[HN Gopher] Leaded fuel reduced IQ of children born before 1990
___________________________________________________________________
Leaded fuel reduced IQ of children born before 1990
Author : merlinscholz
Score : 331 points
Date : 2021-10-20 13:35 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| Tagbert wrote:
| Small airplanes still use a leaded aviation fuel known as Avgas.
| I think of that every time I drive by the airport in the middle
| of Renton, WA right next to the lake.
| https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/06/06/the-future-of-unl...
| gengelbro wrote:
| We're near a small airport and I think of this every time they
| fly over (which is quite frequently).
|
| Essentially hobby aviation is completely stuck in the 1970s and
| getting the engines modernized would be "cost prohibitive".
|
| Since wealthy people still want to play around in planes they
| get to rain lead on our heads.
| londons_explore wrote:
| If I were in government, I would tax avgas at $100/gallon
| this year, $1000/gallon next year, and $10,000/gallon the
| year after.
|
| Then the super-rich can continue to fly, paying the nation
| for the economic and health effects they're causing, but
| regular hobbyists will have to ground their planes till
| unleaded avgas is available.
|
| Should be easy-ish to enforce, because planes and flight
| plans are registered, and anyone paying no tax and flying a
| lot ought to be easy to catch.
| andrepd wrote:
| Why not phase-out completely then, rather than allow a few
| thousands to buy an exception?
| bluejellybean wrote:
| As a side effect, this would completely destroy the
| pipeline for commercial aviation (think big jet) pilots.
| Pretty much everyone starts on small crafts and then
| proceeds to burn hundreds of hours of avfuel in the process
| of getting to their commercial licenses. Considering the
| scale and importance of the aviation sector, as well as the
| ongoing shortage of trained pilots in the field today, the
| results of your policy would be catastrophic.
|
| The industry is rapidly trying to move to do two things, 1.
| remove lead from the fuel, this is noted by other
| commenters. And 2. Pushing for more electric GA.
|
| Pilots don't exactly like getting their hands covered in
| lead when they check fuel, much less dumping it into the
| atmosphere when they fly, but it's still an unfortunate
| fact of life. Times are absolutely changing though, and the
| future looks bright.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Pilots don't exactly like getting their hands covered
| in lead when they check fuel,
|
| Or having their spark plugs fouled by the same lead.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| North America has gotten off easy by pushing the training
| onto pilots themselves.
|
| If banning leaded gas leads to qualified pilot shortage,
| the industry only has itself to blame for failing to
| train the people it needs.
|
| Lufthansa at least (and maybe most big euro flag
| carriers?) runs its own "ab initio" training, where it
| takes non-pilots and makes them into pilots with a job.
|
| Lufthansa has warned cadets they won't need to hire for a
| few years: https://www.businessinsider.com/in-crisis-
| lufthansa-restruct...
|
| Not sure if there's a shortage of skilled pilots today as
| flight counts are still down like 20% in USA vs 2019, and
| generally a sharper decline elsewhere.
| outworlder wrote:
| Good thing you are not in the government.
|
| 'Hobbyists' have been waiting for lead free avgas for
| decades. You should just crush their planes while you are
| at it.
|
| While the super rich do whatever they want? By the way, if
| you are super-rich, you are probably burning Jet-A anyway,
| not AVGAS.
|
| The real fix is to just issue the damn regulation and
| provide some incentives. Engines have to be overhauled and
| replaced periodically anyways. Make it easier to recertify
| aircraft, provide a path for aircraft that no longer have
| the original manufacturer around. Give incentives for small
| airports to stock on whatever the proposed avgas
| replacement is until the demand catches up.
|
| > flight plans are registered
|
| No they aren't. No requirement for flight plans in VFR.
|
| If you are proposing such harsh legislation, you should at
| least try to learn something about the subject matter.
| kloch wrote:
| The real fix is better battery technology
| outworlder wrote:
| Indeed. Electric engines would be outstanding. Cheaper to
| buy and maintain, no 'turbocharger' shenanigans to fly at
| high altitudes, more reliable, less noisy.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The 1970s would be a great leap forward for civil aviation.
| The widespread aircraft that are only certified to run on
| leaded fuel are all derivatives of World War 2 designs. The
| engine of a Cessna 172 has been in continuous production
| since 1955 and has parts that are interchangeable with
| engines back to 1939.
| FearlessNebula wrote:
| It's not just wealthy people, it's predominantly student
| pilots. Wealthy pilots are burning diesel or Jet A in newer
| luxury planes like the Cirrus Vision.
| gengelbro wrote:
| I've seen this asserted elsewhere, but I'm wondering what
| evidence exists that flight hours on leaded planes are
| _predominately_ due to student pilots?
| base698 wrote:
| Unless you live on the airport in a hangar it's not going to
| be in concentrations high enough to worry about.
|
| The wealthy are in jets or turbo props which don't use leaded
| gas.
| jws wrote:
| In the US avgas (which has similar lead content to pre-phaseout
| automotive gasoline) is 0.14% of gasoline usage and declining
| at about 5%/year.
|
| Fuel supplied lead is a 99.86% solved problem which is solving
| itself.
|
| Congress has been funding a program to develop lead free fuel
| which can safely power aviation piston engines, it is ongoing.
| Intermediate results are largely not available because it is
| required to protect all commercial entities participating.
| https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/
|
| Here is a nice article from someone involved in avgas lead
| removal: https://www.avweb.com/insider/going-to-the-moon-was-
| easy-com...
| cellularmitosis wrote:
| Can you help us laypersons understand why leaded gas is still
| needed in GA engines? Is this as simple as using better valve
| seats or something? I mean cars haven't needed leaded gas for
| a long time, why can't GA aircraft just use modern parts /
| engines?
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| Not an aviation guy, but a car guy. Lead has historically
| been used to raise the octane rating of gasoline. Octane
| rating expresses the resistance of the fuel to "knock"
| which is the sudden explosion of the air-fuel mixture
| inside the cylinder versus a controlled burn and which can
| damage the engine. The main factor that raises the octane
| requirement of an engine is the compression ratio (max
| cylinder volume to min cylinder volume). High compression
| ratios generate more horsepower but require higher octane
| fuel. The other thing is that lead lubricates the valve
| seats preventing excess wear, but that's a solved problem
| with hardened valve seats.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Because they were designed for leaded gas and you can't
| just modify certified aviation stuff without spending
| millions on the process of getting your modification
| approved.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| I think it's more that most aviation piston engines were
| originally approved for use with leaded fuel, and things
| have been slow to change. At least some of them
| apparently run fine on the right unleaded fuel.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#UL94_(formerly_94UL)
| andrepd wrote:
| > Intermediate results are largely not available because it
| is required to protect all commercial entities participating.
|
| Ironically, "protecting commercial interests" is why the
| whole lead fuel catastrophe came to be.
| 55873445216111 wrote:
| There is a big fight over Avgas going on in San Jose over
| Reid Hillview airport.
|
| Yes, while total use of leaded fuel now makes up a tiny
| percentage, it is still measurably significant to the people
| who live in the flight path of a municipal airport.
|
| https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/08/18/reid-
| hillview-a...
| outworlder wrote:
| They are using that as an excuse to close the airport since
| that's in an area where real state is highly valued. Reid
| Hillview is a 'relief' airport - that means it is used to
| shift small GA traffic away from San Jose airport.
|
| Those aircraft will not disappear, they will just move to
| SJC a few miles away and pollute just as much.
|
| I seriously doubt that, if the lead was removed overnight,
| they would change their minds and stop complaining about
| the airport. This NIMBY fight is older than that.
|
| I feel similarly about my HOA who complains about noise
| pollution from SJC. The airport predates the houses by
| decades but now it is suddenly a problem.
|
| There should be far more outrage about lead in avgas than
| there is today - maybe then the FAA and EPA would stop
| bickering and issue some new regulation. Noone wants to
| take responsibility for the monetary damage and possible
| disasters stemming from the decision to phase out lead, so
| decades later we are still looking for the perfect avgas
| replacement.
|
| Meanwhile, European planes are transitioning to other
| fuels. Either Jet-A or motor gas. Diamond has developed
| great engines, but when their aircraft are sold in the US,
| guess which engines they use? People will ask specifically
| for lead burning Lycoming or Continental. If there was a
| penalty for doing that, maybe this would change.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Counterpoint: if we remove the habitat for civil
| aviation, it will, in fact, disappear. And we should:
| it's just a nuisance and serves no real purpose. The idea
| that civil aviators provide disaster relief, as advocated
| by those who favor keeping Reid-Hillview open, is
| completely absurd. A single flight of a real aircraft
| such as a C-5 at SJC would carry more materiel than 1000s
| of GA operations.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| KRHV and GA in general are part of an ecosystem. There is
| Angel Flight West for instance which is only possible
| because of small GA aircraft.
|
| A giant aircraft requires a giant amount of fuel, a giant
| runway and a pilot who has spent a whole lot of hours
| flying non-commercially. Without GA and small planes, we
| might also not have sustainable commercial-aviation.
|
| My CFI took off to go work for the airlines because of
| increased demand several months ago. Without GA he may
| not have had an opportunity to stay with aviation at all.
| One can not learn everything needed to fly an aircraft in
| a simulator.
| RNCTX wrote:
| Diamond has not developed great engines. There's a video
| floating around of them quite literally taking stock
| Mercedes taxi diesels apart and putting different oil
| coolers on them.
|
| The only difference in design besides those oil coolers
| was their gearbox, which was a joke from day one.
| Firstly, diesel produces RPMs similar to what a small
| aircraft propeller wants so even having a gearbox is
| either a revenue-generating design intended to fail, or
| an exercise in stupidity. You can tell me which, I
| honestly don't know.
|
| Nor has Diamond developed great aircraft in other
| aspects, either. Their stick rather than a yoke design
| was also a cost-cutter, but no one wants to ride around
| with a piece of metal hitting them in the balls, either.
| Socata and Cirrus did a much better job of interior
| design than Diamond, which is why they're still making
| ever-more-complex airplanes, and Diamond is flirting with
| bankruptcy.
|
| The solution to general aviation getting rid of leaded
| gas is someone to make small turbines, and the only thing
| holding that back is the FAA.
| outworlder wrote:
| What the heck. Fully FADEC controlled and reliable
| engines with automated runup tests, what's not great
| about them? That the original design was derived from the
| automotive industry?
|
| I am not qualified to comment on the need of the gearbox.
| I would suspect that neither are you.
|
| > their stick rather than a yoke design was also a cost-
| cutter, but no one wants to ride around with a piece of
| metal hitting them in the balls, either.
|
| The large numbers of people flying RV10s seem to
| disagree. Diamond doesn't have a monopoly on the center
| stick. Passengers may not like the floor mounted stick,
| but pilots? Meh. The passenger stick is removable on the
| DA42 and 62.
|
| You can't seriously take a Diamond Twinstar and tell me
| that's not a great aircraft.
|
| > The solution to general aviation getting rid of leaded
| gas is someone to make small turbines
|
| Right, I can picture it right now, a C172 with a turbine
| engine. Maintenance and fuel requirements aren't even in
| the same league, no matter how small this turbine is.
|
| As shown elsewhere in this thread, the lead-free, drop-in
| replacement has been approved.
| imoverclocked wrote:
| That airport has 100 octane mogas available now. Pilots
| from other airports have been flying there to fuel up
| instead of using the 100LL at their local airport.
|
| Source: I fly at KRHV
| idubrov wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| When I was doing my research on ULPower engines (which
| can burn 100LL, but they would prefer non-leaded), there
| were very few airports who offered unleaded fuel (UL94).
| I think, San Carlos / KSQL was the only one I found?
|
| I wonder what KRHV closure would mean for unleaded fuel?
| So everybody would just switch back to 100LL? How is that
| supposed to help?
|
| Wouldn't be more practical (from the point of lead
| pollution) to enforce non-leaded fuels in those small
| airports instead? My cursory research shows that lot (?)
| of these light planes (and, perhaps, the majority of the
| trainer/weekend hobby aircrafts) would happily burn non-
| leaded fuel (UL94, for instance), with corresponding STC.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Wouldn't be more practical (from the point of lead
| pollution) to enforce non-leaded fuels in those small
| airports instead
|
| Definitely. It solves one problem.
|
| It doesn't solve the "this airport takes space that could
| be used for parking lots" problem.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| The first unleaded avgas was approved by the FAA this year:
| https://gami.com/g100ul/G100UL_Oshkosh_Press_Release.pdf
| jeffbee wrote:
| No. Unleaded aviation fuels have been available forever. That
| certification helps people convert obsolete aircraft to
| unleaded at lower cost, a thing which should be a non-goal of
| national policy. The federal government should _outlaw_
| leaded aviation fuels _immediately_ and let the hobby
| aviation community figure out how to proceed from there.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| Small planes are used for much more than hobbyist uses.
| Prior to G100UL there were no drop in replacements which
| made adoption of unleaded avgas fuels impractical. G100UL
| can be manufactured at the existing avgas plants, stored
| and transported in the existing avgas infrastructure, and
| even mixed with leaded avgas.
|
| Banning unleaded fuel without a replacement would have been
| heavy handed and short sighted. The government should be
| working with industry partners to develop a suitable
| replacement -- as G100UL was -- and subsidize the fuel
| costs to make the more expensive replacement the same cost
| as leaded fuel.
| outworlder wrote:
| > Unleaded aviation fuels have been available forever
|
| True. But irrelevant if most aircraft cannot use it.
|
| > That certification helps people convert obsolete aircraft
|
| Obsolete? Is a Cirrus SR-22 obsolete?
|
| > The federal government should outlaw leaded aviation
| fuels immediately and let the hobby aviation community
| figure out how to proceed from there.
|
| The government also uses planes. Whole industries use
| piston planes. And helicopters. Why are you singling out
| 'hobby' aircraft?
|
| Mind you, experimental aircraft have been able to use
| unleaded fuels (including automotive gasoline) for a while
| now. The reason most can't is that there were no fuels
| certified for use in their aircraft. Certification
| requirements come from the government, so the government
| has to fix it.
| jeffbee wrote:
| > Is a Cirrus SR-22 obsolete?
|
| Yes, the naturally-aspirated SR22 that requires 100LL is
| obsolete. The turbocharged SR22T that can use unleaded is
| not.
|
| One of the nice things about having principled beliefs is
| the ability to unambiguously answer simple questions.
| outworlder wrote:
| YAY. Missed that!
|
| Drop in replacement, no engine changes, no performance
| changes, no compatibility issues with storage tanks,
| pipelines, anything.
|
| They are claiming it will even increase time between
| overhauls, prolong spark plug life, maybe even increase
| engine life and require less oil changes.
|
| Seems more costly though. But if the above materializes it
| might offset the costs too.
|
| That sounds like the holy grail - if more airframes are
| issued STCs
| lutorm wrote:
| This is awesome. However, since it appears every certified
| airplane needs an STC to be able to use it, it doesn't seem
| likely that I'll be able to use it in our experimental
| aircraft any time soon. I can't imagine that our small FBO
| will switch from 100LL to G100UL as long as there are any
| airplanes around that can't use it.
| funnyflamigo wrote:
| I'm curious how leaded fuel effected children born in the Roman
| empire, as they were born before 1990 and had not discovered
| leaded fuel gasoline yet (or combustion engines).
| bserge wrote:
| They used lead for everything _but_ fuel :D
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| Wow, I went to dictionary.com and looked up "pedantic", and all
| it contained was a link back to this comment.
| whoomp12342 wrote:
| primary reason the roman empire fell..
| firebaze wrote:
| Romans used lead obviously not as fuel, but they did use it,
| for example for the lining of aqueducts:
| https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wi...
| mywittyname wrote:
| White paint made using lead dates back to _at least_ 2500
| years in Greece.
| f00zz wrote:
| Some time ago there was a link to an article here on HN about
| lead poisoning in ancient Rome. It mentioned how they used to
| boil grape juice (to concentrate its natural sugars) in lead
| containers.
|
| Edit: doh, should have clicked on your link. That was the
| article.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Millennials are the first to be born with unleaded gas
|
| Leaded fuel for passenger cars was banned in the US in 1996; the
| usual birth year range for millenials is 1981-1996.
|
| Gen Z were the first to be born, in the US, with unleaded gas.
| tediousdemise wrote:
| This is highly tangential, but abuse of a fetus needs to be a
| federal crime. My mother drank caffeine and smoked while
| pregnant, and I will live with the consequences for the rest of
| my life. It is unforgiveable.
| bobmaxup wrote:
| You wouldn't even exist if your mother didn't nurse you into
| being. Maybe one thing outweighs the other?
| nicolas_t wrote:
| I'm curious what was worse, leaded gasoline or Diesel? I was
| reading about France's phase out of leaded gasoline and saw that
| it happened relatively late with unleaded appearing on the market
| in 1990 and leaded gasoline being banned in 1995 only.
|
| But before that, it seems that Diesel had started getting popular
| in the 80s and 90s.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Depends on what matters more: your lungs or IQ.
|
| Having said that, a lot of countries do a poor job of lead
| control/monitoring in plumbing/water distribution.
|
| > There is growing evidence that the scale of problems with
| lead in drinking water has been under-estimated in Europe, due
| to inadequate monitoring. Particularly in the older districts
| of towns and cities, where lead pipes can be common
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/Hoekstra%202010...
|
| It's quite a rabbit hole to go through. Distribution pipes, pH,
| corrosion control, service lines, internal piping, leaching for
| PVC even, interior fittings, flow rates, consumption
| patterns...
| k__ wrote:
| I read burning stuff is generally considered harmful.
|
| So, while electric cars might not be the perfect ecological
| solution, it might at bring us direct health benefits in the long
| run.
| anovikov wrote:
| Conclusion 2: there is disappearingly little connection between
| IQ and socioeconomic status :) Something that doing custom
| development proves with every new client...
| SquibblesRedux wrote:
| Just throwing this out there:
|
| "Specifically, children from low SES families scored on average
| 6 IQ points lower at age 2 than children from high SES
| backgrounds; by age 16, this difference had almost tripled. ...
| Overall, SES was shown to be associated with individual
| differences in intercepts as well as slopes of intelligence.
| However, this finding does not warrant causal interpretations
| of the relationship between SES and the development of
| intelligence." [1]
|
| [1] Socioeconomic status and the growth of intelligence from
| infancy through adolescence
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4641149/
| bpodgursky wrote:
| What? This is wildly untrue.
| vr46 wrote:
| I am a member of my old school's alumni orgnization and at our
| meetups, nearly all the other alumni are 17-25 years younger than
| me, and frighteningly intelligent, and I am very much hoping that
| lead poisoning accounts for this...
| twistedpair wrote:
| Watched my neighbor powersand lead paint off his house yesterday.
| He wasn't even wearing a mask. Makes you wonder how many decades
| until we don't have as much lead in the environment? 50 years?
| bloomper123 wrote:
| Reduced intelligence is always a "problem" with almost any
| generation. I've just seen a statistic that for the first time
| since 1970, youth math scores have dropped. Most of this is not a
| big problem
| truthwhisperer wrote:
| and in the 00 it will be mass immigration of people who are
| according local standard tests regarded as retarded.
| [deleted]
| tgtweak wrote:
| There is so many other factors at play here than lead levels.
| Lead levels are tied to calendar - many MANY other things changed
| with the calendar in line with that which could have affected
| measured IQ. This feels like a millenial/boomer rally tweet
| masquerading as science.
| AnonMessiah wrote:
| We continue to see capitalism choose profit over the health and
| wellbeing of _every_ living thing on the planet. Industries
| suppressing anything that paints them in a bad light, lobbying to
| get laws favoring them passed, and ignoring and actively lying
| about the long term harm that they perpetuate so they can have
| _number go up_ in their bank statements.
| scionthefly wrote:
| If it hadn't been for leaded fuel, lead paint, football / TBI, my
| parents smoking, and getting rolled off a changing table as a
| baby, I could have been intelligent. _sigh_
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| My eldest brother always joked that he lost IQ points when the
| doctors used forceps on him during birth. Jokes on him, the
| lead and the maternal smoking would've done him in anyway.
| JabavuAdams wrote:
| What about shooting ranges? Heard hickock45 on Youtube crunching
| as he walked and realized that the gravel I was seeing was
| actually spent casings. Maybe another reason not to take the kids
| to the range. Do COVID-mitigation factors help with lead
| dust/aerosols?
| paulmd wrote:
| Yes, gunsmoke does contain lead and it's not something you want
| to breathe in. Surgical masks will do very little, N99 or
| respirators will do better. However it's best practice to
| always wash your hands and preferably shower after shooting.
|
| This also applies to handling or reloading ammo. Primers are
| lead-based compounds (generally lead styphnate) and most
| bullets are either soft lead or jacketed lead. If you are
| handling ammo, bullets, or spent casings, wash your hands
| after.
|
| There is obviously a continuum of exposure and different routes
| of exposure here. Lead on your hands isn't ideal but if you
| don't touch your face or eat with dirty hands, kinda whatever.
| With smoke, you breathe it in simply by being there. You
| definitely want to look at the airflow on an indoor range,
| there should be a considerable amount of "whoosh" and palpable
| airflow, and even then it's probably still a low or moderate
| amount of exposure. Outdoors ranges will have even less
| exposure, but probably still not zero, you're still right near
| the breech.
|
| And yeah generally kids are more susceptible to lead exposure
| than adults. Not that it's great for adults but it will truly
| mess up your development to get significant exposure as a
| child.
|
| "orange lava soap" with the pumice in it is also better than
| just regular hand soap, as it's more abrasive and will do a
| better job scraping the lead off.
| JabavuAdams wrote:
| All good, but what about the lead leaching into the ground
| and water at outdoor ranges? Is there any requirement to test
| if e.g. you shoot on private property?
|
| In Canada you could be licenced to shoot outdoors on your own
| property (e.g. PAL + non-restricted firearm), but not be
| allowed to use the area habitually, or repeatedly as that
| would make it a shooting range. It seems like having a
| shooting gallery or plinking spot with persistent targets
| would fail the test.
| anonfornoreason wrote:
| No requirements, no tests. There's a bunch of stories of
| indoor gun ranges being horrifically contaminated, due to
| lead from the primer compounds when ignited + vaporized
| lead from the back of the bullet (back of the bullet is
| almost always exposed lead core, so you get some vaporized
| with the explosion). Some maintenance workers, demolition
| crews etc working on these buildings have had terrible,
| life altering exposures.
|
| I do a lot of shooting and avoid indoor ranges. They are so
| contaminated there are many cases of cops coming home and
| poisoning their kids due to contamination on clothing,
| shoes, etc.
|
| I personally buy "clean fire" ammo, which has no exposed
| lead core on the bullet, and has clean burning primers.
| More expensive, but I like to keep my brain healthy, and I
| have kids that could easily get exposed.
| intrasight wrote:
| There is still a great deal of lead in the soil of urban
| residential homes.
| shadowtree wrote:
| Some secluded tribes in the Amazon hence have the smartest kids.
| 988747 wrote:
| I guess I was lucky to be born in a communist country, where cars
| were pretty rare...
| thinkcontext wrote:
| Millions of lives and $Ts in health damage has been done and
| continues to be done by lead[0]. And it was largely avoidable
| because the dangers were known.
|
| 99 years ago the League of Nations signed a treaty banning indoor
| leaded paint. The US, of course, declined to join and it took
| another 50 years before it took action. Concerns were raised
| about leaded gasoline, industry steamrolled the science.
|
| And it was just a couple of months ago that the final country
| (Algeria) stopped producing leaded consumer road fuel.
|
| For a good history see
|
| https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-history-lea...
|
| [0] An Update on Childhood Lead Poisoning
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5645046/
|
| As many as 500,000 US children (2.5%) under 6 years have BLLs >=5
| ug/dL. Each lead-exposed child costs an estimated $5600 in
| medical and special educational services.7 Lead exposure-related
| cognitive impairments cost an estimated $50.9 billion annually in
| lost US economic productivity.6
| slownews45 wrote:
| My big complaint is that
|
| a) Leaded aviation fuel, an absolutely KNOWN hazard, has been
| given a pass for literal DECADES.
|
| b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban the
| sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather in the
| old planes.
|
| c) Ban the sale of leaded gas to fill planes with changes in
| registrations after 1/1/2023.
|
| d) Ban the sale of leaded gas period after 1/1/2025.
|
| Industry has been given (more) than enough time to solve this -
| and does not care.
|
| I live near an airport, with a pregnant wife and a young child.
| The total hassle it is to deal with just old lead paint if you
| try and follow code is rediculous, but they still have planes
| flying over burning LEADED fuel!! WHY?
|
| Most planes don't need leaded gas. Jet-A / Diesel etc can also
| be used in planes. And yes, I understand small, old GA planes
| may be impacted, but this has been on the radar for decades
| now.
|
| "There is no known safe blood lead concentration; even blood
| lead concentrations as low as 5 ug/dL may be associated with
| decreased intelligence in children, behavioural difficulties
| and learning problems. As lead exposure increases, the range
| and severity of symptoms and effects also increase."
| nawgz wrote:
| Damn, it makes so much sense that aviation fuel is leaded. I
| have been a fortunately healthy person for my life, but at
| one point I lived downtown San Jose (which for the non-locals
| has an airport in the middle of the city), right under the
| main landing/takeoff path. I got sick 6x a year or more.
| After 1 and 2/3 years, I realized that it was probably the
| planes and moved away, and now I haven't been sick since
| except maybe once or twice (over 3y).
|
| Just awful.
| slownews45 wrote:
| It's unlikely to have been a direct cause given the
| (relatively) low levels of lead avgas generates, but it
| almost certainly has some effect.
|
| The question is, given that it's so clearly a poison (maybe
| a top 10 poison) - why spray it into the air above
| residential neighborhood?
|
| Lead impacts are around things like "anaemia, hypertension,
| renal impairment, immunotoxicity and toxicity to the
| reproductive organs. The neurological and behavioural
| effects of lead are believed to be irreversible."
|
| Reality is measurable increases in lead concentrations in
| blood near airports is very small. But does look like it
| exists.
| mlyle wrote:
| Large airplanes/jets do not use leaded fuels. Only small
| piston planes. Even right under the takeoff path, aviation
| lead exposure would only be a moderate proportion of your
| total lead exposure.
| nawgz wrote:
| Interesting, I see what you are saying. Well, I guess
| aviation fuel byproducts aren't great to have sprayed on
| your home every day either way :)
| idiotsecant wrote:
| While it's unlikely that you had significant lead exposure
| due to this as others have pointed out, I also wouldn't
| discount your issues with getting sick more often,
| particularly if it was upper respiratory illnesses - people
| who live under airport flight paths are exposed to up to 4x
| as much harmful exhaust gas byproducts, superfine
| particulates, and other nasty particles* vs baseline.
|
| It's amazing that airports aren't required to purchase and
| relocate the (typically poor) people who are absolutely
| getting their lifespans shortened by living near an
| airport.
|
| *(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32639745/)
| throwaway803453 wrote:
| I was a child in a major city when leaded gasoline was
| prevalent and I live by an airport now. I probably see as
| many propeller airplanes in a year as I did automobiles in 5
| minutes as a child playing in the street. This is also
| comparing an airplane off in the distance to a car running a
| few dozen feet away. So perhaps your recommended ban wouldn't
| move the needle at all when it comes to blood lead
| concentrations.
|
| Or perhaps this is the benefit of having younger people in
| government. Because 50 year old like me thinks "massive
| progress made, don't waste time on diminishing returns" by
| comparing the current situation to the distant past. Whereas
| someone younger sees the threat differently.
|
| Frankly, the propellor airplanes I do see are mostly military
| which will likely not be impacted by any regulations. I am
| also making the assumption only propellor airplanes could be
| using unleaded gas.
| mlyle wrote:
| Military propeller airplanes are almost all turboprops and
| do not burn leaded gasoline.
|
| edit: perhaps "all", not "almost all", in the US.
| mlyle wrote:
| > b) At some point you have to just put your foot down. Ban
| the sale leaded gas using planes after 1/1/2022. Grandfather
| in the old planes.
|
| A measure like this may be reasonable.
|
| But C/D totals the entire piston aircraft fleet-- $50B+ of
| capital equip, plus the whole infrastructure and industry
| around it-- for only a very moderate change in lead exposure.
| Best estimates I've seen is that this would lower the total
| population burden from lead by well under 5%.
|
| Much more sane, IMO, to put in a progressively escalating tax
| on leaded aviation fuels that over time becomes steep. Then
| airplanes can gradually transition as overhauls become due,
| etc, as the pressure from operating costs mounts. Presumably
| those burning the most fuel would transition first, and an
| industry capable of retrofitting a few percent of the
| aircraft per year would spring up.
| lutorm wrote:
| _airplanes can gradually transition_
|
| Except they can't, since there is no approved alternative.
|
| The other problem is that even planes that can run unleaded
| gas often don't, because it's not available at the airport.
| Avgas is a tiny market and because of costs most FBOs can't
| or won't set up another fuel delivery infrastructure to run
| two fuels over some short transition period.
|
| Because of this, an additional requirement on a replacement
| is also that it be safely mixable with 100LL in any ratio,
| because during the transition period this will happen as
| people fly from airports where it exists to airports where
| it doesn't.
|
| This problem is being solved
| (https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/).
| mlyle wrote:
| > Except they can't, since there is no approved
| alternative.
|
| There's an increasing number of diesel engines for GA
| aircraft, and supplemental type certificates to retrofit
| them into the same. If 100LL got more expensive, you'd
| see more people opting for the diesels when an engine
| reaches the end of its life.
|
| e.g. http://www.continentaldiesel.com/typo3/fileadmin/_ce
| nturion/...
|
| Yes, it'd be really cool to end up with a lower-lead fuel
| that's safely combined with 100LL. That's been "imminent"
| for the last 25 years.
|
| The poster above advocates for a "rip off the band-aid"
| approach. GA advocates for a gradual, painless transition
| that, in practice, will never happen. Surely there's
| _some_ middle ground?
| lutorm wrote:
| A post further down says that the first unleaded
| replacement for 100LL was actually just approved.
| mlyle wrote:
| Swift UL94 has been to market for 3 years with very low
| uptake.
| Aloha wrote:
| Because as far as I know the engines must have their type
| acceptance updates to reflect it's allowed use.
|
| 3 years is also basically a second at the speeds GA
| changes at.
| mlyle wrote:
| Yes, technically speaking.
|
| Swift charges $100 for a STC, and has coverage of two
| thirds of the GA fleet.
|
| Really, all that needs to happen is an airport needs to
| decide that lead free is important to them and they'll
| pay the premium for Swift's fuel.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| Continental diesels still have "TBR" (time between
| replacements) instead of "TBO" (time between overhauls).
| That's a huge problem preventing their uptake.
| gbrown wrote:
| > Best estimates I've seen is that this would lower the
| total population burden from lead by well under 5%.
|
| That sounds pretty great actually, for such a simple
| solution.
| mlyle wrote:
| It's not absolutely a sure thing that there's _any_
| significant burden from aviation. Blood tests come up
| with a tiny, barely detectable difference near airports
| (well under 5% for those nearest the airport, and
| confounded: airports are correlated with low SES and
| therefore lead paint, etc, is also more prevalent). The
| most pessimistic estimates from first principles come up
| with 2-3% of the total population lead burden (more than
| an order of magnitude above what the blood tests imply,
| and the blood tests likely overstate the problem).
|
| If you threw a few billion more at leaded paint
| remediation, I think you'd make much more of a
| difference. I think the aviation lead problem should get
| fixed, but because it's such a small part of the overall
| problem it makes sense to take a graduated approach
| instead of giving GA businesses the death penalty. Tax
| leaded aviation fuels, and use the proceeds to pay for
| leaded paint remediation.
| slownews45 wrote:
| If the tax was substantial I'd support this.
|
| Graduated approach ignores the decades that have ALREADY
| been provided as an exception to the lead fuel rules that
| apply everywhere else - it's already been graduated.
| mlyle wrote:
| > If the tax was substantial I'd support this.
|
| Start at 10% with a commitment to ratchet it up by 4% per
| year or something. That's enough to start an immediate
| reduction without destroying the industry.
|
| If you're making choices about engine overhaul now for an
| overhaul that will last you 7-8 years of light use, fuel
| costing 40% more at the end of that overhaul will
| definitely get your attention.
|
| > it's already been graduated.
|
| Doing nothing for decades when it was impossible; and
| then doing nothing for a decade or two when transition
| became possible; and then pushing the industry off the
| cliff is not graduated.
| chaxor wrote:
| It's a small problem? I read recently that GA accounted
| for >50% of environmental lead exposure.
|
| Perhaps that's wrong, but I distinctly remember the
| statistic and it stuck with me.
| mlyle wrote:
| Source please. All the studies I've read have barely
| detected higher levels of lead near airports, and are
| confounded. All the estimates from first principles
| estimate that it's a very small proportion of population
| lead exposure, too.
| Aloha wrote:
| Only piston engined planes used any fuel with lead, virtually
| no commercially operated flights use piston engines
| (sightseeing and bush pilots aside), so the vast majority,
| basically 95% of traffic in the skies is already using Jet-A,
| which does not contain lead.
| lutorm wrote:
| _Most planes don 't need leaded gas. Jet-A / Diesel etc can
| also be used in planes. And yes, I understand small, old GA
| planes may be impacted, but this has been on the radar for
| decades now._
|
| This comment makes me think you don't actually understand the
| situation. The vast majority of aviation fuel used IS Jet-A,
| which does not contain lead.
|
| Small piston engine general aviation aircraft are the only
| ones that use leaded gas, and most of those _can not_ use
| anything else that exists currently.
|
| I too have a pregnant wife and a young child, but I worry
| far, far more about residual lead paint exposure than I do
| about avgas. Both get tested regularly and show no detectable
| levels (<2ug/dL), so that makes me feel like the risk
| exposure is acceptable. Yes, your quote about "no known safe
| level" is true, but at undetectable levels I'm confident it's
| in the noise along with all other environmental factors we
| don't know about.
|
| If you're worried about lead exposure, are you testing?
| slownews45 wrote:
| There has been no push in the market to get small GA off
| leaded gas. There has been no extra tax even. As a result,
| new planes, being delivered today, are shipping with
| engines requiring leaded gas, which perpetuates this
| problem.
|
| After decades - does it make public policy sense to still
| sell NEW planes that REQUIRE leaded gas?
|
| I don't believe so.
|
| Literally every other method of propulsion, some with much
| stronger claims in terms of life utility, have moved off
| leaded gas. Ie, the ambulance, the race cars the
| everything, except GA.
|
| Reality -> GA has a well connected / rich pool of users
| with influence. If you had a bunch of poor minorities
| spraying even trace amounts of lead over someone's nice
| golf course my guess is you'd be getting well off activists
| to shut you down in no time for environmental or other
| reasons.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| On the contrary, there's now several unleaded options
| coming to market and now available at certain FBOs. UL94
| seems to work well in continental and lycoming power
| plants that power most Cessna 1XX aircraft. The issue has
| largely been building the distribution network.
| Aloha wrote:
| Which airplanes are on the market today that require
| leaded gas? Specifically which power plants?
| Blackthorn wrote:
| Turbocharged Lycontinentals, and higher-compression
| (9.5:1 or better iirc) stock Lycontinentals.
| ttt333 wrote:
| Within the subset of certified, normal category piston
| aircraft, you will find one of these two on a sizable
| proportion of those airplanes.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-360
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_IO-550
|
| To my knowledge some ultralights use regular unleaded
| (called MOGAS in some aviation contexts) and of course
| anything that you can buy an airline ticket for outside
| of perhaps Alaska will use jet fuel.
| Aloha wrote:
| I mean in current production aircraft.
|
| It appears that most versions of the O-360 can run on
| mogas, or unleaded gas of some sort.
|
| https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070AB%20S
| pec...
|
| Indeed, there does appear to be a 100UL drop in out here
| too.
|
| https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-
| news/2021/july/27/ga...
| chaxor wrote:
| I think he is talking about GA 100L fuel. Which, as someone
| stated elsewhere, I think absolutely should be changed to
| 94UL across the board. I don't believe there is _no
| possible way_ a small single prop GA plane _simply cant
| run_ on unleaded gas. That seems eerily close to propaganda
| from Midgley himself. Some performance alteration without
| some small changes to the plane? Maybe. But cataosrophic
| outcomes even with some small changes? _Highly_ unlikely.
| garaetjjte wrote:
| I think that's because some GA planes still have engines
| designed 50+ years ago, like O-360:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycoming_O-360
| KiranRao0 wrote:
| I'm very happy with the recent progress in GA Avgas. My
| flying club recently switched from 100LL [1] to UL94 [2]
| with no appreciable change in aircraft performance.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#100LL_(blue) [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#UL94_(formerly_94UL)
| andrepd wrote:
| > Each lead-exposed child costs an estimated $5600 in medical
| and special educational services.7 Lead exposure-related
| cognitive impairments cost an estimated $50.9 billion annually
| in lost US economic productivity
|
| It's quite disturbing to phrase things this way.
| munk-a wrote:
| Yes - the quantification of the problem helps with
| comprehension but also opens the door for balancing trade
| offs in a manner we'd likely find distasteful. If the lead
| industry generated 60 billion of completely new money I'd
| still be in favor of outlawing it even if it was a net loss
| for the economy - since general quality of life is lowered by
| lead poisoning (especially since it has been linked strongly
| to anger issues).
| nybble41 wrote:
| I don't see it as disturbing, just focused. This phrasing
| helps to put the problem into perspective from one particular
| point of view--the cost in economic productivity. It does not
| imply that this is the _only_ cost, or that there aren 't
| other equally valid perspectives to consider.
| orangepurple wrote:
| > Concerns were raised about leaded gasoline, industry
| steamrolled the science.
|
| 2021: Concerns were raised about mRNA vaccines, industry
| steamrolled the science.
|
| Gotta rake in that dough ($$$) first
| paulmd wrote:
| And yet we still have people making the "but the science on
| climate change wasn't and still isn't absolutely definitive"
| defense of Michael Crichton in a different thread yesterday.
|
| Climate change denialism is the lead poisoning denialism of the
| modern era. You can actually see the denialism happening in
| real-time with actual posters here on HN, this is the same way
| it worked back then, this is how people delude themselves into
| thinking they're making a scholarly defense of "facts and the
| scientific process" when in reality they're just buying into
| industry propaganda designed to play on that instinct.
|
| Nobody need wonder how it might have happened, it's happening
| right before your own eyes in these very threads.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I think Algeria was using up stockpiles rather than actively
| producing
| decentman wrote:
| Per the Wikipedia article, they continued to produce it until
| July 2021
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#History
| zionic wrote:
| >industry steamrolled the science.
|
| Not only that, industry paid for "science" that hid the
| dangers. People today however seem to strangely think this
| doesn't happen anymore.
| christophilus wrote:
| It's genuinely hard to know how to make sense of information.
| I'm generally skeptical of "big anything", whether that's
| business or government. Incentives can be screwy at any
| scale, but once you get to very large numbers, incentives
| seem to simply go off the rails. Industry and governments
| have a pretty terrible track record of skewing data to suit
| their needs-- sometimes with a truly tragic consequences.
|
| That's why my initial stance on COVID vaccines was to be
| skeptical of the industry claims. This lumped me in with a
| lot of quacks, and with a political (US) group with whom that
| I don't normally align much.
|
| It's been a strange few years. At this point, I'm not sure I
| know how to strike a balance between healthy skepticism and
| paranoia. Regarding the vaccines, I'm fully vaccinated, as
| enough time has passed to get me to a place where I think the
| stats bear it out.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I don't know if it is really that incentives change when
| you get very big, as much as it is that you become more
| capable of achieving desires that are counter to the public
| good.
|
| At smaller scales, your power isn't enough to override the
| preferences of the masses. Get big enough, and you can.
| azinman2 wrote:
| While not impossible, it's much harder to create false
| stats when going through clinical review with the FDA.
| Super double extra when the lives of the world are at stake
| and the total eyeballs on a single vaccine are so high.
| londons_explore wrote:
| But the processes are very flawed leading to the wrong
| stats being used to make decisions.
|
| For example, an experimental vaccine isn't given out
| widely till there is good data that it is safe (often
| taking years).
|
| However, for risky diseases (like COVID), as soon as
| there are even rough indications that it is safer than
| COVID, it makes sense to give it to everyone. Every month
| you spend doing more safety tests, millions of people
| die.
|
| The same is happening right now for malaria treatments
| which are being trialled. Skipping the trial and handing
| it out untested will probably save more lives.
| fuckcensorship wrote:
| > For example, an experimental vaccine isn't given out
| widely till there is good data that it is safe (often
| taking years).
|
| How is this an example of "the wrong stats being used to
| make decisions"? You believe that undergoing safety
| trials with control groups is a bad thing because they
| take time?
|
| > However, for risky diseases (like COVID), as soon as
| there are even rough indications that it is safer than
| COVID, it makes sense to give it to everyone.
|
| What if we find out several years down the road that the
| vaccine is causing a drop in IQ, affecting birth rates,
| etc.? Wouldn't it have been nice to catch these things
| during the safety trials before injecting it into
| billions of people?
| lkbm wrote:
| > You believe that undergoing safety trials with control
| groups is a bad thing because they take time?
|
| You can always do more trials and more studies, but at
| some point the cost of delays outweighs the risks. A
| blanket "this is the degree of safety testing needed" for
| every single intervention makes no sense if the cost of
| that testing differs significantly -- and when you have a
| rapidly spreading disease killing millions of people, the
| cost of delays is much higher than it would be if you're
| trying to cure the common cold.
|
| No testing at all would be a really bad idea, but "we'll
| spend just as long testing this one as this as we would
| on a common cold vaccine" is also a really bad idea.
|
| I'd also drive faster if I were rushing to the hospital
| with a dying friend, even though speeding is risky. You
| have to weigh risks and benefits and do what has the best
| expected outcome.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| That's literal whataboutery and FUD.
|
| Covid is a relatively known relatively high risk which
| has killed millions and left tens of millions injured.
|
| A vaccine _may_ cause problems. Possibly. Or it could
| also not cause problems.
|
| So far there is no evidence to suggest that problems are
| particularly likely, or that they have been happening _at
| all_ at significant risk levels.
|
| The rational decision - clearly - is to deal with a
| severe immediate threat. Not to worry about something
| that shows no signs of happening because what if maybe
| perhaps could happen y'know.
| nybble41 wrote:
| > What if we find out several years down the road that
| the vaccine is causing a drop in IQ, affecting birth
| rates, etc.?
|
| What if we find out several years down the road that
| _COVID-19_ does these things? We have a better grasp on
| the potential side effects of the vaccine--which, after
| all, is much simpler than a virus--than we have on the
| potential side effects of the disease.
| Sightline wrote:
| What other reasonable choice is there?
| Sharlin wrote:
| Even worse, now we have the actual anti-science narrative
| where, say, the Big Evil Climate Lobby is making up global
| warming in the hopes of getting more grant money while your
| friendly neighborhood petrochem megacorporation is just
| trying to make do and provide jobs and petrol in your tank.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| A chief tool used by industry to deceive was to cast doubt on
| _independent_ science and scientists. A popular book on
| misuse of statistical methods, one that I 'd read and liked
| myself, _How to Lie With Statistics_ , turns out to have been
| part of that effort, as detailed by Tim Harford in his own
| book, _How To Make The World Add Up_
|
| https://timharford.com/books/worldaddup/
|
| _The ultimate cautionary tale here is Darrell Huff's 1954
| classic, How to Lie With Statistics. Huff's book is clever,
| insightful, and impish, and it may be the best-selling book
| about statistics ever written. It is also, from cover to
| cover, a warning that statistics are all about
| misinformation, and that one should no more believe in them
| than in stage magic. Huff ended up testifying at a Senate
| hearing that the evidence linking smoking and cancer was as
| spurious as the evidence linking storks and babies. His
| unpublished sequel, How to Lie With Smoking Statistics, was
| paid for by a tobacco-lobby group._
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/the-
| conspi...
|
| People are very well aware that the war over what is truth
| and real continues to be fought. And that it is not merely
| corporations engaged in it, as control over truth and
| perception is at the heart of power. "All warfare is based on
| deception."
|
| https://suntzusaid.com/book/1/18/
|
| As a hint, if one side has a long record of lies, and another
| a long record of honest relations and owning their errors ---
| the smart money takes counsel from the second. It's wise to
| assess one's own sources on this basis from time to time.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I don't really understand your argument. Are you trying to
| say that "How to Lie with Statistics" is wrong? That's an
| unbelievably bold assertion to make on an engineering-
| focused site where we regularly _work_ with deceptive stats
| that the public eats up.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| It is _deceptive_ and _misleading_ with an _intent to
| promote specific goals and agenda_.
|
| The salient characteristic of propaganda is not that it
| is (entirely) false. It is that it serves a specific
| interest and agenda rather than being a good-faith, best-
| effort attempt to convey truth.
|
| It's a fundamental conflict in communications dating at
| least to Plato and the philosophers vs. the sophists.
|
| Propaganda is most effective when it wraps its intended
| payload in an attractive, largely truthful message, and
| acts to nudge its intended targets in a direction they're
| inclined to go already.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| The primary rule of successful propaganda is "Don't lie
| about facts, control the interpretation."
|
| False facts will get caught out. All you can do with an
| interpretation is argue about it.
| nautilius wrote:
| You sure? Have you read/watched any news since 2016?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| There are various methods. Control is one. The Big Lie
| another, direct attacks on trust and truth another. Sheer
| overlwhelming and distraction as well.
| hallarempt wrote:
| You don't? It's crystal clear to me: that book was paid
| for, as was its sequel, so industrialists could argue
| that statistics from independent researchers were not to
| be trusted. Whether or not the book was right or wrong is
| not part of that contention.
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| Wait, are you trying to say it's _not_ wrong?
|
| It was specifically paid for and used to cast widespread
| doubt on smoking leading to lung cancer. It tried to
| convince people that "the science isn't settled" when the
| evidence was overwhelming.
|
| It's an incredibly disingenuous and cynical piece of work
| that posits truth does not really exist b/c all "experts"
| are just lying to you with an agenda. Therefore, you
| can't ever really know the truth, therefore keep smoking.
| cesaref wrote:
| I think that's taking things a little too far. How I see
| it, Darrell Huff was a writer, not an academic, and he
| wrote a number of books over the years about all sorts of
| stuff.
|
| I presume he got a bee in his bonnet about statistics at
| some point, and wrote his 'How to lie with Statistics' and
| because this became such a hit, it was _assumed_ he know
| what he was talking about, and hence the interest from the
| cigarette manufacturers, the senate etc. This in fact was a
| mistake, and his credentials for appearing for the senate
| should have been checked.
|
| So, the key take away from the book for me is that
| Statistics is hard, it's easy to confuse yourself or
| produce dubious results, but i'd look elsewhere for
| information about how to avoid pitfalls, and how to spot
| dubious conclusions beyond the most simplistic manipulation
| he points out.
| Hokusai wrote:
| Absolute certainty is impossible, that is not an argument
| to not act. Completely agree.
| coldtea wrote:
| The US in particular seems to be full of either such naive
| types (where enterprise, state, science, NGOs, law, etc can
| do no wrong, and even if something happens, it's just some
| individual bad apples at worst) or the other extreme
| (pizzagate-aliens-they're coming for us conspiracy nuts).
| ken47 wrote:
| The scientific method is absolutely trustworthy. People,
| however, are a different story.
| downrightmike wrote:
| If you live near a small airport, you are probably still being
| poison by leaded fuel
| https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...
| twofornone wrote:
| I really don't appreciate the way we retroactively demonize
| various industries with hindsight that was not available in the
| past.
|
| The fact that leaded paint was known to be harmful does not
| imply that it was known that burning leaded gas and dumping
| lead into the giant atmosphere was also enough of a problem to
| be concerned. That requires research to prove.
|
| The same way that oil companies did not "know" that the
| petroleum they were producing in the 80s was causing climate
| change. That also took decades of research to confirm.
|
| Meanwhile all of us benefited from both petroleum and leaded
| gasoline. Im not apologizing on behalf of shitty corporate
| behavior and dishonest research funding, but we should be
| reasonable about accusations of negligence. Hindsight is 20/20.
| bawolff wrote:
| We've know much longer than that. From around 20 BC
|
| "Water conducted through earthen pipes is more wholesome than
| that through lead; indeed that conveyed in lead must be
| injurious, because from it white lead [PbCO3, lead carbonate]
| is obtained, and this is said to be injurious to the human
| system. Hence, if what is generated from it is pernicious,
| there can be no doubt that itself cannot be a wholesome body.
| This may be verified by observing the workers in lead, who are
| of a pallid colour; for in casting lead, the fumes from it
| fixing on the different members, and daily burning them,
| destroy the vigour of the blood; water should therefore on no
| account be conducted in leaden pipes if we are desirous that it
| should be wholesome. That the flavour of that conveyed in
| earthen pipes is better, is shewn at our daily meals, for all
| those whose tables are furnished with silver vessels,
| nevertheless use those made of earth, from the purity of the
| flavour being preserved in them" - Virtuvius VIII.6.10-11
| Clubber wrote:
| How does this square with the Flynn effect?
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence
| djur wrote:
| Improved childhood nutrition outstrips the negative effect of
| lead poisoning. IQs may have been lower than their potential
| but still higher than in previous generations. Also, the
| impacts of lead contamination are not evenly distributed
| through populations.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| I think most people are not aware how bad it used to be. I went
| to India a couple years ago, and could taste the air pollution
| from the traffic on the tip of my tongue. Its horrendous. Give
| you headaches bad. I don't think they use catalytic converters
| over there on majority of cars and motorcycles. Once electric
| goes mainstream, it will seriously boost and extend the quality
| of life of billions of people.
| azinman2 wrote:
| It still is bad in many parts of India.
| troyvit wrote:
| Thanks for the excuse. Adding to my LinkedIn profile (hey I _was_
| born before 1990 you know) now.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| History - Grade D (due to leaded petrol).
| skyde wrote:
| << environmental lead levels from leaded gasoline are still
| around in cities today, and cause continued neurotoxicity.<<
|
| Can someone explain how you can be exposed to lead from << leaded
| gasoline >> even if they are not used anymore?
|
| Is it contaminating the city water or something like that?
| tgtweak wrote:
| Lead is heavy, even in trace quantities and after being
| initially airborne. It will deposit in soil, stream beds and
| sewers, particularly near roadways or transit systems. You will
| also find platinum-group metals accumulated in the same areas
| due to persistent catalytic converter atomization of running
| vehicles. Disturbing the soils (wind, rain, driving,
| construction, etc) will redistribute the tiny lead particles
| into the atmosphere, despite their relative weight.
|
| > The lead content in that study was measured in particles
| collected either at the roadside or at rooftop height. The
| chemical fingerprint closely matched that of road dust and top
| soils, suggesting that contaminated soil is acting as a
| reservoir for 20-year old lead pollution, which is continually
| returned to the atmosphere when disturbed. The fact that lead
| found at street and building height shared the same chemical
| signature suggests airborne lead pollution is fairly well mixed
| across London.
| skyde wrote:
| so if I understand correctly because of Water Cycle, we get
| rain that contain lead.
|
| But unless I eat dirt from the side of the road or drink rain
| water I should be fine ?
| tgtweak wrote:
| You still have measurable lead levels in the air.
| Essentially the rain and gravity brings it down to the
| ground - mostly concentrated near roadways - where it mixes
| with other dust and soil. From there it can then get cycled
| again into the air by agitation. It is unlike CFC gasses
| that tend to float up and are no longer present at ground
| level shortly after they stop being introduced.
|
| In this regard you still have lead present in the air in
| varying degrees 20 years after it stopped being introduced.
| The report cites 2% of 1990 levels nearly 20 years after it
| was outlawed.
| tonymet wrote:
| I thought the science had been settled
| mitigating wrote:
| That's not how science works, nothing is ever settled.
| wly_cdgr wrote:
| It's ok. We would have been too powerful otherwise
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Trying to figure out where 1990 came from in the paper, it seem
| unclear. Something NZ specific? Cohort turning 18?
| Xophmeister wrote:
| Erm... People born in 1990 are in their 30s.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Yes but the original paper the thread references started
| tracking people born in 1972-73
| mythrwy wrote:
| And plastics messed up the hormones of those born after?
|
| But of course all this is dependent on the amount of exposure
| which is individual.
| davidw wrote:
| As someone born in the 1970ies, all I can say is "ugh. bad."
| mrweasel wrote:
| I'm born in the early 1980ies. I could been an f-ing genius,
| well actually I was lucky enough to grow up far outside any
| city. One has to wonder if that has made any difference.
| uncertainrhymes wrote:
| The inventor repeatedly suffered lead poisoning, and many of the
| workers died at the plant developing it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.
| cjensen wrote:
| Post hoc ergo propter hoc
| leoc wrote:
| I recommend this comment
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28502232 by
| https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=heymijo from the recent HN
| discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28500508 of this
| Smithsonian article on leaded gasoline
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/leaded-gas-poison-... .
| The MentalFloss article about Clair Patterson is especially good.
| Pasting the comment in full (again, this is heymijo's 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_Cameron_Patterson#Campai...
|
| [2] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-
| sc...
| leoc wrote:
| This BBC article is also pretty good:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40593353 . In this discussion
| ewhanley also linked a podcast episode which exceprts an
| interview with Patterson:
| https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/heavy...
| postalrat wrote:
| We are still discovering what lowered the IQ of children born
| after 1990.
| mfer wrote:
| What is IQ? It's a measure that involves different categories.
| Some of those categories have seen decline for decades while
| others have seen an increase. Digging deeper can highlight more
| detail. Sadly, little of this is documented in easy to find
| places online.
| j_walter wrote:
| Social media
| anthk wrote:
| Literally. Social media and multitasking reduces your IQ
| several points down.
| Tenoke wrote:
| This is such a populist response but I doubt you have any
| citations backing that claim. Please post if you do.
| irrational wrote:
| The entire Republican party post 2016 would seem to be
| proof of this assertion.
| j_walter wrote:
| https://neurogrow.com/what-social-media-does-to-your-brain/
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6502424/
|
| For instance, the Internet's digital distractions and
| supernormal capacities for cognitive offloading seem to
| create a non-ideal environment for the refinement of higher
| cognitive functions in critical periods of children and
| adolescents' brain development. Indeed, the first
| longitudinal studies on this topic have found that adverse
| attentional effects of digital multi-tasking are
| particularly pronounced in early adolescence (even compared
| to older teens), and that higher frequency of Internet use
| over 3 years in children is linked with decreased verbal
| intelligence at follow-up, along with impeded maturation of
| both grey and white matter regions.
| Tenoke wrote:
| This paper doesn't mention IQ even once. It just
| discusses general effects it can have e.g. potential
| problems with multi-tasking for some, possible beneficial
| effects via increased mental stimulation for the elderly
| etc. This is quite different than what you initially
| proposed, not to mention inconclusive.
| j_walter wrote:
| What do you think cognitive decline means? IQ tests are
| also called cognitive assessments and the accurate ones
| (not the ones you take online) involve a lot of different
| aspects of assessing how your brain is working. Many
| psychologists don't like the term IQ because it's too
| basic of a term...which is why many papers studying the
| subject do not include it.
|
| http://pictonpsychology.com.au/home-2/assessments/cogniti
| ve-...
| uoaei wrote:
| I don't think you are using the word "populist" correctly.
| na85 wrote:
| Ok boomer
| guruz wrote:
| My bet is on seed oils :-/
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/StopEatingSeedOils/
|
| (And also what others posted: plastic, social media etc.)
| purple_ferret wrote:
| plastics and plastic byproducts
| [deleted]
| johanneskanybal wrote:
| You probably meant it as a joke (it was ok) but since half the
| comments are not:
|
| "The change in IQ scores has been approximately three IQ points
| per decade. One major implications of this trend is that an
| average individual alive today would have an IQ of 130 by the
| standards of 1910, placing them higher than 98% of the
| population at that time."
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence
|
| Personally few things triggers me as older generations bashing
| younger, everything since ww2 has been easier the older you
| where and they where the ones raising that younger generation.
| Bit of typical not-getting-it.
| spangry wrote:
| There's some evidence, at least in first-world countries,
| that more recently the Flynn effect is stagnating and even
| reversing (i.e. average IQs are declining). See: https://en.w
| ikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect#Possible_end_of_p...
| q1w2 wrote:
| I wonder if this has anything to do with the correlative
| studies that showed that higher IQ individuals have less
| children on average.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence
| pedrosorio wrote:
| higher IQ individuals having less children should lead to a
| decrease of average IQ, whereas the parent cites a reported
| 3 point increase per decade
| BatFastard wrote:
| As much as IQ tests want to say they test raw
| intelligence, education plays a major role in how well
| you score. And we are better educated as a society than
| we were 100 years ago.
| jVinc wrote:
| When looking at IQ increase over time, you control for
| education and socioeconomic factors, otherwise you're
| just drawing conclusions from those factors.
| beamatronic wrote:
| If the world is the most peaceful it's ever been, and people
| are the smartest they've ever been, what does that mean for
| land and housing prices in a fiat economy?
| jrootabega wrote:
| Pity the generation whose elderly parents will have been raised
| on leaded gasoline and whose children will have been raised on
| smartphones.
| vernie wrote:
| Three rolling on the floor laughing emojis.
| anyfoo wrote:
| You get downvoted, and I understand why (HN does not like
| most jokes and for good reasons and so on), but I think that
| was actually a very appropriate reaction. Anyone having spent
| time on Facebook knows exactly what, and in what way, you
| meant that.
| paulpauper wrote:
| if everything is lowering IQs at all time, wouldn't it just be
| reflected in the mean then? This would imply that IQ tests
| would have to get easier over time to keep the average at 100.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| You would still have outliers that raise the mean - mostly
| children from wealthy people who can afford to raise their
| children on rural-ish areas, away from environmental
| pollution (not just lead, but also particulate matter
| dust/NOx from roads, industrial airborne toxins, and noise).
| handrous wrote:
| There aren't enough people so rich that they can live in
| country estates and remote coastal "summer" residences all
| year (so, neither parent has a job they need to be at)
| while sending their kids to rural boarding schools to show
| up in those stats, I expect. Plus you may have trouble
| pinning down where they actually live most of the time,
| even if you tried to account for them.
|
| Beyond that, given rural areas have been subject to over a
| century of severe brain-drain and intelligence is fairly
| heritable, I'd expect that to overwhelm any benefits of
| country living, if you tried to measure the effect for a
| general rural population. You'd need a twin study or
| something like that to sort it all out, i.e. a bunch of
| twins where one grew up in the country, one in the city or
| 'burbs or whatever you're comparing it to.
| Tenoke wrote:
| If people in rural area have higher IQs (which I doubt)
| you'd expect to see a decrease as there's way less people
| living ruraly today than before.
| mitigating wrote:
| Sometimes it's not how smart you are but if you can
| utilize that. Many people can't afford higher education,
| especially from rural areas, there's also stereotypes
| based on accents and mannerisms that could prevent growth
| at a company. People in rural areas are also farther away
| from large companies and may be unable/unwilling to move.
| [deleted]
| Imnimo wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect (tests are re-
| standardized to keep the mean at 100, but the un-standardized
| mean actually increases over time)
| paulpauper wrote:
| then doesn't this counter the argument that IQs are falling
| steerablesafe wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox
| Tenoke wrote:
| It does. They are not. Or at least if some factors are
| lowering it, other factors like better nutrition and
| deleading etc. are more than counteracting it.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| If I were to guess, _stress_ is responsible for a large part of
| it - stress is already known to have side effects in mental
| health and life expectancy. I mean... my generation (as someone
| born in 1991), what did we experience in our formative years?
| Nothing but a _perpetual_ state of crisis:
|
| - for Americans, the numerous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and in
| other countries - not to mention 9/11 itself which hit right as
| many of my generation were in childhood and old enough to
| understand what is going on in the news
|
| - the financial crisis 2008ff which will leave those who
| graduated around it with lifetime lower earnings
| (https://www.pymnts.com/economy/2020/millennials-facing-
| secon...)
|
| - for the Europeans, the Euro crisis not soon after, same
| effect if not worse, given the devastation it caused in
| Southern Europe / PIIGS states
|
| - for Europeans, dealing with the refugees that all the wars in
| Africa and Asia caused, culminating in the 2015ff migration
| crisis
|
| - worldwide, anyone not completely ignorant already sees the
| catastrophic effects of climate change and the _utter inaction_
| of our politicians. We see that the world is figuratively
| speeding with 200 km /h against a rapidly upcoming brick wall,
| we see that instead of applying the brakes, the 1% of rich and
| elites instead maxes out the throttle, and we _know_ that we
| are going to take the beginning of its effects in 30 years and
| our children face the full impact. Old people complain why the
| youngest are on strike on Fridays instead of going to school -
| well, they are aware that no amount of education can help them
| if the planet is nearing inhabitability!
|
| - and on top of that, we have a new crisis looming in the form
| of Russia destabilizing Western governments by propaganda and
| cyberwars, and China taking parts right out of the NSDAP
| playbook and acting like a schoolyard bully in the Pacific
| region all the way to Australia.
|
| - did I already mention that my and the later generations
| _will_ face significantly less earnings than the generation of
| Boomers, and that income and wealth inequality also has risen
| constantly over the last decades?
|
| - as a result, home ownership is ever more inachievable, in
| contrast to our parents we have to regularly be on the move and
| uproot ourselves (thus, losing our meatspace social network)
| every couple of years because the only way to achieve wage
| raises is to move companies
|
| - and on top of all of what I mentioned, we have the aftermath
| of the Covid crisis that showed just how fundamentally broken
| our societies and economies are, how incompetent and reckless
| our politicians are, how _utterly ignorant_ politics and
| society acted when it came to the needs of the young (we
| sacrificed our youth for the at-risk population, and got
| rewarded with anti-vaxxers and police smashing outdoor parties
| as a thank-you), that wrecked entire economies beyond belief
| and many of us lost people held dearly under sometimes
| egregious circumstances!
|
| All of this is a permanent mental load, in some cases
| (especially when it comes to Covid) we are crossing into trauma
| territory. I'm seriously interested in the first psychological
| research dealing with stress influence of the last two decades.
| syshum wrote:
| My mentality seems to be very different from the norm,
| because none of those things cause me any stress at all.
|
| I think about them from a Policy stand point, I may recycle
| or by a sustainable product because I know about climate
| change, but I am not stressed over climate change
|
| I am not stressed over wars in Afghanistan or Iraq, I oppose
| them from a policy stand point, I am sad and empathetic for
| the lives lost needlessly.
|
| Even COVID, did not cause me any stress. I looked at the
| data, I isolated myself when appropriate, wore a mask when
| appropriate, and got vaccinated when appropriate I did not
| have an existential crisis of the mind where I was in fear
| that I was going to die, not at any point in the pandemic.
| Certainly not to the point where I have seen others be; out
| on the street screaming @ people that did not conform to
| societal or government demands or claiming those people are a
| "threat" to my life.
|
| So I honestly have no frame of reference for people that have
| this "permanent mental load" where all of these things cause
| them soo much stress that is impacts their life.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I've noticed my conservative friends have tended to be much
| more fearful of this stuff. This was especially noticeable
| during 9/11.
| syshum wrote:
| I dont think is a conservative / liberal thing.
|
| Yes some conservatives have a greater reaction to 9/11,
| and seem to be more suspectable to external threats /
| rhetoric like Islamic terrorism, china, russia, etc.
|
| However when it comes to things like the pandemic, or
| internal threats like domestic terrorism, or "Trump" like
| presidents, etc liberals seems to become just as unhinged
| and stressed as the most extreme conservative does over
| an Islamic Terror event...
|
| If you are not seeing that likely because you are more
| closely aligned with one group over the other.
|
| I am close to neither, as I am more an individualist and
| reject any type of collectivism from religion, to
| government structures, to golf clubs, if it is a group I
| want no part of it
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >I dont think is a conservative / liberal thing.
|
| >Yes some conservatives have a greater reaction to 9/11,
| and seem to be more suspectable to external threats /
| rhetoric like Islamic terrorism, china, russia, etc.
|
| So which is it? :)
|
| >If you are not seeing that likely because you are more
| closely aligned with one group over the other.
|
| Well I'm in the UK which is a completely different world
| when it comes to politics. Even then I don't really
| identify with either of the main parties, I could pick
| issues that I align with from both sides.
|
| >If you are not seeing that likely because you are more
| closely aligned with one group over the other.
|
| Yet you reacted when I mentioned conservatives.
|
| >I am close to neither, as I am more an individualist and
| reject any type of collectivism from religion, to
| government structures
|
| That sounds fairly conservative to me.
| syshum wrote:
| >>So which is it? :)
|
| Again it is applicable to both, you asserted it was only
| conservatives that have this trait, I contend it is both.
|
| >>Well I'm in the UK
|
| I am sorry ;)
|
| >>Yet you reacted when I mentioned conservatives.
|
| No I continued the dialog we are having by responding to
| your assertion and disagreeing where I felt your
| argumentation was flawed
|
| >>That sounds fairly conservative to me.
|
| Depends on how you define your politics, if you do so on
| a single axis Left/Right. Liberal / Conservative. Maybe.
|
| I tend to look at politics more like the Political
| Compass[1] for which I am dead center between left and
| right, but I am extremely far down on the libertarian
| scale
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass
| selimnairb wrote:
| Be thankful you weren't a child during the Reagan years. When
| I was around 8 years-old, every time I saw jet contrails I
| was convinced they were incoming USSR ICBMs.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I was a teenager when Reagan came to power, the idea of a
| nuclear holocaust was in our faces thanks to stuff like
| this:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0OPVi90-lg
| q1w2 wrote:
| As a child in the Reagan years, this was not a source of
| stress for myself or any kid I knew.
| brewdad wrote:
| We were still doing nuclear attack drills in my
| elementary school during the Reagan years, so yeah.
| scruple wrote:
| Same here. To make matters worse, I used to confuse the
| tornado sirens in our town for air raid / civil defense
| sirens when I was very young and I remember being quite
| afraid of them, even when I knew they were routine tests,
| until I finally understood the difference.
| java-man wrote:
| Incoming ICBMs would look _very_ different (something like
| bright meteors).
|
| Edit: I know, through the eyes of an 8 year old. My city
| was a target of the U.S. nuclear missiles, so the I had the
| same fear. Saw nuclear exposions all the time in my dreams.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WagAKBuc_o
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7X89a531CY
| Diederich wrote:
| > 8 years-old
| burnafter182 wrote:
| Hey old friend,
|
| Do you think, that having been through Cold-war era
| conditioning and propaganda, that you're sort of
| sensitized to the "modern Russia tropes"? I ask because,
| well Russia seems like a shithole. A sort of noncompete
| on the global scale outside their natural resource
| stockpiles, but the US demagogues seem to like to point
| fingers there and I see it as more or less a propaganda
| tool. I suspect it's aimed at the generations that
| experienced the cold war, but I'm inducing hard.
| java-man wrote:
| I think a lot of people miss the Cold War. There was this
| far away, monolythic, scary enemy, that can be reliably
| used to justify any amount of military expenses. And to a
| certain point it was, of course, since up until 1953 they
| were expecting a "world revolution".
|
| The situation changed ever so slightly after 1985,
| culminating in dissolution of USSR. Good riddance!
|
| And now the same forces - or new incarnation of the same
| forces - are working again to create that image of an
| absolute enemy - on both sides. It's just so easy.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Thanks, but I don't really think that's the point at all.
|
| The parent commenter relates that they were _8 years old_
| and not a missile identification expert at that age; but
| stressed about by something that actually was a realistic
| fear.
| tandr wrote:
| Source?
| java-man wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WagAKBuc_o
| indymike wrote:
| I wonder if one big stressor is better than a thousand
| small stressors.
| gremIin wrote:
| Except that was a hypothetical. The effects of climate
| change are real, and irreversible.
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| My parents both grew up in poverty in disparate communities
| and both experienced potential food shortages.
|
| Later in his early twenties my father was drafted. They also
| spent time doing bomb drills in elementary school because of
| the cold war, nuclear fallout was an actual worry.
|
| >did I already mention that my and the later generations will
| face significantly less earnings than the generation of
| Boomers, and that income and wealth inequality also has risen
| constantly over the last decades?
|
| I do worry about rising wealth inequality, but that is
| largely a factor of deficit spending and needing the fed to
| print money causing wealth transfer to the upper class.
| Unfortunately, most young people are all for the government
| spending even more money for various things which will only
| exacerbate the issue.
|
| >(we sacrificed our youth for the at-risk population),
|
| I dunno, the largest cohort of covid positive cases has
| always been the 20-30 age group by far.
| cudgy wrote:
| "Unfortunately, most young people are all for the
| government spending even more money for various things
| which will only exacerbate the issue."
|
| The issue is not the amount of money that is spent; the
| issue is for what the money is spent. So many articles
| discussing the current bills in Congress simply stating the
| amounts of money that are allocated in aggregate with
| little if any discussion of the specific amounts within the
| bill. My skeptical mind thinks this is purposely done to
| mislead the public.
| dionidium wrote:
| This is extreme myopia. You could make a list like this for
| _any_ given 40-year period and in the earlier periods disease
| would be worse, healthcare would be worse, material living
| standards would be worse, and life expectancy would be lower.
|
| I think it's basically laughable to suggest that millennials
| have experienced more stress than earlier generations. (Not
| that it matters, but I'm an older millennial myself.)
|
| Now, it genuinely might be the case that millennials are
| subjectively more "stressed out" than their predecessors, but
| that's a different claim. It's a claim I don't have any
| trouble believing, but the cause is likely _widespread access
| and attention_ to negative stressors (via social media, for
| example), not the existence of a greater number of them.
| [deleted]
| spfzero wrote:
| "they are aware that no amount of education can help them if
| the planet is nearing inhabitability"
|
| Do you really believe that? That Earth will be uninhabitable
| within the lifetime of a person alive today? Or their
| grandchildren? No climate scientists argue anything remotely
| close to that outcome.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > That Earth will be uninhabitable within the lifetime of a
| person alive today?
|
| For people in Africa threatened by heat and drought (which
| is _already_ making places uninhabitable and causing
| migration!) and smaller islands, yes.
| q1w2 wrote:
| This is simply not accurate. There might be certain areas
| that are more impacted than others, like the Maldives,
| but there is no reasonable interpretation of
| "uninhabitable" any scientist would attribute to Africa,
| let alone Earth entirely.
| spfzero wrote:
| "places" uninhabitable is not the same as the planet
| being uninhabitable, as the parent post claimed. _Parts_
| of the planet have been uninhabitable for ages.
| burnafter182 wrote:
| How many climate predictions have been correct? How many
| predictions _in general_ have, a posteriori been right?
| This is _multivariate_ , not necessarily a question of
| the effects of climate itself, but every conceivable
| effect in a long chain, including further human
| intervention and non-linearities in global climate
| behavior that are yet-to-be observed and no doubt a
| lengthy slew of other factors. But we're not allowed to
| talk about speculation, right?
| burnafter182 wrote:
| Well, that depends on the human reaction. Think of
| screaming "fire" in a movie theatre. Panicked rush out,
| egregious disregard for human life and safety for the sake
| of self-preservation. Consider our theatre patrons are
| armed, guns, knives, nuclear weapons, economic warfare. I'm
| not saying there is necessarily going to be world
| destruction, but it isn't-not on the menu.
| young_unixer wrote:
| > Millennials are the first to be born with unleaded gas.
|
| Nope. Many developing countries still had it by 2001, and only
| started banning after international campaign from the UN [1].
|
| [1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/08/1098792
| nazgulnarsil wrote:
| An even bigger contamination bombshell might be in the cards:
| https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2021/10/19/a-chemical-hunger-i...
| 0xbadc0de5 wrote:
| Fun fact, the inventor of leaded gasoline, Thomas Midgley Jr.,
| also invented chloroflourocarbons (CFC's). See:
| https://interestingengineering.com/thomas-midgley-jr-the-man...
| ngold wrote:
| Reminds me of the German that invented pulling nitrogen out of
| the air to be used in fertilizers, saving hundreds of millions
| of lives. WW1 rolls around and he invents gas warfare.
| mhh__ wrote:
| CFCs were really important for making fridges safe, though
| right?
| zionic wrote:
| He was also strangled to death by his own bed-hoist invention.
| datavirtue wrote:
| That is awesome
| dang wrote:
| Can you please stop posting flamebait and unsubstantive
| comments? We tried unbanning you awhile ago, and for the
| most part it has worked ok, but if you keep this up we're
| going to have to ban you again.
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking
| the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be
| grateful.
| tgtweak wrote:
| Are you in the celebrating death camp or not?
| oats wrote:
| There's a certain level of bastardhood at which it
| becomes hard to feel sympathy for someone's demise. I
| don't know which side of the line Thomas Midgley Jr. is
| on, but he's reeeaaal close to it.
| tgtweak wrote:
| Do you think he intentionally invented it to harm people?
| I don't think you can logically position that it is good
| for a person to die but not those which they indirectly
| (and likely involuntarily) harmed.
|
| CFCs are a pretty important invention even today and
| leaded paint and fuel probably seemed like a good idea at
| the time since no evidence suggested otherwise for a long
| while after it's introduction and commercialization.
| Unless he concealed information about known dangers, I
| think it's illogical to fault him to the point of
| celebrating his untimely death due to it.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| This article's understandably very critical of the man but is
| there much in the way of hard evidence he knew just how
| dangerous these inventions were and wilfully ignored the risks?
| Geninely asking, it just feels like the article is a bit of a
| hatchet job.
|
| Nobody's disputing that his inventions were awful in the long
| run for humanity and the Earth but it seems a little harsh to
| criticise someone for lacking the gift of prophecy. As far as
| I'm aware we only figured out how harmful CFCs were for the
| environment in the 1970s for example.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _Facing sceptical reporters at a press conference in
| October 1924, Thomas Midgley dramatically produced a
| container of tetraethyl lead - the additive in question - and
| washed his hands in it._
|
| " _" I'm not taking any chance whatever," Midgley declared.
| "Nor would I... doing that every day."_
|
| " _Midgley was - perhaps - being a little disingenuous. He
| had recently spent several months in Florida, recuperating
| from lead poisoning._ "
| (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-40593353)
|
| I believe after that press conference he spent several more
| months in Europe detoxing. High-concentration exposure was
| known to be dangerous (" _On the Thursday of the week before
| Midgley 's press conference, at a Standard Oil plant in New
| Jersey, a worker named Ernest Oelgert started hallucinating.
| By Friday, he was running around the laboratory, screaming in
| terror. On Saturday, with Oelgert dangerously unhinged, his
| sister called the police. He was taken to hospital and
| forcibly restrained. By Sunday, he was dead. Within the week,
| so were four of his colleagues - and 35 more were in
| hospital. Only 49 people worked there._") and quite a few
| people were concerned about long-term, low-level exposures.
| 0xbadc0de5 wrote:
| There is plenty of evidence that he at least new that TEL was
| extremely toxic - Midgley himself was poisoned by it. Despite
| this knowledge, he went on to insist it was safe for the
| public. As for CFC's, the evidence would suggest he did not
| know of their effects on atmospheric ozone. My reading of the
| article left me with the impression that Midgley's work on
| TEL and subsequent marketing was enough to condemn. His work
| on CFC's appears to be a very unfortunate follow-up.
| throwaway59553 wrote:
| I guess today IQ is real and not fake science.
| dang wrote:
| We've banned this account for posting flamewar comments and
| using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed
| here, regardless of ideology, because it destroys what this
| site is supposed to be for.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| RandallBrown wrote:
| I think IQ is one of those measures that's okay for the general
| population but pretty bad for individuals.
|
| A lowering trend of IQs over the years means a lot more than
| one random person taking a test.
| coolspot wrote:
| IQ tests are still banned in California for certain kids.
|
| https://www.kqed.org/news/11781032/a-landmark-lawsuit-aimed-...
| ravenstine wrote:
| California's education system is also below average, so
| evidence that their children are also reduced in IQ as a
| result would be pretty unflattering.
| throwaway59553 wrote:
| >Based on the test results, black students statewide -- young
| Darryl included -- wound up categorized as "educable mentally
| retarded" at disproportionate rates: 27% labeled that way in
| 1968 were black -- even though black students made up less
| than 9% of the student body.
|
| So there are differences in the distribution of IQ among all
| the people in a Planet with very different environments?
|
| Rubbish racist pseudo-science. We all know evolution stopped
| at the neck line.
| sul_tasto wrote:
| the comments on this tweet are really disturbing. lead
| contamination is still a problem, and it's being ignored.
| thinkcontext wrote:
| An Update on Childhood Lead Poisoning (2017)
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5645046/
|
| > As many as 500,000 US children (2.5%) under 6 years have BLLs
| >=5 ug/dL. Each lead-exposed child costs an estimated $5600 in
| medical and special educational services.7 Lead exposure-
| related cognitive impairments cost an estimated $50.9 billion
| annually in lost US economic productivity.6
| datavirtue wrote:
| I demand reparations. My intellect is my most valuable asset.
| timbit42 wrote:
| ...or would have been.
| aaron695 wrote:
| This tweet and it's following thread is a lie.
|
| It has no sources just random journal articles about lead.... so
| as fucking expected and totally HN, just believe random stuff,
| wank wank. Can't be challenged because there's nothing to
| challenge. And the dig at NASCAR is pretty on topic for HN, no
| one with an average IQ or better would believe a NASCAR track
| would actually make a difference and you couldn't _starkly_ see
| it in other places. But whatever, hahaha NASCAR people are stupid
| and science proved it.
|
| Millennial's in the West actually have average IQ's, what's
| concerning is they had less of many things we know lower IQs so
| something big hammered them to stop these gains. No one is sure
| what.
|
| There is evidence removing lead from fuel harmed Millennials.
|
| Micro dosing through leaded fuel didn't reduce IQs but it might
| have increased impulsiveness. It's no joke the Millennials
| onwards might be boring. It is very existential, boring people
| are happier. But it still feels depressing we now have 30 years
| of boring people and soon it will just be humans as a species....
| boring.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| This explains why I belong to DENSA, the low-IQ society.
| Angostura wrote:
| Imagine how intelligent I _could have been_
| thesausageking wrote:
| Given all of the research in how much harm leaded gas does, it's
| crazy that the US still allows it for planes and race cars.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| According to the FAA, "TEL has not yet been banned for use in
| avgas, because no operationally safe alternative is currently
| available."
| deepsun wrote:
| Well, they can outlaw operating older private planes. Newer
| private planes often use kerosene (aka Jet-A) fuel, just like
| airlines.
|
| But that would be unjust. Imagine your car suddenly gets
| outlawed.
| unclenoriega wrote:
| They could be outlawed non-suddenly.
| detaro wrote:
| So many things were making it slowly less and less viable
| through extra costs/requirements would've likely been the
| better plan, but instead nothing changes until at some
| point there is enough pressure for change, and then
| there's complaints its "so suddenly". (I think with Avgas
| that has happened a tiny bit through storage regulations
| - its sufficiently more annoying to keep around that some
| places don't offer it anymore, making it a tiny bit less
| attractive for plane buyers)
| mitigating wrote:
| Then people will just complain it's sudden when it gets
| close to the deadline.
| mitigating wrote:
| I think deciding if something is unjust should factor in
| the impact. If someone has a 1990 Honda Civic that is their
| only means of getting to work and suddenly it's illegal due
| to pollution that's one thing. However if someone's private
| jet needs an expensive upgrade then that's another impact.
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| Wrong airplane. Jets use JET-A (no lead) not AVGAS
| brandmeyer wrote:
| Even cheap used small private planes cost > $100k. Since
| they are exclusively owned by wealthy people, it is a
| political impossibility to outlaw them.
| Eugr wrote:
| Most of the planes flying were made in 60's and 70's.
| Most of them can be bought below $100K. Most owners of
| 100LL burning planes are middle class. Wealthy people fly
| jets or at least turboprops and burn Jet-A.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| We could buy them up and scrap them as their value
| declines while also working to outlaw 100LL at the ~4000
| FBOs in the US that still carry the fuel. At some point,
| demand decline encounters an inflection point where it's
| no longer economically feasible ("death spiral") to
| continue to provide 100LL fuel to FBOs.
|
| Cash for clunkers sort of thing.
| brandmeyer wrote:
| Cash for clunkers was only tenable because the recipients
| of the cash were predominantly the working poor. Even
| then, economic conservatives howled at the program for
| its destruction of capital.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| The first recipients were new car buyers. Hardly the
| working poor.
|
| You could argue those buying new cars bought clunkers
| from the working poor for their above-market trade-in
| value, but that only works for the poor if they didn't
| need to replace that clunker because everything used went
| up in price.
| deepsun wrote:
| > exclusively owned by wealthy people
|
| You are underinformed. Most Cessna owners I know, are
| middle-income fanatics, usually co-owning a single plane.
| mitigating wrote:
| I looked into the cost of flight lessons in a small
| plane, the cost of using an airport runway, and fuel. It
| was extremely expensive to me and I make 6 figures.
| Eugr wrote:
| There is no cost of using an airport runway, at least in
| the US...
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| Then you have very different priorities than an airplane
| owner. You pay for plenty of things that are extremely
| expensive, you just choose different things.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| I too make six figures, and I don't think I do anything
| as expensive as completing flight school and co-owning a
| Cessna. I mean, my house is more expensive than that, I
| guess, and my car is (barely) more expensive than flight
| school might be, but surely amateur pilots have houses
| and cars too. About the only expense I have that might
| come close to serious flying as a hobby would be pets,
| but outside of the one time we had to pay for chemo for
| our dog it's not _that_ expensive.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The larger private planes use kerosene, but smaller planes
| use gasoline just like they always did.
|
| The difference is that new gasoline planes can work with
| unleaded.
| ploika wrote:
| A version of that for cars is common enough actually.
| Several countries and US states have road worthiness tests
| that include minimum (maximum?) emissions standards that
| must be met. The car I drive will probably ultimately fail
| on emissions as standards rise over the next few years.
| topkai22 wrote:
| I live in a county with emissions standards. Vehicles
| over 25 years old are exempt. There are reasonable ways
| to implement rising standards by exempting older ones.
| brewdad wrote:
| I've lived in two places that required emissions testing.
| In both, the vehicles were held to the standard in place
| at the time it was built, not the current highest
| standard.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Don't they need new engines at some point anyway?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Yeah, but you would need a new type certificate if the
| model of the engine is different from the version that
| was certified. Not to mention, you'd need a lead-free-
| compatible engine that physically fits into the plane.
| jandrese wrote:
| I know some enthusiasts have been retrofitting with
| Subaru boxer engines with some success, but they end up
| with an X registration.
| JorgeGT wrote:
| True! But for many popular airframe/engine combinations
| there are companies which hold supplemental type
| certificates (STCs) for the conversion, see for instance
| Petersen Aviation who have a dedicated website for STCs
| covering conversion to auto fuel:
| https://www.autofuelstc.com/
| detaro wrote:
| Kind of needs a caveat: ... for engines not designed to
| safely operate with other fuels. I.e. it's not that we need
| Avgas 100LL to make piston-engined planes possible, we just
| have a lot of plane engines around that need it. (and one can
| argue that industry has sat on the problem a bit, because why
| change as long as 100LL is readily available. (and making
| 100% compatible fuel replacements indeed appears to be
| difficult, as far as I know there is only one that has any
| kind of permits for one plane type, and that also has
| somewhat nasty additives - so changing the engines is the
| thing to do)
| jandrese wrote:
| The blame lies at least partially on Lycoming, who
| developed a nice engine in the 60s and then apparently
| fired their R&D department.
|
| This is a little unfair, but only very little. The engines
| are primitive by modern standards because the company is
| wildly conservative in their design philosophy. The engines
| are quite reliable if run within their design envelope and
| maintained according to the manual, but it requires
| considerably more maintenance per operation hour than a
| modern car engine and most modern car engines are even more
| reliable when properly maintained.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| Some Lycoming engines run fine on the right unleaded
| fuel.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#UL94_(formerly_94UL)
| NordSteve wrote:
| Last summer GAMA received a supplemental type certificate
| for a 100LL replacement, called G100UL. The STC covers
| certain Lycoming O-320, O-360, and IO-360 piston engines,
| which are commonly used in light aircraft.
|
| https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-
| news/2021/july/27/ga...
| jzawodn wrote:
| s/GAMA/GAMI/
| citizenpaul wrote:
| Its almost entirely small hobby planes 2-4 passenger.
| Almost none of those planes have any real reason to still
| exist. Its basically rich or upper middle people that don't
| care they are literally poisoning people while they tool
| around with their hobby.
| throckmortra wrote:
| How is avgas poisoning people?
| throwaway946513 wrote:
| via the leaded gasoline it uses. Same as how leaded
| gasoline in cars poisoned people. Same premise, different
| vehicle.
| throckmortra wrote:
| From the exhaust or skin contact?
| jimmyswimmy wrote:
| You're not entirely wrong. Aviation is a hobby that is
| difficult to engage in if you don't have money. But
| flying those same planes is exactly where your commercial
| pilots are trained. It takes 1500 flight hours (certainly
| this number is wrong but too lazy to look up the current
| ATP minimum) to be eligible for the license to fly
| passengers on commercial airlines. A substation portion
| of those hours are as paid instructors.
| anonfornoreason wrote:
| The negative externalities of your passions, your work,
| your hobbies, your personal life are currently poisoning
| thousands of people. You are currently typing on a
| computer built with rare earth elements mined in poor
| countries with slave labor. You probably eat shrimp on
| occasion, literally harvested by people forced into
| literal slavery, trapped on a boat. You likely enjoy
| looking at and thinking about crypto, which is currently
| mined with massive amounts of compute powered by coal
| plants, which emit far more toxic byproducts than any
| amount of general aviation.
|
| No one is a saint. Regulating away all the hobbies out
| there to minimize the impact would probably result in
| some sort of violent revolution, if it could even be
| done.
| Thetawaves wrote:
| Small single engine planes == hobby? No. The vast
| majority of the hours flown in these planes are for
| commercial purposes. If you are going to focus your ire
| anywhere - it should be on these money making enterprises
| that don't (have to) upgrade their infrastructure.
| jaywalk wrote:
| >Almost none of those planes have any real reason to
| still exist.
|
| I hope someone comes along and shits on your hobby, too.
| It has no real reason to exist, who cares that it
| provides you enjoyment?
| wbsss4412 wrote:
| Thank you.
|
| I myself enjoy hunting humans, as they are the most
| dangerous of game. Yet I am constantly accosted at my
| dinner parties, it's truly intolerable. I don't see where
| these people get the nerve to act so holier than thou. We
| all have our vices.
|
| (/s, obviously)
| andrepd wrote:
| My gardening hobby does not involve poisoning my
| neighbour's children. Might be a tad different, pal.
| purple_ferret wrote:
| Household lead paint is still allowed in much of the world.
| India only banned* it in 2016(it is still poorly regulated, so
| still widely used). China the same in 2020.
|
| *reduced to max level to 90 ppm
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Note that _concentrations matter_ , that there is a dose-
| response curve (more lead => greater impacts), and that the
| quantities of lead in common products such as paint were
| _insane_.
|
| Lead wasn't simply some trace component of paint, but _was up
| to half by weight_ (dried), or 500,000 ppm in the US (and
| probably comparable _if not worse_ elsewhere:
|
| _White house paint contained up to 50% lead before 1955.
| Federal law lowered the amount of lead allowable in paint to
| 1% in 1971. In 1977, the Consumer Products Safety Commission
| limited the lead in most paints to 0.06% (600 ppm by dry
| weight). Since 2009, the lead allowable in most paints is now
| 0.009%. Paint for bridges and marine use may contain greater
| amounts of lead._
|
| https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/leadtoxicity/safety_standards.
| ..
|
| Leaded petrol had on the order of 0.5 -- 1 g/l lead, again,
| _not_ trace amounts, which were discharged directly into the
| air. Much settled out relatively quickly, within a few
| hundred metres, as lead is heavy. Still, lead permeated
| cities and land adjoining roadways and expressways. And still
| does. Remediation is expensive, natural remediation takes
| centuries.
|
| At 90 ppm, India's regulations seem to impose a maximum upper
| bound, and controls for incidental introduction. Given that
| _total_ elimination is impossible, setting a maximum
| standard.
|
| The US standard is also 90 ppm:
|
| https://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Business-
| Educat...
| throwaway946513 wrote:
| Partly though, if I'm remembering correctly, is that no
| amount of lead is considered 'safe'. Obviously that's very
| difficult, and many people will be exposed to lead at some
| point. End goal should be to minimize, and make the ppm as
| near zero as possible.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Again: it's a matter of quantity, background or other
| source rates, costs of reduction, measurement capability,
| and alternative harms, etc.
|
| _All_ quality standards are specified on some acceptable
| deviation. _The goal is to not exceed the standard._
|
| Equipment, water supply, source materials, packaging,
| extant air containation (if in an area in which, say,
| leaded fuels remain in use), etc., might all contribute
| to trace contamination. If you have an interest in the
| reasoning / conditions, rulemaking hearings and evidence
| likely refer to this.
|
| I'm not about to dive into this, but if you have a
| genuine interest, the US regulation is in 16 CFR 1303.1,
| created in 1977, amended in 2008. Hearings reports are
| likely available and will have scientific, industry, and
| public-interest statements.
|
| https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-
| II/subchapter-...
|
| https://www.cpsc.gov/Regulations-Laws--Standards
| hallarempt wrote:
| When I was a teen, copper and tin were too expensive, and I
| was a bright, precocious teen sculptor. So picture eleven,
| twelve year old me melting lead in a crucible, taking the
| crucible in flaking asbestos gloves and pouring it into my
| casting form. I was a productive little sculptor, too,
| making many pieces a year.
| comeonseriously wrote:
| I'm not. There's lots of money in those two industries.
| mrfusion wrote:
| I just looked at a house next to a small airport. I was
| wondering about the lead exposure?
| thesausageking wrote:
| It's a concern, especially if you have kids.
|
| > children living within 1.5 miles of the Reid-Hillview
| Airport have elevated levels of lead in their blood, and that
| the problem gets much worse for those who live closer to or
| downwind from the airport. > ...children under the age of 18
| living close to Reid-Hillview had blood lead levels over 1.8
| micrograms per deciliter. In 3.2% of the children surveyed,
| that number was as high as 3.5 micrograms, and in 1.7% of
| children it was 4.5 micrograms. Average baseline lead levels
| in children across the U.S. are closer to 0.84 micrograms.
|
| https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/08/06/new-study-
| finds-l...
| opwieurposiu wrote:
| The only way to know for sure is to test a few soil samples
| from the yard and dust samples from inside the house. Also
| test the water, especially if it is well water.
|
| If you plan to have kids there, the test might be worth it
| for your peace of mind. If there are no kids I would not
| bother.
| bell-cot wrote:
| This, plus:
|
| - Which way does the prevailing wind blow? (Toward your
| prospective house, or away?)
|
| - If the airport had leaky underground storage tanks, in
| which directions might the gas (& lead) seep?
| jimmyswimmy wrote:
| Also, a quick way to estimate local prevailing winds near
| an airport is to look at the runway direction. Planes
| like to land into head winds so if there's only a single
| runway, those winds are mostly in one direction down the
| runway.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| But which direction???
| TimMurnaghan wrote:
| Nice try millenials. But the boomers grew up in times of lower
| car ownership and general road traffic - so while there was
| leaded petrol - the exposure to lead wasn't necessarilly so high.
| What do we call the generation of around 1980? Late Gen-X?
| They're probably the ones at most risk.
| pmlnr wrote:
| > What do we call the generation of around 1980
|
| We call it people born around 1980.
| mrtranscendence wrote:
| > What do we call the generation of around 1980? Late Gen-X?
|
| Xennials[1]. I've also heard "elder millennial".
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xennials
| handrous wrote:
| Ah, my generation! The ones whose video games, at least
| during our elementary school years, were good enough to be
| really fun, but also bad enough that we'd eventually get
| bored of them and go ride bikes or hit each other with sticks
| or some other healthy activity, all of our own volition.
|
| I remain tentatively skeptical of "saving" features in video
| games. They may be one of the great social ills of our time.
| Going back to the beginning if you lose may have been a
| _healthy_ kind of frustrating.
| [deleted]
| timbit42 wrote:
| 1883 - 1900 Lost Generation
|
| 1901 - 1927 Greatest Generation
|
| 1928 - 1945 Silent Generation
|
| 1945 - 1963 Me Generation aka. Baby Boomers
|
| 1964 - 1980 Generation X aka. Thirteeners
|
| 1980 - 1997 Generation Y aka. Millennials
|
| 1997 - 2010 Generation Z aka. Centennials
| ewhanley wrote:
| There is a great recent episode of Radiolab that discusses how
| pervasive lead is in the environment. tl;dr the background level
| is so high that calibrated measurement of specific samples is
| challenging.
|
| https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/heavy...
| leoc wrote:
| This MentalFloss article (via
| https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=heymijo ) is good:
| https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-sc...
| KoftaBob wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if we find out something similar a decade
| or two from now about phthalates in plastics and personal care
| products, except for their effects on hormone levels rather than
| IQ.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-20 23:01 UTC)