863
Pete Buttigieg forced to explain that lead is poisonous to obtuse Republican
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
863 points (97.6% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2238 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As an actual water service professional, I kind of get it. If you control pH and add corrosion inhibitors like orthophosphate, lead pipe are not a problem. Flint fiscal managers decided to skip this to save money.
Unfortunately the plan is a largely unfounded mandate ($15B won’t even cover 10% of lead lines) with a timeline that will further jack up the price due to everyone competing for materials and contractors.
The vast majority of lead poisoning comes from old paint, not lead water pipes (and leaded gasoline before that … or now if you live downwind from a general aviation airport as piston aircraft STILL use leaded gas. Yet we won’t ban that ‘cause rich people own those planes).
Not that it isn’t good to remove lead. It’s just the aggressive timeline. It would be smarter to have a longer timeline where it is paired with replacing the main as well, as it is a smaller marginal cost to do both at the same time. The corrosion control can buy us plenty of time. I personally have a lead connection and a state licensed lab detected zero lead in my water.
But to phrase it as a state’s rights issue and claim the benefits are speculative is stupid.
As an actual aviation professional, I'm going to object to "waterworks made of lead pipes: too expensive to fix. 100LL aviation gasoline: Rich people refuse to change."
First of all, rich people own jets, which don't burn leaded gasoline.
Aircraft tend to last longer in service than cars do; airplanes are expensive machines. You'll also find that they don't change very quickly because certifying aircraft components such as engines is a very expensive thing to do. Plus, YOU go get an insurance company to cover a new type of aircraft they don't already have accident statistics for.
But, things are happening. So lemme tell ya what has, is, and will be done to reduce and eliminate leaded gasoline from our skies:
The Light Sport rule. in 2004 new certification standards for aircraft, pilots and repairmen were created which opened up the small end of general aviation. We basically didn't have anything that resembled Europe's "ultralight" rules. USA's Ultralight rules (FAR part 103) more closely resembled Europe's "Microlight" rules. The vast majority of light sport aircraft are powered by Rotax 900-series engines, or Jabiru or the occasional Continental O-200, all of which can run on unleaded automotive gasoline. Every single hour of instruction I've given to a student has been on unleaded gasoline. There's a proposal right now to expand the Light Sport rule that will do anything from increase the scope of what can be certified as a Light Sport Aircraft, and to open their operating limitations. For instance right now as I type this it is illegal to operate a Light Sport Aircraft for compensation or hire except to provide flight training. They're looking to open them up to things like aerial photography, pipeline patrol etc. which would not only allow these operations to be performed on unleaded gasoline, but less gasoline overall. A Cessna 172 burns between 6 and 8 gallons of 100LL per hour, a Flight Design CT burns between 2.5 and 5 gallons of premium MOGAS per hour. Every operation that can switch to a Light Sport Aircraft can reduce their carbon footprint and eliminate their lead footprint.
Diesel engines. I've seen both Cessna and Diamond install turbo-diesels based on some Mercedes-Benz engine, intending to run these on Jet-A fuel which is and always has been unleaded. It's been slow going though; Diamond only offers this on their Twinstar model (and they had some issues with it for awhile; there were some made with Lycoming gasoline engines) and Cessna canceled theirs.
The EAGLE initiative has set a goal to Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions by 2030 by finding a fuel acceptable to replace 100LL in service. This is non-trivial, the testing on all the various engines in service on some surprisingly old aircraft, not only their power plants but the fuel systems as a whole is significant. Many airplanes can't tolerate ethanol as a fuel additive because it will react with sealants used in the tanks and lines, for instance.
Rich people have prop planes. You don't have to be Elon Musk private jet rich to be rich. If you own even a 1960s Cessna 172 costs tens of thousands, not to mention thousands a year in maintenance to keep it airworthy, with regular inspections and overhalls, not to mention storage costs as you will need a hanger or at least a tie-down at some airfield. If you own an airworthy aircraft, you are well within the top 10% at least, and likely in the top 1%. I really am tired of people who act like because there are people far richer than them that it somehow means they cannot be rich. There are degrees of being rich.
Yes, planes last a long time. So what? Is that an excuse to poison people with lead? The fact is, children who live close to airports have higher lead levels..
If you want to talk about lasting a long time, try houses. My utility banned lead as a connection material in 1953. But there are 140,000 that were installed before then that are still active. We are not getting a pass on it in 2024 like aviation does.
Led gasoline was banned in 1996. The EPA started to phase it out in 1973. Aviation has had plenty of time to get moving on alternatives, but they have drug their feet. They don't get kudos for doing something about lead now.
You don't have to be Elon Musk rich to be private jet rich either.
I started flying in 2001, earned my private license in 2005 and my instructor certificate in 2010. I've spent some time in and around the flying community. The aircraft owners I encountered were pretty solidly middle class. Business owners, soldiers, a lot of retirees, a few college professors, college students, the occasional lawyer. And quite a few professional pilots.
There's this idea on Lemmy that anyone who can afford to fill their car all the way up with gas is "rich." A lot of people are rightly mad about that kind of middle class lifestyle being denied them. We absolutely should be guillotining people over it. But owning a piston single isn't as elite as you seem to think it is.
Yes they do. "30 years ago or never" doesn't help anyone.
Piston-powered airplanes aren't only used by private owners; they're heavily used in training fleets. Go look at what it costs to become a commercial pilot, let alone an airline transport pilot. Look at how much the world depends on commercial aviation, and then let me ask you: Where do you want society to bear the cost of certifying new engines to replace the existing fleets of trainers?
It genuinely is as big a task as ripping up all those lead water pipes. The 20th century absolutely did fuck us over. And we are fixing it.
Your definition of middle class is very different than mine. The middle class can’t be 90% of people. It takes less than you might think to fall in the top 10 and 20 percent, and I’d call being in that upper quintile being rich.
And I never said “30 years ago or never.” But aviation needed to start 40+ years ago. All the more reason to have done so since you say it is a monumental task. Instead, the aviation community continues to drag its feet. Had we done something earlier, perhaps we would have had better means to train people today.
And there absolutely have been new engines developed since lead gas was banned for cars. The Lycoming IO-390 came out in 2002, was certified in 2009, and was STILL designed to take leaded gas and only leaded gas!
That’s besides the fact that building a world that relies on just-in-time deliveries flown around the globe was monumentally stupid.
Also, aviation is for profit. I don’t believe in socializing the losses and privatizing the profits. Water utilities are almost entirely nonprofit, and we don’t get near enough funding.
But I would bet that will the tools we have in water to control lead leaching that aviation poisons more with lead than water. It’s time aviation be forced to change at least as much as water is.
So you want society to pay those costs in air fares. You want to throw away a lot of the GA fleet, including a vast majority of the trainer aircraft in service. You'd see a lot of flight schools especially smaller ones just fold because their current aircraft is useless and unmarketable, so they have no capital with which to buy new ones. A lot of flight instructors would lose their jobs, and flight instructor certificates are the only ones issued under Part 61 that expire. With fewer people being trained as private pilots you'd have a much smaller pool of mostly richer young folks to pull from for commercial aviation, so the main effect of this will be flying will become a rich son's way to demand more money from society.
The IO-390 is a derivative of the IO-360, which itself dates back to the 1950's. Funnily enough it's rated for a similar horsepower range to the O-360, but with 30 more cubic inches, basically having the same bore and stroke as the IO-580 but with 4 cylinders rather than 6. I wonder why they bothered.
You get to cherry pick an example, I get to cherry pick an example. The Rotax 915 was type certified a few years ago, it runs on premium automotive gasoline, features electronic capacitor discharge ignition, electronic fuel injection, turbocharged induction, dry sump lubrication, and a host of other features. It makes 141 horsepower, fairly close to the Continental O-300 that pulled early model Skyhawks. They just recently announced a 916 version that makes 160 horsepower, which is the same rating as early Lycoming powered Skyhawks. And they'll make their rated horsepower up to 15,000 feet. Couple that with a constant speed propeller and you've got a hell of a power plant for a trainer in both performance and efficiency, for both climbs and cruise.
In 2004 the Light Sport rule was adopted, which put thousands of brand new lead-free GA trainers in the air, replacing an aging fleet of Cessna 152s and the like. It's been such a success that there's an initiative underway (MOSAIC) right now to expand the scope of Special Airworthiness Certificates to include significantly larger and higher performance aircraft, which stands an excellent chance of modernizing the GA fleet, making it much more practical to market new airframes and powerplants to flight schools and other GA operations. Part of the proposal is to remove engine-specific language from the rule to allow for electric propulsion.
The EAGLE initiative seeks to find a lead free substitute for 100LL by the end of the decade.
But you keep going off.
Yes, that’s how capitalism works. You want the government to pay, the industry should be nationalized. When other industries pollute, we don’t expect the government to pay to help them fix their issues.
Yes BECAUSE YOU ARE POISONING CHILDREN WITH LEAD, a fact you continue to ignore. You just want to keep doing what you are doing and say in the back of your mind “fuck them kids.”
As, as you keep missing the point, had aviation been working on the problem sooner, perhaps it wouldn’t be such an issue now.
And, yes, I grabbed an example that demonstrated the issue. Lycoming, on of the largest piston aircraft manufacturers, was still pushing forward with tetraethyl lead decades after we knew the dangers of tetraethyl lead. I know certification is time consuming and expensive, but no one tries for a long time. If aviation didn’t drag its feet, they should have been working on the issue since the early 90s at least. Saying “in 2004” proves my point. They are only doing it because they finally see that their hand will be forced. Once lead pipes are gone and lead paint is abated, when kids keep showing up with high blood levels of lead, they will know it’s from the only industry that still uses lead.
And before you blame the FAA, 2 words: regulatory capture. Just so happens they are staffed with people from the aviation industry.
The fact is, the claim is always about safety. Can’t leave 100LL, other fuels are too dangerous. But why isn’t it EVERYONE’S safety? Lead poisoning is a serious issue that has been glossed over in aviation. And the victims are innocent, often poor people (because who else is forced to live in cheaper land near airports), and especially their children. For a supposedly safety focused industry, y’all seem to not give a shit about the people on the ground.
Well let me ask you a question: What have you personally done about it?
I've submitted comments on the MOSAIC and EAGLE initiatives, I conducted much of my own flight training and all that of my students in lead-free aircraft, I've served as a light sport repairman to make owning and operating lead-free aircraft in my local area much more plausible and affordable, I've educated all my students on the dangers of leaded gasoline, I was among the voices that got MOGAS pumps installed at two local airports to enable pilots with MOGAS compatible aircraft to operate on unleaded fuel.
Have you so much as written to your congressman? Or do you just want to bitch at people on the internet?
I have written about it. Didn’t receive a response. I also made public comments of proposed lead regulations in my own industry, pointing out the incongruity of taking little to no federal action on lead paint and avgas. If we have to have a tight timeline to replace millions of lead lines, so should avgas and far fewer aircraft.
Glad you are doing something. Sorry, it just seems you continue to defend using leaded fuel as well as the inaction of the aviation industry through the 80s and 90s even as the dangers of leaded fuel were well understood. The fact that ANYONE is still allowed to use leaded fuel truly boggles my mind.
Well also remember: The aviation sector as a whole has done a LOT to reduce its lead footprint since 1950. Used to be, everything from two seat trainers to transcontinental airliners burned leaded gasoline in reciprocating engines. Now it is fairly rare to find a reciprocating engine of more than 350 horsepower or so in service as they have largely been replaced with turboprops. Sometimes literally replaced; I know of several operations that use older airframes like DeHavilland Beavers/Otters, Grumman Geese/Mallards, or even Douglas DC-3s that have swapped their old radial engines for Pratt & Whitney PT-6s.
Old 80/87 red AVGAS was phased out before I started flying, I've never seen any in person. Granted some aircraft rated for it just started burning 100LL but others started using regular automotive gasoline. 115/145 purple AVGAS was also phased out, though I understand it's made in small batches for certain motorsports events? Even 100/130 green AVGAS is rare to find; 100LL blue AVGAS is meant to do the job of 100/130 with less lead. The industry as a whole has made a lot of broad strokes, now we're working on the details.
Before the 60s, people didn’t consider what tetraethyl lead was doing. It was the groundbreaking work of Clair Cameron Patterson that finally exposed it. Even then industry fought him for years. I would far and away attribute most of those early gains to the wide adoption of faster and higher flying jet aircraft that thankfully do not use leaded fuel. And even turboprops have seen wide adoption, not because of lead fuel, but because they have superior performance and can support higher altitudes.
But, again, I find it unconscionable that in 2024 leaded fuel is still used. Sorry it effects you livelihood (it sure as hell effects mine even though we figured out how to mitigate it 30 years ago and would have stayed that way if it weren’t for some moron tea party Republicans in Michigan that thought they knew more than experts), but our children can’t wait. Hopefully, now nearly 60 years after Dr. Patterson exposed how bad leaded fuel is, leaded gas can finally die.
I can't speak to the rest of your post, but if you own and maintain even the smallest Cessna for personal use, you are rich to me, and you are rich to anyone I've ever known personally, and you are rich to most people. That's like saying owning a Ferrari doesn't make you rich.
Partial and group ownership is incredibly common now because everything is so expensive. I'm making ~$60k and 'own' 1/20th of a plane (Cessna 177) that none of us could reasonably afford alone. Admittedly that's not struggling, but it's not a ton of money in my part of the country either. It's just prioritizing spending on getting to fly instead of other hobbies.
Most flight instructors / people going for the airlines are in similar partnerships or at a flight school using those small planes to eventually get enough hours to go to the airlines. They're usually making less than I am.
OK that's fair, I was ignorant of that. But is this the case for most small planes? (Maybe it is, I truly don't know.)
Middle class != rich.
I've met almost no one who owns a brand new Cessna Skyhawk as a "I'm a private pilot, it's mine. I go flying on pretty weekends in it." Because yeah, the aviation equivalent of a Toyota Corolla costs nearly half a million dollars new. Pretty much all new Skyhawks go to school fleets, the likes of ATC or ERAU.
Older used aircraft can be had for considerably less; a small airplane is within the reach of a middle class income. You might own a plane instead of a Corvette or a Winnebago, you might buy a plane instead of remodeling your house, but its within reach if it's your 'thing.'
A lot of the aircraft owners I've met are instructors or other aviation professionals, owning an aircraft is a business expense at that point.
Then you get into fractional ownership or flying clubs, where say, you and four other guys you met in flight school buy an airplane together and split the expenses, and share a Google calendar of who gets the plane when. Membership dues-based flying clubs are fairly popular, because they can offer lots of people ownership-like access to a fleet of various planes. A large local club to me is the Wings of Carolina, which when I last checked in owned two C-152s, two Piper Cherokees, two Mooney Bravos and a twin of some kind, and the individual membership dues were less than the ownership cost of one of those 152s.
The funniest part to me is how many airplanes seem to be owned by no one. The number of airplanes tied down to the typical GA ramp with flat tires and flaking paint is...interesting to me.
Hmm interesting thank you very much for the additional info!
Nah owning a Ferrari or airplane doesn't mean you're rich. Keeping one running in the long term probably does, more so.
I can tell you that at least some of the people you see driving around in Ferraris just won a six figure personal injury settlement and spent all the money in the course of days or weeks. I would say even if you had one million in the bank, that isn't rich. It will certainly provide a great deal of comfort and options, or one Ferrari and some options, and will open some doors, but it's much closer to abject poverty and homelessness than having like a $1 billion, or even $100,000,000.