Ian Posted September 8, 2022 Share Posted September 8, 2022 2 hours ago, Flying Binghi said: Perhaps Ian thinks they will be closing down the umpteen millions of geothermal vents around the world. If we could go back to just environmental lead you would have about a 99% reduction. The reality is that the natural geological processes to use your phrase emit "1/16 of a poofteenth of sweet f-all." Historical levels of environmental lead is pretty easy to measure as things like ice cores provides a nice record. The simple truth is that Aviation using leaded fuel is a bit shit. It makes aviation in your area look bad and will provide another nail to hammer into the coffin to those who want to close down airports. Because aviation has dragged their feet for so long they've become completely disconnected from the expectations of the community at large. Most people driving don't remember lead in fuel and consider it a joke. Trying to justify it's continued existence just make the entire industry look like a joke as well. It a bit like trying to argue that climate change is just hysterical nonsense and supporting clowns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted September 8, 2022 Share Posted September 8, 2022 22 hours ago, onetrack said: More guesswork from the FB .... https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1003231#:~:text=Lead emitted from aircraft using,Agency (EPA) 2010]. OK, I’ve had a brief bit of a look-see and consideration...🤔 …..It’s Crap research. Apparently the airports they claim to base the research on are not actually listed. Whilst the big airports can be roughly defined on the research paper Wake county map, most cannot. The other county’s referenced in the paper have no map. Doing a bit of goggle maps correlating to the research paper map of Wake county some ‘airports’ appear to be little more then ‘one hanger’ bush strips. I note, of the 1267 children included in the research that they claim are within 500 metres of an airport they do not say how many at each airport. For all we know the 1267 kids are all at one location. The same for the 1000, 1500, and 2000+ distances - all the children could be at one location for all we know, right on top of the old toxic waste dump. Whilst housing gets a mention, there is no mention of toxic waste issues. A big issue in North Carolina apparently. Are any of these toxic waste sites located near the research paper reference airports? https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/waste-management/waste-management-rules-data/waste-management-gis-maps/federal-remediation-sites A read of a child lead research paper reference North Carolina makes no mention of airports. Seems there are other issues: “..Mothers of the 63.5% of children (402,002 of 633,159) linked to a blood lead test result were disproportionately young, Hispanic, Black, American Indian, or on Medicaid…” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361030475_Patterns_of_Children's_Blood_Lead_Screening_and_Blood_Lead_Levels_in_North_Carolina_2011-2018-Who_Is_Tested_Who_Is_Missed 🤨 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 8, 2022 Share Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, Flying Binghi said: It’s Crap research Given your willingness to contest the vast majority of climate change research your definition of crap research could be considered somewhat arbitrary. When reading research papers, especially ones from good sites and journals check the bibliography. Unlike facebook and headline grabbing news sites that people often quote as gospel. The research appears reasonable and is based on the following North Carolina has an acknowledged lead problem and they have a program of testing for lead in children. This includes their place of residence and the age of residence in many cases. Rather than forcing the lead issue without solid research the EPA provides grants to agencies related to their areas of interest. Someone figured that they could use this data combined with the UPA documentation on airfield lead emissions to see if their data bore this out. They provided the source of their airport "Data U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Estimated Pb Emissions from All NC Airport Facilities. Washington, DC:U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. " You can still source this data, instructions below. They only used counties which had good housing age data, this allowed them to control for lead in older buildings. They point that they're making is that lead solution from avgas created a measurable impact on the blood lead levels of children. The effect wasn't large but it was there, also some of the airports weren't large either. This is bad because there's no safe level for lead exposure, only levels which are tolerable because we've spread it around so much. I expect that it is research like this which has driven the sudden approval for unleaded avgas by FAA. Politically poisoning children is a bad look and doesn't win votes. By the way I've attached the instructions on how to obtain the data referenced in the paper. EPA maintains historical data and provides access for this purpose. 5 hours ago, Flying Binghi said: A read of a child lead research paper reference North Carolina makes no mention of airports. As you'd expect, that wasn't the focus of the paper. I wouldn't expect a paper which is focused on the efficacy of lead testing coverage to somehow include a section to specially call out airport lead emissions. Also I meant to give a bit of a rebuttal to the book "Unsettled". But rather than that I'll let Scientific Amnerican and Inside Climate News do it for me. What isn't known is that he was employed as a known contrarian of climate science so that policies in this area would pass the guantlet of a know "Devil's Advocate" ensure that the research was incredibly solid. Koonin, the author is a fellow of the "American Enterprise Institute" which is funded by Kock and other Industries with significant fossil fuel investments to the tune of $380M USD. P100WYC3-1.PDF Edited September 8, 2022 by Ian 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted September 8, 2022 Share Posted September 8, 2022 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ian said: Given your willingness to contest the vast majority of climate change research your definition of crap research could be considered somewhat arbitrary. When reading research papers, especially ones from good sites and journals check the bibliography. Seems you don’t know of the ‘crisis’ in medical research. Over 70% of medical research papers have been found to be crap. With those odds I probably didn’t even need to read the research paper to be confident of giving it the ‘crap’ rating…🤨 4 hours ago, Ian said: The research appears reasonable and is based on the following All and good, though does not answer the points I raised: * The actual locations of the airports - How can I identify which airports are referenced ? * The size of the airports. * The actual locations of the various groups re distance from airport. Were they all located near one airport, or were they spread around. * The locations of toxic waste dumps. To add to my comments - Airports because of their size and late arrival to City/town development tend to end up in the old dump area or low lying swamp area etc, or have heavy industry located around them. * And yet. The other paper I referenced, whilst talking housing, does not mention airports. Ian, as you seem to have access to all this extra info, perhaps you can answer the actual points I raised..🙂 4 hours ago, Ian said: This is bad because there's no safe level for lead exposure, only levels which are tolerable because we've spread it around so much. And yet, as the Oz government data shows - there is natural lead everywhere in the environment - in the food we eat, in the creeks we swim in. The only way to get a nil exposure to environmental lead would to be locked up in a ‘safe room’. My argument has been from the get-go, that Aviation lead in Australia adds nothing of concern to the lead exposure that people are already getting naturally. 🙂 Edited September 8, 2022 by Flying Binghi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted September 8, 2022 Share Posted September 8, 2022 8 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said: And yet, as the Oz government data shows - there is natural lead everywhere in the environment - in the food we eat, in the creeks we swim in. The phasing out of lead in car fuel in Australia had a significant effect on lead levels. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/chemicals-management/lead#:~:text=The amount of lead in Australia's air has decreased significantly,of unleaded petrol in 1986. How much of a problem is air-borne lead in Australia? "The amount of lead in Australia's air has decreased significantly since the introduction of unleaded petrol in 1986. Before the phase-out of leaded petrol, which began in 1993, the national air quality standard for lead was regularly exceeded in urban environments. Levels are now less than 10 per cent of the national annual standard of 0.5 micrograms per cubic metre of air. Lead levels remain high in some regional towns with large industrial point sources (such as lead smelters), and levels may exceed the national standards in these areas." I accept that there are many fewer aircraft than cars but I cant see that this justifies exemptions and I would imagine that the general public would think this also. BF As far as I can see your argument is that environmental sources of lead exposure are greater than the exposure from aircraft. This may generally be true although location may be relevant. Since lead is a cumulative toxin, it does not make much sense to say since we have exposure from source A and source B and that source A is is greater than source B so lets have both. Some sources of lead exposure are inevitable but the important thing is to keep lead levels below the recommended levels. It is surely sensible to control the sources we can control. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 2 hours ago, Flying Binghi said: Seems you don’t know of the ‘crisis’ in medical research. Over 70% of medical research papers have been found to be crap. With those odds I probably didn’t even need to read the research paper to be confident of giving it the ‘crap’ rating Maybe, however I'm not sure where you got the 70% figure from. If its facebook, brietbart, youtube etc. I'm not really interested, research from a peer reviewed journal, major university or Government sponsored paper might get my attention. Yes there are problems with people falsifyng research however they're generally weeded out and disgraced however all in all it's the best source of information. I gave you the paper which provides the EPA airport data as well as the estimates lead emissions from each site. 3 hours ago, Flying Binghi said: And yet, as the Oz government data shows - there is natural lead everywhere in the environment - in the food we eat, in the creeks we swim in. This is a furphy which you have repeated a number of times but it's just not true. While lead occurs in the environment naturally, everything that I've read states it typically only occurs at very low levels. Do you have any research which shows these high levels of naturally occurring lead? The vast majority of lead pollution be it around Broken Hill or in inner city precincts is man made not natural. For example the picture shows lead in older areas when it was a commonly used industrial compound. By the way it's Sydney. This organization https://www.360dustanalysis.com/ has been doing soil analysis is here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021002075?via%3Dihub 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 OKaaay…. Lets try again. Ian, reference the research paper under discussion: * The actual locations of the airports - How can I identify which airports are referenced ? * The size of the airports. * The actual locations of the various groups re distance from airport. Were they all located near one airport, or were they spread around. * The locations of toxic waste dumps. To add to my comments - Airports because of their size and late arrival to City/town development tend to end up in the old dump area or low lying swamp area etc, or have heavy industry located around them. * And yet. The other paper I referenced, whilst talking housing, does not mention airports. Ian, as you seem to have access to all this extra info, perhaps you can answer the actual points I raised..🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 6 hours ago, octave said: The phasing out of lead in car fuel in Australia had a significant effect on lead levels. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/chemicals-management/lead#:~:text=The amount of lead in Australia's air has decreased significantly,of unleaded petrol in 1986. How much of a problem is air-borne lead in Australia? "The amount of lead in Australia's air has decreased significantly since the introduction of unleaded petrol in 1986. Before the phase-out of leaded petrol, which began in 1993, the national air quality standard for lead was regularly exceeded in urban environments. Levels are now less than 10 per cent of the national annual standard of 0.5 micrograms per cubic metre of air. Lead levels remain high in some regional towns with large industrial point sources (such as lead smelters), and levels may exceed the national standards in these areas." I accept that there are many fewer aircraft than cars but I cant see that this justifies exemptions and I would imagine that the general public would think this also. BF As far as I can see your argument is that environmental sources of lead exposure are greater than the exposure from aircraft. This may generally be true although location may be relevant. Since lead is a cumulative toxin, it does not make much sense to say since we have exposure from source A and source B and that source A is is greater than source B so lets have both. Some sources of lead exposure are inevitable but the important thing is to keep lead levels below the recommended levels. It is surely sensible to control the sources we can control. The discussion is not about leaded petrol cars as such. As I have already covered, 99.999% of leaded petrol engines are now gone. And keep in mind that most of the leaded petrol cars were driven many times a week. Most piston engined aircraft in Oz don’t fly much at all - a lot of the charter ops are done with no-lead jet-A turbines or jets. “Source A, B…”… There is lead in sea spray. Are you suggesting that we ban going to the beach? Any adult who believes that nil lead is the only acceptable level would never take a child within miles of the sea side. Or creeks, or vegetables, or…… Where do you stop… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 36 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said: The discussion is not about leaded petrol cars as such. As I have already covered, 99.999% of leaded petrol engines are now gone. And keep in mind that most of the leaded petrol cars were driven many times a week Agreed an this as made a huge difference to lead levels. 38 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said: “Source A, B…”… There is lead in sea spray. Are you suggesting that we ban going to the beach? Any adult who believes that nil lead is the only acceptable level would never take a child within miles of the sea side. Or creeks, or vegetables, or…… You seem to have misinterpreted my comment. Your question is would I ban naturally occurring sources of lead. Cleary that is a nonsense proposition I refer you to what I actually said. 7 hours ago, octave said: Some sources of lead exposure are inevitable but the important thing is to keep lead levels below the recommended levels. It is surely sensible to control the sources we can control. The point is you obviously cannot ban naturally occurring sources of lead but you can have some control over lead additives. I really don't know how to put it more simply. Regardless of what percentage of lead comes from naturally occurring sources versus GA aircraft the effect is cumulative. It would be a different case if there were no alternatives. I am not advocating grounding the fleet until they all use unleaded. What I do think is that the change is coming (whether you like it or not) just as it did for cars. I can remember the fuss leading up to the phasing out of leaded fuel vehicles. I remember my father in law buying a car just before the change. In retrospect this now seems a little foolish since he has had about 6 good unleaded vehicles since. FB I still don't quite get your problem here. Apart from the fact that some engines are already designed to run on unleaded (Rotax) new fuels are coming online which do not contain lead. Gradually this fuel will become more available and its price will fall with volume. What is the problem? 58 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said: Any adult who believes that nil lead is the only acceptable level would never take a child within miles of the sea side Cleary I did not say this. There are natural causes of ionizing radiation and then there are human caused sources. The fact that we cant fully protect ourselves from the ionizing radiation from the sun does not mean we don't strive to reduce exposure from sources such as medical imaging. It is not one source of exposure compared to another source, it is the total of both sources. Apart from all of that, even if you don't accept the current thinking on this, from a purely personal perspective the fact is that our right to fly does require some social license. Any search on the internet will show numerous groups opposing GA airports on the grounds of noise and lead pollution. Noise is more difficult but the lead has a clear solution. In a few years time this argument will just seem silly. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, octave said: You seem to have misinterpreted my comment. Your question is would I ban naturally occurring sources of lead. Cleary that is a nonsense proposition I refer you to what I actually said. Not at all. You were commenting about modifying lead exposure via removing a particular source. Therefor, by not going to the beach you are removing a source of lead exposure. 2 hours ago, octave said: The point is you obviously cannot ban naturally occurring sources of lead but you can have some control over lead additives. You have compleat control over your exposure to ‘natural’ sources of lead - don’t go to the beach. Don’t eat food grown in leaded soils - which is most of Australia. Etc… 2 hours ago, octave said: I can remember the fuss leading up to the phasing out of leaded fuel vehicles So, he didn’t know where to buy the little can of wynnes additive..🤔 I don’t recall much of a fuss about the lead phase out - the cancer issue relating to the unleaded aromatics, well, thats another story. New cars were coming out with unleaded engines at the time and most of Australia’s car fleet turns over in about ten years… Aviation fleet turn over, well, thats another story… 2 hours ago, octave said: Any search on the internet will show numerous groups opposing GA airports on the grounds of noise and lead pollution. Noise is more difficult but the lead has a clear solution. So you suggest we just roll over and die, eh..🤨 I should take the blame, eh..🤨 Why should I take on blame for something that contributes 1/16 of a poofteenth of sweet-feck-all of what is nowadays in reality a minor issue ? When we get to hear back from call-sign Ian trying to explain why the answers to my questions are a little ‘lacking’, then we can cover it some more. What all-ways makes me feel silly in hind-site if when I realise I’d lost my backbone over an issue. If you read the so-called research Ian presented you will note they left out certain demographics - Why? They try to blame lead for the violence of certain ‘demographics’ on lead exposure, when they should be looking at the destruction of the family values of those groups. 😑 Edited September 9, 2022 by Flying Binghi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 8 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said: Therefor, by not going to the beach you are removing a source of lead exposure. Where do you get the notion that going to the beach exposes you to lead? Lead in water needs to remain soluble, however aqueuas lead is poorly soluble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_chloride Or from another of those dodgy government publications ] https://www.waterquality.gov.au/anz-guidelines/guideline-values/default/water-quality-toxicants/toxicants/lead-2000 Lead speciation in seawater is dominated by chloride complexing, which becomes negligible at salinities below approximately 6%. Hence increasing salinity reduces toxicity. Lead can bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms but it is generally not available at sufficient concentrations to cause significant problems. You may also note at the beginning of this article it states that Quote Anthropogenic outputs of lead to the environment outweigh all natural sources (e.g. weathering of sulfide ores, especially galena) So it's those pesky planes fueled on pure lead poising the planet 😉 Anyway this is a silly argument. Leaded fuels will be removed from circulation in the near future and future generations will be astounded that it took so long. ps I wouldn't invest in plane that struggles with unleaded fuel. (remember with investment it's the timing that's important) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 It may be a problem for warbirds and others with big radials that used 130/145 originally. They would have to de rate substantially. (Lower Manifold pressure). and maybe reduce max head temps. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 (edited) Some aircraft may require active treatments like MW50 or water injection. It worked for the germans in WW2 Edited September 9, 2022 by Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 6 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said: Not at all. You were commenting about modifying lead exposure via removing a particular source. Therefor, by not going to the beach you are removing a source of lead exposure. Are you really serious with this comment? OK then, there are many different sources of lead exposure, By the way what are the lead levels at the average beach????? Links to studies would be appreciated. Most activates us humans undertake come with some risk. Most of us mentally perform some kind or risk benefit analysis. I could go flying and this gives me a certain risk to life and limb. In flying we try to understand the risks and mitigate them. A given safety procedure goes through a risk benefit analysis or we could say that most safety procedures have up and down sides. So the question is what is the down side of adopting fuel without lead? To use your beach analogy, if I go to the beach and I am exposed to a small amount of lead I may weigh of the enjoyment I get against the small amount of lead (again please inform me what the exposure at the beach is) I get some thing good at a small risk. If I use new unleaded aviation fuel the upside is that I am not pumping out (albeit at a small amount) a substance which is toxic and more importantly to myself I am not handling a fuel with a know cumulative toxin, So this then must be weighed up against the downside which is????????????? Anyone? 26 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said: So you suggest we just roll over and die, eh..🤨 I No but it is smart to choose your battles. I understand this makes you unhappy but the reality is that whether you agree or not lead WILL disappear from fuel. You can tilt at windmills or yell at clouds but that is the reality. Change happens some find it hard to cope with. Just to remind you, there is no credible movement to ban your aeroplane. This could have been an issue if there were no alternatives BUT THERE ARE. 32 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said: Why should I take on blame for something that contributes 1/16 of a poofteenth of sweet-feck-all of what is nowadays in reality a minor issue ? No one is blaming you. After the change from leaded to unleaded those who hung on to there unleaded cars were not pilloried or run out of town. Most sensible people realized that this change was an evolution not a revolution. Aviation fuel has evolved, as I understand it there are various grades Avgas Various fuels have been phased in and out. This is no different. It is not part of some culture war. I imagine it will go something like this: My local airfield has a fuel facility that has available Mogas unleaded, Avgas LL and Jet A1. Future facilities may either have an extra tank with this new unleaded avgas or perhaps may replace mogas with this new fuel (if suitable) Perhaps at first the new unleaded will be more costly. This will probably change as the sales volume increases. Perhaps there could be a tax break to help. Gradually the unleaded fuel will become the desired product but LL can still be available for those aircraft that cannot use unleaded. I honestly don't see this as the most pressing problem facing pilots and owners. 49 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said: What all-ways makes me feel silly in hind-site if when I realise I’d lost my backbone over an issue. If you read the so-called research Ian presented you will note they left out certain demographics - Why? You do seem to be a little defensive. The thing that closes threads or gets people suspended from this forum is when people begin the drift towards personal attacks. if you feel Ian's research is not valid or cherry picked then present your facts without cherry picking. Perhaps present your evidence about lead levels at the beach. In other words don't just say "Ian's so called research" Present his offerings and critique them point by point. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 (edited) Putting some diversions up eh. Seems call-sign Ian is trying to run away from my prior questions with a subject that is new to him…😄 1 hour ago, Ian said: Lead in water needs to remain soluble, however aqueuas lead is poorly soluble… I were involved in this very same debate several years ago in pprune. Think it were call-sign Jabbawoky were pushing this new ‘fuel’ from gami…😉 Anyway, slight diversion to comprehending just what is in sea spray, or just a couple of em anyway… If yer believes Wikipedia: “…Viruses, bacteria, and plankton are ubiquitous in sea water, and this biodiversity is reflected in the composition of sea spray…” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_spray ….Yeah… don’t breath in sea spray - or if yer a fish don’t eat that stuff, because as it moves up the food chain the heavy metals, leads one of em, accumulates and then…🤨 Anyway, How goes the answers to my questions call sign Ian..🙂 . Edited September 9, 2022 by Flying Binghi 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted September 9, 2022 Share Posted September 9, 2022 I've got a pretty thick skin and would be happy to have a beer and chat with flying bikini without resorting to fisticuffs. 😉 18 hours ago, Flying Binghi said: OKaaay…. Lets try again. Ian, reference the research paper under discussion: * The actual locations of the airports - How can I identify which airports are referenced ? * The size of the airports. * The actual locations of the various groups re distance from airport. Were they all located near one airport, or were they spread around. * The locations of toxic waste dumps. To add to my comments - Airports because of their size and late arrival to City/town development tend to end up in the old dump area or low lying swamp area etc, or have heavy industry located around them. * And yet. The other paper I referenced, whilst talking housing, does not mention airports. Ian, as you seem to have access to all this extra info, perhaps you can answer the actual points I raised..🙂 It's not my job to do your homework even though I did provide you with the EPA document which has instructions on how to download their datasets over the internet. The bottom line is that there are a number of reports with similar findings. (also referenced in the biblio) Given the fact that the petroleum industry also has access to the same Government grants don't you think that if there was the slightest chance that the research was bogus they'd be in there "boots and all" demonstrating the counter argument. If you read the paper it explains the methodology and where they got their data. Your side of the argument is spurious and consists of lots of handwaving, rather than rational considered thought. Knocking down your arguments is about as exciting and challenging as shooting fish in a barrel. For example, you have made multiple reference that sea water and sea spray is a source of lead, trying to equate leaded fuel exposure to family friendly activities like visiting the beach. (Classic handwaving/misdirection argument by the way) On 07/09/2022 at 2:10 PM, Flying Binghi said: I see sea spray has lead in it. That would explain why surfers are so dumb 13 hours ago, Flying Binghi said: ….Yeah… don’t breath in sea spray - or if yer a fish don’t eat that stuff, because as it moves up the food chain the heavy metals, leads one of em, accumulates and then 18 hours ago, Flying Binghi said: “Source A, B…”… There is lead in sea spray. Are you suggesting that we ban going to the beach? Any adult who believes that nil lead is the only acceptable level would never take a child within miles of the sea side. Or creeks, or vegetables, or…… Would you be able to explain your belief in this as you've mentioned it many times. Or point to any research that indicates that people living near the coast have statistically higher levels of lead or something to hang your hat on in this regard. Basically the reverse is true, as the chloride in the salt ie sodium chloride, tends to form compounds with lead that precipate out of the water. Otherwise I'd like you to eat a bit of humble pie and admit that you were well an truly waaayyyy off base with this claim. I mean different planet off base. (This doesn't mean your whole argument is wrong though but it does create a couple of credibility issues though) If you think about basic chemistry you'd understand why this is so. It also explains why those undersea vents which you were fond of mentioning deposit lead out of solution. However the oceans are big and the huge slug of lead that we've pumped into the oceans will take a long time to settle out in the deeper water. This is also why uranium is pretty much uniformly distributed through the oceans and lead is not. However we have gone a long way from the topic of why the GAMI initiative is so important and a good thing for the aviation community. Especially in airports that have a large population centres nearby as we can substitute unleaded fuel to counter arguments that we're poisoning children. (Which the research says we're doing) Which I think everyone will agree is better than shutting them down. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Binghi Posted September 10, 2022 Share Posted September 10, 2022 On 07/09/2022 at 10:57 PM, onetrack said: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1003231#:~:text=Lead emitted from aircraft using,Agency (EPA) 2010]. Just to correct something - the research were first posted by call-sign onetrack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts