Top
Best
New

Posted by downbad_ 2 hours ago

Leaded Gas Was a Known Poison the Day It Was Invented (2016)(www.smithsonianmag.com)
95 points | 58 comments
louky 1 hour ago|
The major proponent was also known as

Thomas Midgley Jr.: Accidentally The Most Dangerous Man Who Ever Lived[0]

Leaded gas, CFCs, and accidentally created a machine that ended his own existence.[1]

[0]https://allthatsinteresting.com/thomas-midgley-jr [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

flaunf221 41 minutes ago||
> The Most Dangerous Man Who Ever Lived

The titles like annoy me to no end.

Because Thomas Midgley was an engineer. Not overlord of General Motors. Not director. Not even a large shaholder.

GM Leadership knew effects of TEL. And for decades traded everyone's health for their profits. Midgley is complicit, but he's just a small piece.

gertop 30 minutes ago||
People who absolve engineers of all responsibility annoy me to no end. They're omnipresent on this forum and justify working for Facebook with things like "not my decision" or "someone else would do it" or "it's not that bad you just don't understand" or "I'm just following orders"
flaunf221 1 minute ago|||
Good thing I didn't absolve him of "all responsibility" and even wrote explicitly that he is complicit.
hyperhello 22 minutes ago|||
People who say annoy me to no end annoy me no end. They’re different phrases.
tux3 11 minutes ago||
That's ironic, because the "no end" form was already a relatively new idiom. But "to no end" has already overtaken it in terms of popularity. Of course I meant the word "ironic" like I mean the word "literally"; which is to say, figuratively.

Being a prescriptivist creates no end of everyday pains. Language just won't conform.

hyperhello 5 minutes ago||
The thing is that it’s always used in “annoy” or “frustrate” because they mistake the response as sympathetic annoyance or empathic frustration when it’s really just their misuse of language. I don’t want them to be responsible for their miscommunication in the future!
embedding-shape 1 hour ago|||
I had one purple link on that second Wikipedia page, which (macabre as it sounds) was very interesting to read through: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors_killed_by_th...

Also leads to another great list-of-lists; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_unusual_deaths

mmooss 1 hour ago||
> Accidentally

Based on the OP, it wasn't at all accidental. They knew it was dangerous and chose it because they could make more money than with safer alternatives such as ethanol.

cyberax 1 hour ago||
I don't think he really appreciated the danger of lead. Its acute toxicity was well-known, but not its chronic toxicity.

And plenty of stuff is toxic in large quantities but harmless (or even vital!) in small quantities.

whatisthiseven 19 minutes ago|||
Then you don't know anything about the man. He intentionally inhaled large quantities of leaded gas to prove it was safe to on lockers.

He would then spend months in Florida recovering from lead poisoning.

He knew, and he didn't care.

mmooss 52 minutes ago|||
Interesting - what is that based on?

He's not some incidental commentator. He's an engineer and a principle force behind this technology. He is responsible for the outcomes - 'I didn't know' is reckless negligence. And if there were clear acute problems, chronic problems weren't hard to guess at for anyone, much less an engineer, with all those resources, working on it for years.

sysguest 28 minutes ago||
> engineer and a principle force behind this technology

well he's not some biochemist...

and even biochemists have trouble within their own field because there's so much 'unknown' stuff in biochem (eg Thalidomide scandal)

JumpCrisscross 54 minutes ago||
> countries where leaded gasoline was—or still is—used

Note: it’s now banned for road vehicles everywhere [1].

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/every-country-has-n... Algeria, 2021

gilrain 49 minutes ago|
…but is exhausting at volume from most small aircraft you see. I say sadly, as an aviation geek; we can do better!
aftbit 36 minutes ago||
We're working on it, slowly but surely. This has been a known problem for a long time, at least since 2009 if not earlier. GAMI's G100UL was approved as a 100LL replacement in 2022, but there is still some controversy.

Avweb has done a good series of videos on this. There were some real engineering concerns and some typical aviation conservative decision making. But really, it's a tragedy of the FAA fumbling the ball for decades at this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F-WngVMJBQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvse4Xhzwuk

https://avweb.com/features/unleaded-avgas-airport-playbook-l...

https://avweb.com/aviation-news/judge-denies-g100ul-motion/

https://g100ul.com/

FuckButtons 6 minutes ago||
There are two major sub-fields in materials science. 1: Making materials with interesting new properties. 2: figuring out how to remove the lead from them.
leoc 1 hour ago||
Lucas Reilly's Mental Floss article on Clair Patterson https://www.mentalfloss.com/science/environment/clair-patter... is a much better piece. I'll also recycle https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=heymijo 's old comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28502232 on this article from its 2021 HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28500508 (again, what follows is his or her work not mine!):

> Two beliefs became entrenched:

1. that lead is natural to the human body, and

2. that a poisoning threshold for lead existed

Robert Kehoe, working for GM, was the chief advocate for leaded gasoline, and really the only person/lab doing research on lead until Clair Patterson stumbled into it while measuring the age of the earth. [0,1]

A modern equivalent might be if Facebook was the only organization researching social media's impact on society, while being able to set the paradigm/assumptions about said safety for half a century.

So even when Patterson's research was published in 1965, it took time to change the paradigm, and more time to phase out lead's use.

Should anyone want to read a narrative about the intertwined lives of Midgley, Patterson, Kehoe and lead, then this Mental Floss article is a good read. [2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clair_Patterson#Campaign_again...

[2] https://www.mentalfloss.com/science/environment/clair-patter...

dnemmers 1 hour ago||
A good Veritasium video on the subject:

https://youtu.be/IV3dnLzthDA?is=MorITIg_MvFrKtvR

meristohm 1 hour ago||
For an animated version of this story, see Cosmos, season 2 (I forget which episode, but it was helpful in teaching about this in high school)
fhdkweig 50 minutes ago|
https://www.space.com/25579-cosmos-recap-earth-age-lead-pois...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clean_Room

Fricken 1 hour ago||
We've known about climate change for more than a century, but we're pigs, we don't care.
ErroneousBosh 55 minutes ago||
25 years ago in the UK, leaded petrol was being phased out but still pretty common. The UK Government was giving people grants to have existing cars converted to run on LPG, so they'd only run on a coke can of petrol for a minute or so on startup then switch over to gas.

Catalytic converters? Don't need 'em! There's no CO or unburnt fuel in the exhaust to catalyse because they run as lean as a vegan's dog!

CO2 emissions? Sure, but the stuff is getting flared off as waste at refineries anyway, and we're not going to stop making plastics and fertilisers any time soon, so may as well extract useful work from burning it!

We could have had incredibly clean cities everywhere by now, by simply keeping older cars on the road and adapting them to run on much cleaner safer fuel.

But there was a problem, an absolute bombshell of a problem. The fatal flaw that killed LPG as a road fuel.

It didn't sell new cars. It didn't sell anyone any debt.

So they came up with "scrappage schemes" where you'd get a couple of hundred quid for your old car, it would get destroyed, and then all you had to do was buy a nice new Cleaner Greener Diesel car instead, at some swingeing rate of interest (expect to pay well over twice the sticker price by the end of it - and no, you didn't get the Scrappage Scheme cash if you didn't take the finance package).

And you see how well that worked out.

bluGill 47 minutes ago|
LPG had the same problem as electric cars. In the early years there was no infrastructure and so if you buy one you're an early adopter and you can't actually go anywhere. It took a while to get that infrastructure and now electric cars are useful for most trips. You can use LPG cars to go for most trips in the US even today. However, you better plan ahead because finding a place of fuel is going to require some effort. I had a few LNG stations near me, but they seem to have all been torn out, meaning that never made it.

Gas cars faced the same thing when they first came out but by the time they became used for longer trips there was gas everywhere and in the meantime there was gas at least where you bought the car and so it was good enough for the short trips that bought it for.

ErroneousBosh 44 minutes ago||
That was kind of it. Until maybe five years ago, every branch of Morrison's had two LPG pumps at their petrol stations, as did Asda.

Now it's mostly wholesale fuel suppliers that have pumps.

culi 1 hour ago||
Yes and the toxic effects of asbestos had been known for thousands of years before popcorn ceilings became a fad
ck2 1 hour ago|
and still sprayed all around the surrounding land at almost every airport in the USA and worldwide from prop aircraft exhaust despite knowing ANY amount is toxic and irreversible for 30+ years

* https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

dnemmers 1 hour ago||
Very true that only recently, a lead-free substitute was available.

https://g100ul.com/

projektfu 42 minutes ago||
Also UL94 (https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/) could be used in many models. Unfortunately some have been previously upgraded to high-compression engines to get a few more horsepower and they can't use UL94.

Some can run on ethanol-free 87-octane automotive fuel, generally the low-compression engines that already can run 80/87 aviation fuel.

80/87 and 100/130 leaded fuels are all but unavailable, but 100LL is ubiquitous. There is a chicken and egg problem to make G100UL and UL94 available, which will encourage its use. Even automotive fuel is hard to find at airports, possibly because they don't want the liability of improper fueling. (100LL is compatible with almost every gasoline aircraft engine, the rest are not.)

The G100UL also may have an issue with being too good of a solvent, although the developer insists that's a libel.

Swift Fuels is also supposed to introduce a different type of 100-octane unleaded called 100R that has had good results in testing but hasn't been broadly approved yet.

It was like pulling teeth from a dragon to get the FAA to move forward with G100UL as I understand it, and then they suddenly approved it for just about anything provided they write a supplemental type certificate. So maybe the same will happen when/if 100R is approved and someone will handle the marketing.

londons_explore 1 hour ago||
You say that in the past tense... But pretty much every propeller plane worldwide still uses the stuff...
mr_toad 1 hour ago||
Only in piston engines, which are a minority of propeller planes. Most commercial propeller aircraft are turboprops, and they use jet fuel. And diesel engines are slowly taking over from gasoline in piston engines.
mh- 1 hour ago||
Correct. For others reading this though: virtually all piston-engine GA aircraft in the US today are still burning 100LL (leaded), and there are nearly 200,000 of them actively flying.

There is a timeline to transition to UL, but very low collective confidence it'll happen by the 2030 goal.

edit: to the commenter that fired off the reactionary reply and deleted it before I could help you. No, not because "[rich people] won't do the right thing." It's because lead is an anti-knock additive for piston engines, and a safe replacement has to go through unimaginable amounts of testing. Once it's certified, one must still figure out scaling production, distribution, etc. Aviation is a very slow moving industry and regulatory environment, which I'm personally thankful for.

PDF (77pgs): https://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2026/2026-01_Draft-Unlead...

ck2 48 minutes ago|||
the amount of lead that is acceptable is ZERO

ZERO, thirty years ago when there was definitive proof is it forever and irreversible

all lead exhaust aircraft should have been phased out a decade ago if not two decades ago if they cannot be converted

again, there is no acceptable amount, imagine it being sprayed on you, your car, everywhere

your body tries to process it like calcium and stores it forever

how much damage and disease to you and your family are you willing to accept just so someone can keep using their prop aircraft for another decade to make profit?

yes it's all about the money, it's pretty obvious, if there wasn't profit involved it would have been phased out with cars THIRTY YEARS ago

all that lead sprayed all around the land and on people is FOREVER, it doesn't go away, it doesn't wash away, it doesn't evaporate

mh- 45 minutes ago||
I'm unclear who you're arguing with. I don't fly GA and I live under the approach to a GA airport, which is why I'm well-read on this subject.
More comments...