Based on the OP, it wasn't at all accidental. They knew it was dangerous and chose it because they could make more money than with safer alternatives such as ethanol.
He's not some incidental commentator. He's an engineer and a principle force behind this technology. He is responsible for the outcomes - 'I didn't know' is reckless negligence. And if there were clear acute problems, chronic problems weren't hard to guess at for anyone, much less an engineer, with all those resources, working on it for years.
Are we going to measure things by who got most sick or by who got the most out of it? Because if Midgley gets sick and his boss who knows everything gets a million dollars, I will blame his boss more.
For example Charles Kettering (essentially boss of Midgley) was Director of Research for 27 years at GM. Was large shareholder of GM.
And he hired Robert Arthur Kehoe to prove that TEL is safe. And Kehoe did. The "proof" was that "you didn't definitively prove that TEL is unsafe, so it's okay".
Btw Kehoe is also the one who certified that Freon is safe.
He washed his hands with leaded gasoline on national television to show it was safe. It was not safe.
He lied and suppressed the science. Even if other people lied he was the public face of the lie.
People who absolve engineers of all responsibility annoy me to no end. They're omnipresent on this forum and justify working for Facebook with things like "not my decision" or "someone else would do it" or "it's not that bad you just don't understand" or "I'm just following orders"
There is an important subtlety which is that engineers are not responsible for which technical challenges get solved, they are responsible for how those technical challenges are solved. An engineer's ethical obligation is not to avoid working on something that could be used in a harmful way, it is to prevent incidental harm from its deliberate usage. There's nothing unethical about working on a fuel additive to prevent engine knock; knowingly using a poisonous compound which is going to create immense public health problems to solve the problem was the sin.
They are not different phrases. "Annoy to no end" is the American English version while "annoy no end" is the British. Both are acceptable and mean the same thing.
That's ironic, because the "no end" form was already a relatively new idiom. But "to no end" has already overtaken it in terms of popularity. Of course I meant the word "ironic" like I mean the word "literally"; which is to say, figuratively.
Being a prescriptivist creates no end of everyday pains. Language just won't conform.
The thing is that it’s always used in “annoy” or “frustrate” because they mistake the response as sympathetic annoyance or empathic frustration when it’s really just their misuse of language. I don’t want them to be responsible for their miscommunication in the future!
I vaguely remember amounts of lead exposure and IQ (as in lower) could be linked quite well and there was a map showing that for the US.
Trying to find it I stumbled upon this https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2118631119 -> "The average lead-linked loss in cognitive ability was 2.6 IQ points per person as of 2015." Quite insane to think about. Obviously that's more than merely leaded gasoline though.
Still an ongoing issue, interesting article, some insane metrics in that image though. Lower image is showing `relative IQ cost` for children 0-9 years of age as of 2019,... as in `estimated loss of earning due to less IQ`, boy oh boy, let that sink in: Starting with incomplete exposure data, estimating the resulting IQ loss, then translating that into lifetime earnings (projected somehow into the future economy)...
There are two major sub-fields in materials science. 1: Making materials with interesting new properties. 2: figuring out how to remove the lead from them.
Gas itself is poison. Just take a deep huff at the gas station.
EVs are the only way to go.
At least the pollution is localized, not down every inner city street with exhaust and other vapors.
Batteries fortunately do not destroy the raw materials they are made from. So eventually we can stop mining new raw materials once we have built enough batteries. In addition, batteries for cars live a surprising long time - and can be used to stabilize the grid once they diminish in oomf (technical term).
We're working on it, slowly but surely. This has been a known problem for a long time, at least since 2009 if not earlier. GAMI's G100UL was approved as a 100LL replacement in 2022, but there is still some controversy.
Avweb has done a good series of videos on this. There were some real engineering concerns and some typical aviation conservative decision making. But really, it's a tragedy of the FAA fumbling the ball for decades at this point.
A better way would be to switch to mogas and authorize cheap fuel system retrofits and maybe mandate dual FADECs on engines similar to the ADS B requirements. Your modern general aviation pistons can easily handle mogas.
An even better way would been to encourage the migration to turbines and deprecate pistons entirely. Jet A (diesel) for the win.
The new turbotechs
regenerative turbines are a lot more reliable (3000 hours TBO).
Pistons suffer from too many reliability issues (especially if you don't have a MX team on call like a commerical operation).
I am not sure why the aviation industry (and the FAA in particular) is obsessed with keeping around almost-a-century old lawnmower engines (Yes your Cessna Skyhawks, if you trace them back to their predecessor, are from the WWII days). Learning to "lean an engine" never made me a better pilot and there's a reason FADECs are used everywhere else.
It's a very big problem because most of the big general aviation players (Cirrus, Diamond, Continental, a bunch of others) are snapped up by Chinese conglomerates now and they are hardly known for their expertise in piston engines. People buy Chinese EVs, nobody buys Chinese ICE cars. Diamond owners had to ground their planes for over 2 years because Diamond couldn't figure out how to do a Mercedes OEM license-built piston head properly.
Imagine buying a fancy Porsche car and only to be told that you have to keep it in the garage most of the year because the car company got bought out and the new owners don't know how to produce a proper piston. Owners would riot. Sadly general aviation operators are trained to take it up the ass like a good little pilot because the dinosaur FAA (for whom general aviation is their lowest priority, about the same importance as hot air balloons) mandated that the OEM's word is literal law and if it's grounded then too bad.
As I understand it, a big part of the problem is that the general aviation market is too small to justify the expense of getting new designs certified. Also, it seems baked into the regulations that the old design was "good enough", so it still is today, even though technology has moved on.
When people are building experimental class piston airplanes with better features, reliability, and performance than the certified world can muster at half the price, you know something has gone wrong.
I believe liability is an issue too. In aviation (as compared with autos) the manufacturer is often found partially liable for an accident, so they can be on the hook even if it was mostly the fault of the operator.
> an equal and opposite person who'll be screeching about safety
Unleaded avgas isn't as standardized as 100LL. (To my knowledge, there is no dying convention for its different octane ratings. So you can't draw fuel and confirm, visually, that someone didn't put something in your tanks that's going to knock your engine.)
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]
Same with cigarettes and asbestos. Everyone knew smokers had shorter lives, but the facts were suppressed because it was inconvenient. Everyone knew asbestos was dangerous, but they put it in every single house for decades because "fire was worse".
Cigarette smoking really got going in the world wars, I understand, especially ww2 when the world had manufacturers serving the effort. The custom is dying with the veterans as everyone knows they have a hall pass for it but the rest of us don’t. So smoking was a shorter life but that hardly matters when you’re deployed in theater.
Asbestos gets a bit of a bad rap. There's an enormous difference from e.g. asbestos tiles and siding in a house vs loose clumps of insulation at mass scale in large factories and such.
But at some point people decided that any asbestos was an immediate ticket to mesothelioma and had to eradicate it altogether.
I guess some forms of asbestos are fine to use in residential development.. as long as houses never burn or get damaged in earthquakes or suffer flood damage or need extensive renovations.. and as long as we do not care about some unimportant landscapes and river systems in (ideally, canada or russia or something of the sort) and all of its current and future inhabitants.
I think it’s important not to use the “we” word here.
1) Many people know and care.
2) some people lie for profit
3) other people are willfully ignorant and allow the liars keep at it because it’s more convenient.
And even among those who know and care there’s different amounts people are willing to do about it. I imagine you (who theoretically know and care) still drive, fly, use plastic, Eat foods grown with petroleum based fertilizers, buy products shipped long distances with petroleum. (As do I)
The key is to go after the liars so we can set sane policies based on findings of fact pursued in good faith.
and still sprayed all around the surrounding land at almost every airport in the USA and worldwide from prop aircraft exhaust despite knowing ANY amount is toxic and irreversible for 30+ years
Also UL94 (https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/) could be used in many models. Unfortunately some have been previously upgraded to high-compression engines to get a few more horsepower and they can't use UL94.
Some can run on ethanol-free 87-octane automotive fuel, generally the low-compression engines that already can run 80/87 aviation fuel.
80/87 and 100/130 leaded fuels are all but unavailable, but 100LL is ubiquitous. There is a chicken and egg problem to make G100UL and UL94 available, which will encourage its use. Even automotive fuel is hard to find at airports, possibly because they don't want the liability of improper fueling. (100LL is compatible with almost every gasoline aircraft engine, the rest are not.)
The G100UL also may have an issue with being too good of a solvent, although the developer insists that's a libel.
Swift Fuels is also supposed to introduce a different type of 100-octane unleaded called 100R that has had good results in testing but hasn't been broadly approved yet.
It was like pulling teeth from a dragon to get the FAA to move forward with G100UL as I understand it, and then they suddenly approved it for just about anything provided they write a supplemental type certificate. So maybe the same will happen when/if 100R is approved and someone will handle the marketing.
Only in piston engines, which are a minority of propeller planes. Most commercial propeller aircraft are turboprops, and they use jet fuel. And diesel engines are slowly taking over from gasoline in piston engines.
Correct. For others reading this though: virtually all piston-engine GA aircraft in the US today are still burning 100LL (leaded), and there are nearly 200,000 of them actively flying.
There is a timeline to transition to UL, but very low collective confidence it'll happen by the 2030 goal.
edit: to the commenter that fired off the reactionary reply and deleted it before I could help you. No, not because "[rich people] won't do the right thing." It's because lead is an anti-knock additive for piston engines, and a safe replacement has to go through unimaginable amounts of testing. Once it's certified, one must still figure out scaling production, distribution, etc. Aviation is a very slow moving industry and regulatory environment, which I'm personally thankful for.
ZERO, thirty years ago when there was definitive proof is it forever and irreversible
all lead exhaust aircraft should have been phased out a decade ago if not two decades ago if they cannot be converted
again, there is no acceptable amount, imagine it being sprayed on you, your car, everywhere
your body tries to process it like calcium and stores it forever
how much damage and disease to you and your family are you willing to accept just so someone can keep using their prop aircraft for another decade to make profit?
yes it's all about the money, it's pretty obvious, if there wasn't profit involved it would have been phased out with cars THIRTY YEARS ago
all that lead sprayed all around the land and on people is FOREVER, it doesn't go away, it doesn't wash away, it doesn't evaporate
personally i think we should just stop selling the leaded version, tomorrow. alternatives exist, update your planes or dont fly, but no more leaded fuel.
It's mind boggling that people will screech about how the professionals say zero but then turn around and act like GA is a big deal, despite the fact that the same professionals will say that unless you have occupational exposure other vectors are going to be what dominate your lead level.
And by "mind boggling" I just mean a more polite way to say "condemnation of people's logic and reasoning abilities or honesty"
Yeah, sure we should get rid of GA leaded gas and we're working on it but it's not really a front burner priority because of how little it gets into people.
25 years ago in the UK, leaded petrol was being phased out but still pretty common. The UK Government was giving people grants to have existing cars converted to run on LPG, so they'd only run on a coke can of petrol for a minute or so on startup then switch over to gas.
Catalytic converters? Don't need 'em! There's no CO or unburnt fuel in the exhaust to catalyse because they run as lean as a vegan's dog!
CO2 emissions? Sure, but the stuff is getting flared off as waste at refineries anyway, and we're not going to stop making plastics and fertilisers any time soon, so may as well extract useful work from burning it!
We could have had incredibly clean cities everywhere by now, by simply keeping older cars on the road and adapting them to run on much cleaner safer fuel.
But there was a problem, an absolute bombshell of a problem. The fatal flaw that killed LPG as a road fuel.
It didn't sell new cars. It didn't sell anyone any debt.
So they came up with "scrappage schemes" where you'd get a couple of hundred quid for your old car, it would get destroyed, and then all you had to do was buy a nice new Cleaner Greener Diesel car instead, at some swingeing rate of interest (expect to pay well over twice the sticker price by the end of it - and no, you didn't get the Scrappage Scheme cash if you didn't take the finance package).
LPG had the same problem as electric cars. In the early years there was no infrastructure and so if you buy one you're an early adopter and you can't actually go anywhere. It took a while to get that infrastructure and now electric cars are useful for most trips. You can use LPG cars to go for most trips in the US even today. However, you better plan ahead because finding a place of fuel is going to require some effort. I had a few LNG stations near me, but they seem to have all been torn out, meaning that never made it.
Gas cars faced the same thing when they first came out but by the time they became used for longer trips there was gas everywhere and in the meantime there was gas at least where you bought the car and so it was good enough for the short trips that bought it for.
LPG was really popular in Holland, that wasn't the problem. You could get it everywhere. It was cheap too.
There were just some artificial issues:
- The government didn't want LPG owners to be cheaper off (it was much cheaper per kilometer) so they raised road tax substantially making it only economical if you drove a lot
- There were no cars running on LPG off factory. You always had to deal with an aftermarket install with a big tank that took up half your trunk. It didn't replace the original tank because that was needed for starting, though part of it could have been replaced by LPG storage. They didn't do that however. Some cars had donut tanks that fit in the spare wheel space but they were tiny and you had to fill up constantly.
- Engine performance was significantly reduced on LPG.
- The tanks were pressurised which were a bit dangerous and didn't store a lot of mileage for the space. You couldn't fill them up 100% either.
We had one for a while but it was kinda a clumsy affair. Lack of places to fill up was however not a problem at all.
LPG and CNG had a consistent niche, but they weren't transformative and ended up not being significantly cheaper either. And recently we saw the problem with natural gas supply availability.
With EVs, all of this goes away and you can charge at home, including off your own solar panels. The technology has finally got to a tipping point, thanks to a couple of decades of phone batteries.
> you didn't get the Scrappage Scheme cash if you didn't take the finance package
[Citation needed] .. but yeah the scrappage schemes (various) were of dubious value and something of a bung to the motor industry and to quieten opposition to things like the LEZ.
Anytime Thomas Midgley Jr. pops up, I take the opportunity to re-listen to his episode on the Memory Palace. Wonderful bit of historical biography: https://thememorypalace.us/butterflies/
People like to point and laugh at the Romans at their use of lead in plumbing and wine. But they were never even close to being as stupid and callous as we managed to be the last 150 years. They are going to be shaking their head at us for thousands of year hopefully.
> This, my dear friend, is all I can at present recollect on the Subject. You will see by it, that the Opinion of this mischievous Effect from Lead, is at least above Sixty Years old; and you will observe with Concern how long a useful Truth may be known, and exist, before it is generally receiv'd and practis'd on.
Yes, the psychological effects of environmental lead last a lifetime. No, they didn’t vote differently, they have always gravitated to actors that promise simple solutions and highlight bad blood and animus.
They didn’t vote differently. There were a larger number of the greatest generation that were more comfortable with shared sacrifice in service of society and less entitled like the baby boomers are.
Read charitably, OP isn’t decrying a disagreement on issues as much as the willingness to burn everything down just to see someone else hurt more than oneself. This is present on the left. But it’s uniquely politically actualised by MAGA. (The Democratic Socialists winning elections aren’t seeking to overturn elections or violently storm governing bodies.)
