[PASSED] Ban on Leaded Fuel

[Normlpeople]

Of course, if this passed, demand for vehicles capable of running on or being converted to run on unleaded fuels would greatly increases in WA nations, creating significant for emerging manufacturers. If anything, it is the entrenched, established manufacturers more likely to suffer.

"From our economic standpoint, since we are not real big on using automobiles for personal use, we export most of them. The demand is overwhelmingly in favor of those that run on unleaded fuel, and it would be trivial to simply stop production on leaded models, especially since demand for unleaded ones will go up. Again though, it is a fairly simple conversion for those that would be willing, or forced, to make it."

OOC: Just something that came to mind, how would this affect Aviation fuel? Most small aircraft still utilize leaded gasoline IRL....

Edit: Ned sum spelong skilz

[The Dark Star Republic]

Bloody hell, I ned sum speling skilz too. What was I on when I was typing that?

Just something that came to mind, how would this affect Aviation fuel? Most small aircraft still utilize leaded gasoline IRL....

Good point, though there are efforts to reduce that too.

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC: Just something that came to mind, how would this affect Aviation fuel? Most small aircraft still utilize leaded gasoline IRL....

OOC; They do? Oops! I hadn't known that, and thought that differences in the typical hydrocarbon mix used-- and maybe in the actual engines, too -- meant that 'knocking' simply wasn't a problem for them. Could they run on the same sorts of 'improved' unleaded that have been used in RL to replace leaded fuel in cars, or are there problems that rule this out?

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Just something that came to mind, how would this affect Aviation fuel? Most small aircraft still utilize leaded gasoline IRL....

OOC; They do?

Some of them do. And there are efforts to reduce this anyway.

But if it wasn't your intention to include aviation fuel, it wouldn't take much to rewrite an exclusion.

[Wrapper]

Jet engines and turboprops don't, but some prop-driven engines use leaded fuel.

[Jarish Inyo]

I'm not basing anything on just anecdotal evidence. I base off the knowledge of 3 medical professionals in my family. People who do everything I stated in my previous comments and are in good health.

That EXACTLY fits the definition of anecdotal evidence. Now go learn some more science before you embarrass yourself further.

No it doesn't. The people I'm basing my opinion on and taking advice from are trained medical with years of experience and schooling. I'm not looking up articles on the web and basing my opinion on what I find there. Like some here. I go to someone with a degree and experience. I base my opinion on that. Simple fact is that one study can saying something is unhealthy today and a new study can come out tomorrow saying that it is healthy.

Lead in fuel is not a serious health risk. No one has died from the use of leaded fuel. Banning leaded fuel does not reduce the health hazard created the combustion engine.

[Mundiferrum]

No it doesn't. The people I'm basing my opinion on and taking advice from are trained medical with years of experience and schooling. I'm not looking up articles on the web and basing my opinion on what I find there. Like some here. I go to someone with a degree and experience. I base my opinion on that. Simple fact is that one study can saying something is unhealthy today and a new study can come out tomorrow saying that it is healthy.

Look, your grandparents may have degrees, but since no peer-reviewed research was actually done on their situations (ie they didn't observe their own cases scientifically), and since only two people is too small a sample size for information relating to medical health, plus the fact that their story is contrary to scientific consensus (ie they're most likely abberations, which do happen), and the fact that their accounts aren't from third-person observations, what evidence you're giving here is in no way scientific; it's all anecdotal, based on stories that aren't backed by anything.

Lead in fuel is not a serious health risk. No one has died from the use of leaded fuel. Banning leaded fuel does not reduce the health hazard created the combustion engine.

Lead in general is a serious health risk. It being in fuels propagates it in the air and spreads it to different people and such. No one has been recorded to have directly died of lead poisoning to fuels, yes, but no one has also been recorded to have directly died of absorbing the by-products of regular fuel consumed, too; the deaths lead poisoning through these have fuels have caused were often traced to lead poisoning indirectly. However, this lack of directness cannot considered to be unequivocal proof that banning leaded fuel is unreasonable; it still kills (or if it doesn't exactly kill, it at least has generally negative effects on the health of those merely prolongedly exposed to it (lowered IQ, headaches, anaemia)), and what's more, it's not even a necessary component in fuel.

[Hakio]

Lead in fuel is not a serious health risk. No one has died from the use of leaded fuel. Banning leaded fuel does not reduce the health hazard created the combustion engine.

Lead in general is a serious health risk. It being in fuels propagates it in the air and spreads it to different people and such. No one has been recorded to have directly died of lead poisoning to fuels, yes, but no one has also been recorded to have directly died of absorbing the by-products of regular fuel consumed, too; the deaths lead poisoning through these have fuels have caused were often traced to lead poisoning indirectly. However, this lack of directness cannot considered to be unequivocal proof that banning leaded fuel is unreasonable; it still kills (or if it doesn't exactly kill, it at least has generally negative effects on the health of those merely prolongedly exposed to it (lowered IQ, headaches, anaemia)), and what's more, it's not even a necessary component in fuel.

Couldn't have said it better myself. There's a very good reason why lead is not in almost any of our products anymore; mainly a little thing called lead poisoning.

[Defwa]

OOC: Just something that came to mind, how would this affect Aviation fuel? Most small aircraft still utilize leaded gasoline IRL....

OOC; They do? Oops! I hadn't known that, and thought that differences in the typical hydrocarbon mix used-- and maybe in the actual engines, too -- meant that 'knocking' simply wasn't a problem for them. Could they run on the same sorts of 'improved' unleaded that have been used in RL to replace leaded fuel in cars, or are there problems that rule this out?

OOC: Its not a huge issue. I thought about it earlier but didn't care enough to say. Use of leaded fuel in some small planes happens but there are non lead substitutes for most engines. According to what I read, they're just not being adopted very fast [in the US] because nobody is requiring adoption. Funnily enough, this time table would put the WA banning leaded aviation fuels on te same time table as the united s tates.

[Jarish Inyo]

Mundiferrum,

It's not only two people. As I stated before, there are those that live pass the age of a hundred. They have stated that the secret to them living so long is that they have lived the life the way they always did. They still smoke, drink and kept what is now considered an unhealthy diet now. Basically doing everything contrary to scientific consensus.

Most of us can agree that large amounts of lead is unhealthy and potently deadly. But lead is a naturally accruing substance. It is found naturally in soil. That means all of us have eaten or inhaled lead. Fact is that lead is still used in the manufacturing of plumbing solder, pottery glazes, toys, and cosmetics.

But this proposal isn't about banning one type of lead, Tetra-Ethyl Lead. Fuel with Tetra-Ethyl Lead in it is no more damaging to the environment then unleaded fuel. And for those that said I should science, here is what your science shows in the real world. According to the US EPA and other studies, contact with exhaust emissions from vehicles using leaded fuels do not show an increase in lead poisoning. In fact, if you live in a town near a lead mine or a factory that does smelting, you have a greater chance of getting lead poisoning then the average person living in the middle of the most car ridden city on the planet.

I can't see banning leaded fuel for the environmental reasons listed in this proposal. The real world science doesn't support it environmentally or as a health issue. Leaded fuel doesn't cause more damage to the environment then unleaded fuel. It doesn't lead to lead poisoning.

[Defwa]

Mundiferrum,

It's not only two people. As I stated before, there are those that live pass the age of a hundred. They have stated that the secret to them living so long is that they have lived the life the way they always did. They still smoke, drink and kept what is now considered an unhealthy diet now. Basically doing everything contrary to scientific consensus.

Most of us can agree that large amounts of lead is unhealthy and potently deadly. But lead is a naturally accruing substance. It is found naturally in soil. That means all of us have eaten or inhaled lead. Fact is that lead is still used in the manufacturing of plumbing solder, pottery glazes, toys, and cosmetics.

But this proposal isn't about banning one type of lead, Tetra-Ethyl Lead. Fuel with Tetra-Ethyl Lead in it is no more damaging to the environment then unleaded fuel. And for those that said I should science, here is what your science shows in the real world. According to the US EPA and other studies, contact with exhaust emissions from vehicles using leaded fuels do not show an increase in lead poisoning. In fact, if you live in a town near a lead mine or a factory that does smelting, you have a greater chance of getting lead poisoning then the average person living in the middle of the most car ridden city on the planet.

I can't see banning leaded fuel for the environmental reasons listed in this proposal. The real world science doesn't support it environmentally or as a health issue. Leaded fuel doesn't cause more damage to the environment then unleaded fuel. It doesn't lead to lead poisoning.

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of an aberration. That's when a small population goes against the general trend. Lots of things can cause statistical aberrations but they're so small that they are beside the point.
Perhaps you should treat them with the same skepticism you treat peer reviewed studies with.

I don't know what studies you're referring to because you didn't source any, but using modern sense- yes living next to a lead mine or smelting factory is going to result in more lead exposures than fellating a car because cars don't use lead anymore.
Here's a bulletin from the world health organization that tells you why you're an idiot. http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/80%2810%29768.pdf

[Mundiferrum]

Mundiferrum,

It's not only two people. As I stated before, there are those that live pass the age of a hundred. They have stated that the secret to them living so long is that they have lived the life the way they always did. They still smoke, drink and kept what is now considered an unhealthy diet now. Basically doing everything contrary to scientific consensus.

Oh yes, because a few hundredogenerians who live while smoking a lot is clear evidence that smoking and drinking doesn't kill. You're pretty much ignoring the thousands, nay probably MILLIONS of people who've died because of cancer caused by nicotine, alcohol, by the very life-oh, nevermind, since you obviously will not understand this from me, and since this is completely irrelevant to this resolution, I'm not gonna pursue this anymore.

Most of us can agree that large amounts of lead is unhealthy and potently deadly. But lead is a naturally accruing substance. It is found naturally in soil. That means all of us have eaten or inhaled lead. Fact is that lead is still used in the manufacturing of plumbing solder, pottery glazes, toys, and cosmetics.

But soil does not have the same amount of lead as the atmospheres of areas using leaded gasoline. PLUS, the lead in soil isn't in a form readily consumable to most creatures, unlike, say, lead mixed with volatiles.
Leaded toys are currently regulated for being dangerous. Leaded cosmetics, too: look on info about dear old Queen Elizabeth for what lead cosmetics can do to your body, for starters. Although in general, the lead you're referring to there is, once again, not in the same league as lead mixed with volatiles, as in the lead related to this issue.

But this proposal isn't about banning one type of lead, Tetra-Ethyl Lead. Fuel with Tetra-Ethyl Lead in it is no more damaging to the environment then unleaded fuel. And for those that said I should science, here is what your science shows in the real world. According to the US EPA and other studies,

OOC: This is the US EPA website (or at least a branch of it): http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/airpage.nsf ... s+Phaseout
Some response by the US DOE: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/g ... n99615.htm
Another publication on leaded gasoline: http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/ethylwar/IJOEH.pdf Check the damn references list there.
Technical paper from the world bank (not sure anymore if this is relevant): http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTU ... hasing.pdf
Hey look, something on lead and crime: http://www3.amherst.edu/~jwreyes/papers/LeadCrime.pdf

contact with exhaust emissions from vehicles using leaded fuels do not show an increase in lead poisoning. In fact, if you live in a town near a lead mine or a factory that does smelting, you have a greater chance of getting lead poisoning then the average person living in the middle of the most car ridden city on the planet.

Partly OOC: You're probably citing leaded gas company backed researches from the 1950s or modern day researches. For the former, obviously their backers didn't want them publishing the general consensus; for the latter, that's because, due to the discontinuing of leaded fuel use in the United States, lead concentrations in the air aren't as great anymore, so the hazards are greatly reduced.

I can't see banning leaded fuel for the environmental reasons listed in this proposal. The real world science doesn't support it environmentally or as a health issue. Leaded fuel doesn't cause more damage to the environment then unleaded fuel. It doesn't lead to lead poisoning

OOC: Oh god oh god oh god oh god stop please stop please stop. Simply typing "lead gasoline" in google will give you A TON of peer-reviewed papers on how leaded gasoline is STUPID and NOT GOOD FOR YOU. Do you think multiple governments will stop production of something enriching their lead mining industries if it wasn't at all LETHAL TO THEIR POPULATIONS? I am getting really, really tired of trying to get into your [redacted] head!

IC: Gravey begins to cry for this show of travesties to reasonable thinking. "I thought you were only allowed to be unreasonable in your home country, the Strangers' Bar, and foreign policy! BWAaaaaaahhhhhh!"

[Imperializt Russia]

Mundiferrum,

It's not only two people. As I stated before, there are those that live pass the age of a hundred. They have stated that the secret to them living so long is that they have lived the life the way they always did. They still smoke, drink and kept what is now considered an unhealthy diet now. Basically doing everything contrary to scientific consensus.

Most of us can agree that large amounts of lead is unhealthy and potently deadly. But lead is a naturally accruing substance. It is found naturally in soil. That means all of us have eaten or inhaled lead. Fact is that lead is still used in the manufacturing of plumbing solder, pottery glazes, toys, and cosmetics.

But this proposal isn't about banning one type of lead, Tetra-Ethyl Lead. Fuel with Tetra-Ethyl Lead in it is no more damaging to the environment then unleaded fuel. And for those that said I should science, here is what your science shows in the real world. According to the US EPA and other studies, contact with exhaust emissions from vehicles using leaded fuels do not show an increase in lead poisoning. In fact, if you live in a town near a lead mine or a factory that does smelting, you have a greater chance of getting lead poisoning then the average person living in the middle of the most car ridden city on the planet.

I can't see banning leaded fuel for the environmental reasons listed in this proposal. The real world science doesn't support it environmentally or as a health issue. Leaded fuel doesn't cause more damage to the environment then unleaded fuel. It doesn't lead to lead poisoning.

I tried to explain this to you before.

Probability.

There are an estimated 316,000 people over the age of 100 in the world. Of seven billion. Only one in a thousand centenarians reach the age of 110.

Reaching the age of 100 is something called a four-sigma event. The probably lies four sigma outside of the mean - that is to say, it is outside more than 99.993% of all probability.

[Jarish Inyo]

Defwa,

You are right. I should treat them with the same skepticism I treat peer reviewed studies with.

But the bulletin from the world health organization that tell I'm an idiot. It really doesn't prove that leaded fuel is really a health issue. While it states that lead in the blood stream has lowered since most nations have stopped using leaded, it doesn't show that there has been any decline in health of those nations while they were using leaded fuels. The only case of extreme health issues had happen was a case that happened in 1922 were workers were exposed to concentrated Tetra-Ethyl Lead. And it stated that the plant was closed until working conditions were approved. After that, the bulletin does not mention any other cases of serious health issues or deaths. The lack of actual data in the bulletin linking leaded fuel to any health issues is a concern to me.

Mundiferrum,

The lead in the soil is in a form readily consumable form. You inhale it every day, unless you live in some clean environment that dust can not get into. As kids, some, if not most, eat dirt. Lead was part of that dirt.

Let's start with the first source, the EPA's Leaded Gas Phaseout. It only states that all lead is extremely toxic. It does not give any other reason then that for why it was phasing out leaded fuel. It sites no cases of leaded fuel causing a health risk.

Your second source states the same as the first. All lead is a toxic element. It also states that it is bad catalytic converters. Still not one citation on actual cases where leaded fuels caused lead poisoning or other health issue.

Your third source is slightly better then your first, but still focuses on lead poisoning at fuel refineries. It doesn't have any evidence of a health issue to the general public. It doesn't cite one incident out side of the refineries that leaded fuel endangers the public anymore then unleaded fuel, mining or any other acceptable way we pollute our environment.

Your fourth source while interesting, also doesn't cite any real evidence. It's more about the possible economic benefits of phasing leaded fuel. I did like how it went into the technical aspects of retooling the refineries.

Your fifth source is someone's theory that the phasing out of leaded fuel leads to less crime. While interesting to read, it doesn't have any evidence to directly support it. It discounts other factors that may have played a part in lowering the crime rate at that time.

No, I didn't cite company backed researches. I'm not foolish enough to trust what a company sponsored research group says. I know they are bias towards the company's point of view. I didn't base my opinion on just the United States. Their are other countries that use leaded fuel. Tetra-Ethyl Lead is still being produced.

Yes, I do think that multiple countries will stop anything if the politicians think it will keep them in office. Leaded fuel isn't lethal to their populations. If it was, then the world would have not have the population it has today. It is all about you spin the story. The oil companies knew this and did it well for decades.

The sources shown here do not show that leaded fuel is serious health risk, environmental risk, or international issue. All they have shown is that lead in general is bad.

If anyone can supply me with sources citing actual cases where lead poisoning or a health was compromised in an average person not working in a refinery, I'd gladly admit I was wrong and an idiot.

[Mundiferrum]

Mundiferrum,

The lead in the soil is in a form readily consumable form. You inhale it every day, unless you live in some clean environment that dust can not get into. As kids, some, if not most, eat dirt. Lead was part of that dirt.

Yes, I know. My frustration reached a boiling point there.

Let's start with the first source, the EPA's Leaded Gas Phaseout. It only states that all lead is extremely toxic. It does not give any other reason then that for why it was phasing out leaded fuel. It sites no cases of leaded fuel causing a health risk.

Let me examine your logic here:
Leaded fuel=fuel with lead.
All lead is extremely toxic.
So leaded fuel....is still not a health risk?

You cited the EPA in your former argument. If the EPA is saying "hey, leaded fuel ain't bad", then why would they sponsor this sort of legislation? This mightn't advance the scientific character of my point, but it somehow eats away at yours.

Your second source states the same as the first. All lead is a toxic element. It also states that it is bad catalytic converters. Still not one citation on actual cases where leaded fuels caused lead poisoning or other health issue.

Let me examine your logic here again:
Leaded fuel=fuel with lead.
All lead is extremely toxic.
So leaded fuel....is still not a health risk?

And using your logic of "hey, he's a professional, so he's probably right", I'd say that the guy with a PhD in this source saying that there's papers on leaded fuel being directly bad is credible.

And yes, normal fuel without lead is also toxic, but do you really think that adding lead to them is actually a good thing?

Your third source is slightly better then your first, but still focuses on lead poisoning at fuel refineries. It doesn't have any evidence of a health issue to the general public. It doesn't cite one incident out side of the refineries that leaded fuel endangers the public anymore then unleaded fuel, mining or any other acceptable way we pollute our environment.

I told you to read the references section, not just the article itself; those definitely have something which directly link leaded fuel to health risks.

Your fourth source while interesting, also doesn't cite any real evidence. It's more about the possible economic benefits of phasing leaded fuel. I did like how it went into the technical aspects of retooling the refineries.

Returning to the issue of your logic here,
Leaded fuel=fuel with lead.
All lead is extremely toxic.
So leaded fuel....is still not a health risk?
Also, the article cited here had a section regarding (and entitled) "Health Impacts of Leaded Gasoline", stating once again that lead is bad, and that "Vehicular traffic is the largest source of lead exposure in many areas", based on studies cited in the paper.

Your fifth source is someone's theory that the phasing out of leaded fuel leads to less crime. While interesting to read, it doesn't have any evidence to directly support it. It discounts other factors that may have played a part in lowering the crime rate at that time.

That source....is actually completely unrelated.

No, I didn't cite company backed researches. I'm not foolish enough to trust what a company sponsored research group says. I know they are bias towards the company's point of view. I didn't base my opinion on just the United States. Their are other countries that use leaded fuel. Tetra-Ethyl Lead is still being produced.

Though so far, you haven't clearly cited anything.

Yes, I do think that multiple countries will stop anything if the politicians think it will keep them in office. Leaded fuel isn't lethal to their populations. If it was, then the world would have not have the population it has today. It is all about you spin the story. The oil companies knew this and did it well for decades.

It's not directly lethal (pardon me if I've been spouting that nonsense this whole time), but it's a damn poison that even in small amounts can have drastic effects to the body. Sure, nations wouldn't be autokilled by using leaded fuel, but their citizens would definitely get sicker, or more prone to sickness, some even to death. Which, obviously, is not a good thing.

Also, this argument is starting to make me note that perhaps you're one of those crackpot, unreasonable conspiracy theorists.

The sources shown here do not show that leaded fuel is serious health risk, environmental risk, or international issue. All they have shown is that lead in general is bad.

They do. Let me add that, excluding the first, second, and mayhaps the fifth sources, the sites I cited further linked to researches that more directly show that leaded fuel is bad.

If anyone can supply me with sources citing actual cases where lead poisoning or a health was compromised in an average person not working in a refinery, I'd gladly admit I was wrong and an idiot.

LITERALLY not the only thing needed to prove that leaded gasoline can be lethal. That's pretty much ignoring ALL scientific evidence in your face in favor of anecdotal evidence. That's completely illogical. One doesn't need to see someone directly die of something in order to determine whether that something is lethal or not.

(possible fallacy, but I'll give it a shot)
Lead is also a causer of multiple diseases; in the period of time wherein leaded gasoline was common, and lead concentrations were dangerously high in the atmosphere, multiple people died of those kinds of diseases. Though the links were not directly established til' the 70s (or something), I am doubtless that any number of those who died of lead-caused diseases then died because of lead in gas.

Plonk: http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/leadguidance.pdf

[Jarish Inyo]

Mundiferrum,

I did not state that all lead is extremely toxic. As I stated earlier, lead is still in many items we use to day. Large concentrations of lead is extremely toxic. I did not state that all lead is bad. Your sources stated that. So starting off, your examination of my logic is already flawed. I've pointed out that lead is all around use naturally. That small amounts of lead is not as harmful as everyone is making them out to be.

Point one: The EPA never sponsored this sort of legislation. It is from this type of legislation. The EPA had nothing to do with the banning of leaded fuel.

Point two: While you second source my have been replied by a Ph.D, and Assistant Dirctor of a Chemical company. He did not state hat there's papers on leaded fuel being directly bad. He did not cite any papers. He just made too statements. As to it being a good idea to add lead to fuel is a good thing. If it makes my car run more efficiently and allows me to get better gas mileage, then yes.

Point three: I did read the article and the references section. Outside of refineries, where people came into direct contact of concentrated lead, it does not have anything that directly links leaded fuel to health risks. If you think I'm wrong, please show me which of the 110 references actually states it is.

Point four: I read that section. There isn't a source you provided that doesn't state that lead is bad. But the "Health Impacts of Leaded Gasoline" section does not cite anything other then elevation of lead in the blood. It does not actually state that the people in in the study was unhealthy in anyway. The terms it uses is estimated and believe. So, where is the evidence that shows that leaded fuel is harmful in that source?

Point five: Why did you include it then? Were you not trying to show that leaded fuel leads to physical and mental health issues?

While I'll agree that lead is a poison, I do not think that in small amounts that can have drastic effects to the body. Life on Earth has been taking small amounts of lead into their for several million years. It doesn't seem to have affected life on this planet.

I'm not a crack pot or crackpot, unreasonable conspiracy theorists. I just want actual proof that the small amount of lead in the fuel is an actual environmental and health concern. So far, no one has shown it's an actual environmental concern.

Your third and fourth sources does not link to farther research or researchers that more directly show that leaded fuel is bad. They only show elevated lead levels in the bloodstream.

I'm not ignoring all scientific evidence in favor of , what you believe to be, anecdotal evidence. I'm just not convinced that the small amount of lead that ends up in the air and on the soil is as bad as hazardous as people are trying to make it out to be. If it was, wouldn't there have been epidemics of lead poisoning or other diseases caused by lead?

While you latest source was an interesting read, it does state that intense exposure to lead is need for lead poisoning. It does shake my footing a little on my opinion. I'm not quite convinced that the small amount of lead that was put and possibly still being put into our atmosphere was/is at a significant degree that is was dangerous.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: This is flying off topic, but I will say this: For every statistic, there is an abnormality. Sure, there will be chain-smoking alcoholics that live to 100. However, a vast majority that follow this lifestyle will perish long before that. To legislate for the minority is not the correct way of doing things.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

OOC: Just something that came to mind, how would this affect Aviation fuel? Most small aircraft still utilize leaded gasoline IRL....

Scientific American: Does the Continued Use of Lead in Aviation Fuel Endanger Public Health and the Environment? Sep 2012
Mother Jones: Leaded Fuel Is a Thing of the Past—Unless You Fly a Private Plane Jan 2013

Some 167,000 piston engine aircraft—about three-quarters of private planes in the United States—are still spewing lead into our air. That's because their fuel, known as avgas, uses the same tetraethyl lead addictive since banned in automobile gas, making it the No. 1 source of lead emissions in America. (The jet fuel used in big passenger planes does not contain lead.) Lead-free alternatives are available for most piston engine aircraft, but the phaseout of leaded fuel has been slow. Last June, the FAA finally created the Fuels Program Office to replace leaded avgas by 2018—24 years after it was banned in automobiles.

What's even more maddening is that a lead-free alternative called mogas—which can be used in 80 percent of exisiting piston engine aircraft—has been available since 1982. The remaining 20 percent of planes can run on mogas with a modification called Inpulse, says Kent Misegades, director of the Aviation Fuel Club.

I think it might be possible to argue that for NS, this might not technically be an issue. The reason seems to be more bureaucratic than technical.

[Britannic Realms]

His Majesty's Government does not support this proposed ban on leaded fuels. Matters of this nature should be left to national governments, not the WA.

[Tabcorp Park]

As much as I like the idea of this proposal I simply cannot support it as I've had to consider the environmental impacts if it were accepted, not to mention financial impacts to our citizens.

Some of our reasoning:

We'd assume there would be a cost to the vehicle owner to convert the fuel to an alternate fuel, it's not unreasonable to believe that the cost of the conversion would be more than some vehicles market value thus making this economically unviable. The owner is left with two options:

1) Scrap it - Environmental impact depends on disposal method of scrapped material and how its disposed of.

2) Dump it. - Financial impact of recovery. Environmental impact depends on the location of the dumping.

For those who will buy a converter, how much of an environmental impact will there be in the production of the converter? if a vehicle requires a fuel system overhaul, what will happen with the old fuel system?

For those who have brought a new vehicle that use lead fuel, who pays for the conversion? We'd say its unreasonable to suggest that registered owner pay but the vehicle met spec at the time and therefore the dealer/manufacturer should not be accountable either.
Who will resolve these disputes?

These are just a few of my concerns and therefore cannot support this motion as it stands

[Normlpeople]

I think it might be possible to argue that for NS, this might not technically be an issue. The reason seems to be more bureaucratic than technical.

OOC: Perhaps. Planes aren't really my strong point, but I do remember some... non-legal racers using aviation fuel in the past, because of the lead. It would seem that the issue is more political than technical. I would imagine the conversion on a plane engine would be as simple as one on a car engine, but the stakes are a little higher when you stall at several thousand feet instead of on the ground....

[Bears Armed]

For those who have brought a new vehicle that use lead fuel, who pays for the conversion? We'd say its unreasonable to suggest that registered owner pay but the vehicle met spec at the time and therefore the dealer/manufacturer should not be accountable either.
Who will resolve these disputes?

In the absence of any rules about that point within the proposed resolution itself, this would be a decision to be made at the national level.

[Imperializt Russia]

The wikipedia article for tetraethyllead suggests that ethanol was widely known to be an effective anti-knock agent (octane booster) and that TEL was introduced for profitability by profit holders.
Since lead is the issue here, and the octane boosting (anti-knock) effect appears to be achieved by hydrocarbon compounds, would it not be hugely simple to just replace TEL-doped fuels with ethanol doping?

[Normlpeople]

The wikipedia article for tetraethyllead suggests that ethanol was widely known to be an effective anti-knock agent (octane booster) and that TEL was introduced for profitability by profit holders.
Since lead is the issue here, and the octane boosting (anti-knock) effect appears to be achieved by hydrocarbon compounds, would it not be hugely simple to just replace TEL-doped fuels with ethanol doping?

OOC: Ethanol can't bring octane levels as high as lead can (modern premium is 91, 4star leaded was 97). Knocking can be solved with a timing adjustment though. Lead did have an unforeseen (and taken advantage of) side effect as that of a lubricant, an issue that can be solved by a manufacturing change (using harder materials, such as aluminum, instead of softer ones). Its not a seriously difficult transition.

[Bears Armed Mission]

A third draft has now been added to this thread's opening post.

It still refers to "vehicles", without any qualifier, so -- yes-- it would cover aircraft.

Legality check requested.