’ve been at this, not even when I was a student pilot

I doubt anyone has fallen into a fuel tank. Otherwise, you are very special.

Again if you are not drinking or swimming in it, it’s no factor.

The facts show otherwise. As you yourself said, "Facts are facts". As lead doesn't leave the body, it accumulates. That's why it is a cumulative toxin.

The Weight of Lead: Effects Add Up In Adults - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The people who use it to try to close airports would just pick some other nonsense if they got laughed out of public opinion with the lead nonsense.

They already have a list. Noise, school, farm animals giving birth early, etc. One item- lead- will will be removed.

 

[decalogue]

I doubt anyone has fallen into a fuel tank. Otherwise, you are very special.

The facts show otherwise. As you yourself said, "Facts are facts". As lead doesn't leave the body, it accumulates. That's why it is a cumulative toxin.

The Weight of Lead: Effects Add Up In Adults - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

They already have a list. Noise, school, farm animals giving birth early, etc. One item- lead- will will be removed.

I agree with your study, like I do with the facts of all of these studies

Flying in or being around 100LL planes will do nothing worthy of note or notice

100LL use in planes keeps lead below occupational levels and well below the level of 25–60 μg/dL where you would have any noticeable changes like headache or fatigue or concentration issues.

Pilots in the planes have the same levels as the general population, people under planes obviously have even less exposure.

Mechanics (who I have never seen concerned about 100LL) have a higher concentration yet still 1/10 of the level of the point you’d even get a headache.

No realistic, perceptible health change

Per your study

“Some of these health effects, such as a 1-mm rise in blood pressure or a slight cognitive decline, seem small when expressed as the average impact to the entire population. In one individual, they may not even be noticed.”

I don’t think I can even see 1mm on my BP cuff lol

FLYING GA, like right behind the engine, keeps the levels 1-5, you need like 25-60 to even have a issue you would ever notice

 

[MackMooney]

seeing as how my 200hp lycoming will most likely run just fine on 100r or ul100e, i no longer give one iota for 100ll and seeing how my io-360 a1a is one of the higher compression engines, i'm not sure why most are concerned.

truth is, even if we didn't have the 100 octane variants, most of us would be safe just not running the engine at sea level, full hp @ 125deg oat. honestly dont' remember the acutal numbers but you can find the detonation study online.

let the 1000hp warbirds fend for themselves, i really think this is a stupid argument.
really, everyone else got rid of lead so now you feel okay doing it be cause it's now insignificant, whatever

 

[decalogue]

seeing as how my 200hp lycoming will most likely run just fine on 100r or ul100e, i no longer give one iota for 100ll and seeing how my io-360 a1a is one of the higher compression engines, i'm not sure why most are concerned.

truth is, even if we didn't have the 100 octane variants, most of us would be safe just not running the engine at sea level, full hp @ 125deg oat. honestly dont' remember the acutal numbers but you can find the detonation study online.

let the 1000hp warbirds fend for themselves, i really think this is a stupid argument.
really, everyone else got rid of lead so now you feel okay doing it be cause it's now insignificant, whatever

It’s not just 1,000hp warbird crowd, try most planes with over 4 seats

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I agree with your study, like I do with the facts of all of these studies

Flying in or being around 100LL planes will do nothing worthy of note or notice

100LL use in planes keeps lead below occupational levels and well below the level of 25–60 μg/dL where you would have any noticeable changes like headache or fatigue or concentration issues.

Pilots in the planes have the same levels as the general population, people under planes obviously have even less exposure.

Mechanics (who I have never seen concerned about 100LL) have a higher concentration yet still 1/10 of the level of the point you’d even get a headache.

No realistic, perceptible health change

Per your study

“Some of these health effects, such as a 1-mm rise in blood pressure or a slight cognitive decline, seem small when expressed as the average impact to the entire population. In one individual, they may not even be noticed.”

I don’t think I can even see 1mm on my BP cuff lol

FLYING GA, like right behind the engine, keeps the levels 1-5, you need like 25-60 to even have a issue you would ever notice

How about you finding a study indicating lead is harmless to you?

In any case, 100LL is going away and you can do nothing to stop it.

 

[MackMooney]

seeing as how my 200hp lycoming will most likely run just fine on 100r or ul100e, i no longer give one iota for 100ll and seeing how my io-360 a1a is one of the higher compression engines, i'm not sure why most are concerned.

truth is, even if we didn't have the 100 octane variants, most of us would be safe just not running the engine at sea level, full hp @ 125deg oat. honestly dont' remember the acutal numbers but you can find the detonation study online.

let the 1000hp warbirds fend for themselves, i really think this is a stupid argument.
really, everyone else got rid of lead so now you feel okay doing it be cause it's now insignificant, whatever

most of those io-550 engines have less than 8.9 compression

 

[decalogue]

How about you finding a study indicating lead is harmless to you?

In any case, 100LL is going away and you can do nothing to stop it.

What? Lol

Most everything harms you at some point, putting your socks on causes friction on your skin, exercise wears joints and so on



100LL is not a problem, it doesn’t cause enough damage to even be noticed or appreciated.

I also was not raised to be a defeatist, so I speak the truth on this issue and try to spread the word as best I can

most of those io-550 engines have less than 8.9 compression

And they will not run safe and proven mogas

Most all of the 100LL “alternatives” cause damage, or requires modifications, or require modifications AND cause damage, all so we can solve a non existent issue? That’s insanity

 

[kyleb]

seeing as how my 200hp lycoming will most likely run just fine on 100r or ul100e, i no longer give one iota for 100ll and seeing how my io-360 a1a is one of the higher compression engines, i'm not sure why most are concerned.

truth is, even if we didn't have the 100 octane variants, most of us would be safe just not running the engine at sea level, full hp @ 125deg oat. honestly dont' remember the acutal numbers but you can find the detonation study online.

let the 1000hp warbirds fend for themselves, i really think this is a stupid argument.
really, everyone else got rid of lead so now you feel okay doing it be cause it's now insignificant, whatever

I don't want to see aircraft grounded, aircraft losing utility, or owners having to go out of pocket for big bucks in modifications. I really don't see 100LL as an environmental threat. If you look at the guys from <say> 1940 to 1970 who were dealing with much higher lead content fuel and who were dealing with much higher quantities of it fueling military and big commercial aircraft, those folks didn't crap out at 50 because of lead. Smoking? Yeah, lead, no. And today's fuel contains far less lead. Sure, we want to take precautions and not bathe in it, but I don't see the real threat. If there is one, it is to young children, and they aren't fueling aircraft.

It is silly that 100LL has become a target.

 

[Racerx]

If there is one, it is to young children, and they aren't fueling aircraft.

I remember fueling up dad's first Cherokee when I was 8 or 9. It would actually explain a lot.

 

[Dana]

Check with your local wholesaler. You may have to buy it 300 gallons at a time, but you can generally buy what you want from them.

Doesn't matter, ethanol free isn't allowed to be sold in CT. Actually the law requires oxygenated gasoline which, since MTBE was banned, practically means ethanol.

If your home field is correct, sure you do.

Most marinas with fuel will have non ethanol, ethanol is not compatible with most marine applications.

Here one on the CT river

Fuel - Chester Boat Basin

Fuel dock is opened during normal business hours. We only sell ValvTect marine grade Gas & Diesel. It is pre-treated for the ethanol and 89 Octane.

chesterboatbasin.com

I don't think so... they're saying the fuel is "pre-treated for ethanol", not that it doesn't have ethanol.

Actually there are a couple of marinas selling fuel with isobutanol instead of ethanol, but I don't know anybody who's tried it.

 

[Racerx]

What? Lol

Most everything harms you at some point, putting your socks on causes friction on your skin, exercise wears joints and so on



100LL is not a problem, it doesn’t cause enough damage to even be noticed or appreciated.

I also was not raised to be a defeatist, so I speak the truth on this issue and try to spread the word as best I can



And they will not run safe and proven mogas

Most all of the 100LL “alternatives” cause damage, or requires modifications, or require modifications AND cause damage, all so we can solve a non existent issue? That’s insanity

The issues aren't non existent. Your just ignoring and minimizing.

Yes, the current alternatives are all flawed. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to remove the lead.