100LL: EPA proposed endangerment finding

[ilovecornfields]

8 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Sadly, neither will the facts change anything: the minuscule amount of lead from 100LL as I noted above just doesn't rise to a pragmatic level of concern.  Politically, it's GIANT, and that will make 100LL's demise inevitable as you point out.  It just sickens me that many are more than willing to pay what I truly believe will be a $2 per gallon adder to eliminate 100LL  If you do your own oil changes and Lycoming/TCM and Mooney approve 100 hour oil change intervals with synthetic oil it'll only cost you $2000 to save one $200 change  (Mooney at 10 gph x 100 hours x 2$ = $2000)

But that’s not the choice we have. Pretty much everyone is in agreement that 100 LL is going away. Given that it’s going away, there may be some benefits to using unleaded fuel - like longer oil change intervals, less deposits on valves and plugs. Maybe if the “energy content” really is higher I’ll get so much range out of my 89 gal tanks that I can pre-book my hemorrhoidectomy!

My home airport is currently building dozens of houses right off the departure end of the runway. I’m sure the houses will be in the $800k+ range. How long do you think before these homeowner parents do their “research” on the internet and demand that the rich millionaires with their airplanes stop poisoning their children (yes, I see the irony there).

That being said, what’s the “safe” dose of lead (or radiation) for small children? The consensus is that it’s “as little as possible.” 

 

[mooniac15u]

29 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I'm pretty sure nobody on this forum has smelled G100UL, especially old G100UL. Time will tell.

Xylenes have a slightly sweet odor.  It isn't very strong.  You will likely recognize it if you've worked with paints and adhesives.  I don't generally find it to be unpleasant.

[N201MKTurbo]

40 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Xylenes have a slightly sweet odor.  It isn't very strong.  You will likely recognize it if you've worked with paints and adhesives.  I don't generally find it to be unpleasant.

I have spent years working with xylene every day in tissue processors. The xylene replaces alcohol and then the xylene is replaced with paraffin.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

The term "aromatic" in chemistry goes back to before they had a good understanding of the structure.  The aromatic compounds they were working with tended to have more of a detectable odor than aliphatic hydrocarbons.  In modern chemical usage the term aromatic has a specific definition related to having a cyclic planar structure with double bonds in resonance.  Many aromatic compounds don't have much/any smell.

I'm sorry, this appears to be structured like the English language, but the semantic content is null except for the comment about "before they had a good understanding of the structure."

[MikeOH]

32 minutes ago, Hank said:

I'm sorry, this appears to be structured like the English language, but the semantic content is null except for the comment about "before they had a good understanding of the structure."

Ah, so you’re the guy that got the professor fired because organic chem is too hard

[Hank]

3 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Ah, so you’re the guy that got the professor fired because organic chem is too hard

I took one semester of Freshman Chem and was glad to not need any more. Organic? Nonway! I could.never have waded through the prerequisites!

But I did well in Thermodynamics of Power Systems a few years later, and could balance the combustion equation for any hydrocarbon fuel, and calculate temperature and combustion efficiency. Didn't need much Chem for that! Other than balancing the equation, it was all basic engineering. That's what I do.

[Hank]

2 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Your economic analysis is shortsighted.  You fail to factor in reduced spark plug maintenance and longer life of plugs.  Engine life will likely be extended which will be mega $$$ savings.  I bet you save twice as much as your feared cost.

And you fail to factor in that G100UL has been shown to operate detonation free at much higher compression ratios and boost than current 100LL.  They ran the test TSIO-550 at 41.4 inches of boost without issue producing 414 BHP at Standard Conditions - they would have gone even higher in the test but the pop-off valve on the manifold released at that pressure.  They have already told the Warbird community that they will be able to take their "derated" engines and reconfigure them back up to peak WW2 fighting power.  You will see the Experimental community raising compression ratios (even more than they do now) and running more ignition advance. You will see higher efficiency creep into the certified engines running on G100UL.

His economic analysis appeared to me to be Mooney-owner-specific. I know that compression ration on Exp aircraft, like rated hp from warbirds, does not affect the operating expenses of my Mooney.

[Shadrach]

10 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Your economic analysis is shortsighted.  You fail to factor in reduced spark plug maintenance and longer life of plugs.  Engine life will likely be extended which will be mega $$$ savings.  I bet you save twice as much as your feared cost.

And you fail to factor in that G100UL has been shown to operate detonation free at much higher compression ratios and boost than current 100LL.  They ran the test TSIO-550 at 41.4 inches of boost without issue producing 414 BHP at Standard Conditions - they would have gone even higher in the test but the pop-off valve on the manifold released at that pressure.  They have already told the Warbird community that they will be able to take their "derated" engines and reconfigure them back up to peak WW2 fighting power.  You will see the Experimental community raising compression ratios (even more than they do now) and running more ignition advance. You will see higher efficiency creep into the certified engines running on G100UL.

I'm not holding my breath for TBO extensions based on unleaded fuel.

[MikeOH]

52 minutes ago, Hank said:

His economic analysis appeared to me to be Mooney-owner-specific. I know that compression ration on Exp aircraft, like rated hp from warbirds, does not affect the operating expenses of my Mooney.

@1980Mooney  ^^^ THIS ^^^

 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

I took one semester of Freshman Chem and was glad to not need any more. Organic? Nonway! I could.never have waded through the prerequisites!

But I did well in Thermodynamics of Power Systems a few years later, and could balance the combustion equation for any hydrocarbon fuel, and calculate temperature and combustion efficiency. Didn't need much Chem for that! Other than balancing the equation, it was all basic engineering. That's what I do.

We are all different.  I took Qualitative Analysis as a freshman, but could never wrap my head around Thermo.  Ended up changing my major.

[MikeOH]

46 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Perhaps my last point was not clear.  Those will be the early adopters.  Over the next 10 years, due to the reduced possibility of detonation using G100UL, you will see approved modifications to the existing fleet of certified engines such as more ignition advance and higher compression pistons on overhauls or just new approved POH higher boost tables for the turbocharged crowd - all producing more power and efficiency.  Hence future savings that will be specific to owners of all GA fleets.  I get it that some owners time horizon is short...or they may not be flying any longer as change starts happening....or they are just Mooney CB's.

How does line from Shakespeare go, “Me thinks  you protest too much.”

Trying to economically justify what is a political crusade to banish the last microgram of lead is wearing thin… when I hear the “it’s for the children” rant (not you, but another poster) I know it’s become absurd. Just revel in the victory you so zealously embrace and realize that  it will likely cost Mooney owners that fly 100 hours a year an additional $2000. But spare me the contrived pipe dream that this “progress” is going to make our lives better, let alone save me money!

 

[MikeOH]

5 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

We are all different.  I took Qualitative Analysis as a freshman, but could never wrap my head around Thermo.  Ended up changing my major.

LOL! Too true.

I went in as a physics major but ran into Beowulf in a required literature class for that major… ended up in electrical engineering because you didn’t have to take that breadth requirement  class! 

[Hank]

2 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

LOL! Too true.

I went in as a physics major but ran into Beowulf in a required literature class for that major… ended up in electrical engineering because you didn’t have to take that breadth requirement  class! 

As a senior Mechanical Engineer, with only Freshman English in my past, I signed up for and enjoyed a senior level literature class on Medieval English Literature. Started immediately after Beowulf, all in Middle English. Great fun!

[Fly Boomer]

4 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

LOL! Too true.

I went in as a physics major but ran into Beowulf in a required literature class for that major… ended up in electrical engineering because you didn’t have to take that breadth requirement  class! 

That’s funny.  I went in on a EE track (Thermodynamics required) and came out with an undergraduate degree in mathematics.

[ilovecornfields]

We’ve come to the point in our society where the same arguments for logical fallacies are used by both sides and facts are meaningless, so what’s the point of arguing about it? If someone wants to start a one (or two) man crusade to keep 100LL around forever then go right ahead. Seems more appropriate to be quoting Miguel de Cervantes than Shakespeare on this thread. 

[hais]

8 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Your economic analysis is shortsighted.  You fail to factor in reduced spark plug maintenance and longer life of plugs.  Engine life will likely be extended which will be mega $$$ savings.  I bet you save twice as much as your feared cost.

And you fail to factor in that G100UL has been shown to operate detonation free at much higher compression ratios and boost than current 100LL.  They ran the test TSIO-550 at 41.4 inches of boost without issue producing 414 BHP at Standard Conditions - they would have gone even higher in the test but the pop-off valve on the manifold released at that pressure.  They have already told the Warbird community that they will be able to take their "derated" engines and reconfigure them back up to peak WW2 fighting power.  You will see the Experimental community raising compression ratios (even more than they do now) and running more ignition advance. You will see higher efficiency creep into the certified engines running on G100UL.

Is there an approximate figure on what % increase is likely to be?

[NotarPilot]

On 10/8/2022 at 6:28 PM, M20F said:

100Ll has a tremendous amount of lead in it which isn’t good for anyone.  The goal here should be finding a good solution that doesn’t require lead. 

I’m not trying to be smart here and this is a sincere question but if lead based aviation fuel was this tremendous danger to people wouldn’t small GA piston owners and pilots have demonstrably higher levels of cancer, anemia, weakness, and kidney and brain damage than the rest of the public that isn’t directly around this stuff? I know some of you may argue, based on my previous posts, that I’ve suffered some brain damage but let’s think of me as the outlier. 
 

Any of you ever get a little bit of a gas on your hands or fingers while sumping the fuel out of your tanks before a flight?

[NotarPilot]

11 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Funny - I was thinking of that Shakespeare line too.  It's not the FAA that keeps GA stuck in the 1950's - It's the Owners still longing for that Chevy Bel Air that cost $2,166 new, no seat belts, no pollution controls, vacuum tube radio and all....

Which is why Cirrus is the most successful single engine piston manufacturer in the world. 

[Fly Boomer]

3 hours ago, NotarPilot said:

Any of you ever get a little bit of a gas on your hands or fingers while sumping the fuel out of your tanks before a flight?

Made me laugh out loud.  Thanks!

[ilovecornfields]

4 hours ago, NotarPilot said:

I’m not trying to be smart here and this is a sincere question but if lead based aviation fuel was this tremendous danger to people wouldn’t small GA piston owners and pilots have demonstrably higher levels of cancer, anemia, weakness, and kidney and brain damage than the rest of the public that isn’t directly around this stuff? I know some of you may argue, based on my previous posts, that I’ve suffered some brain damage but let’s think of me as the outlier. 
 

Any of you ever get a little bit of a gas on your hands or fingers while sumping the fuel out of your tanks before a flight?

How do you know that GA pilots don’t have higher rates of all these conditions? One of the problems with studying small exposures and long-term effects is that you have to follow a lot of people (or animals) for a long time to quantify the effects.

For example, we know radiation is bad but we don’t know how bad. Most of our data on this comes from Hiroshima and Nagasaki but we don’t have good studies to show how this compares to ultra short exposures to high radiation environments (like a CT scan). To quantify this we would need to follow hundreds of thousands of people for their lifetimes in order to determine what effect the radiation has on their risk of cancer. We can’t do that. So we’re stuck knowing there is a risk but not how big that risk is. We do know that any level of radiation exposure can increase cancer risk and that higher radiation exposures further increase this risk so instead we try to expose patients to “as little as possible” in terms of radiation (and maybe use ultrasound or MRI instead of a CT or not get a CT at all if the risks don’t seem to justify the benefits).

Lead is the same as radiation. There is no safe established level of lead so (putting my public health hat on) the goal should be to expose people to “as little as possible.” I wear gloves when I sump the tanks, wash my hands afterwards and I barely smell the fuel (I was a chemistry major so I’ve received specialized training in smelling things). I don’t let my son sump the tanks, touch the gas caps or fuel the plane either.

I know facts don’t matter these days, but the association between lead and harm is well established and so is the association between people around GA airports and lead levels.

I certainly can’t tell anyone how they should spend their time, but as my wife (a psychiatrist) often tells her patients “is this really the hill you want to die on?” You really want to be the last person supporting leaded fuel when there is clear evidence of harm just because you (and I don’t mean you personally, @NotarPilot) are a cheap ba$tard? If $1-2/gal prices you out of aviation then you probably should pick a different hobby.

Studies no one will read:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24261063/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21749964/

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16181659/

 

[M20F]

5 hours ago, NotarPilot said:

I’m not trying to be smart here and this is a sincere question but if lead based aviation fuel was this tremendous danger to people wouldn’t small GA piston owners and pilots have demonstrably higher levels of cancer, anemia, weakness, and kidney and brain damage than the rest of the public that isn’t directly around this stuff? I know some of you may argue, based on my previous posts, that I’ve suffered some brain damage but let’s think of me as the outlier. 
 

Any of you ever get a little bit of a gas on your hands or fingers while sumping the fuel out of your tanks before a flight?

https://www.futurity.org/airborne-lead-pregnancy-nascar-2810632-2/

[FlyingDude]

40 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

For example, we know radiation is bad but we don’t know how bad. Most of our data on this comes from Hiroshima and Nagasaki but we don’t have good studies to show how this compares to ultra short exposures to high radiation environments (like a CT scan).

Plenty of good data following Chernobyl explosion.  And there are studies on residential radon exposure.  However, we're not considering relocating out of this universe due to the background radiation.

1 hour ago, ilovecornfields said:

Lead is the same as radiation. There is no safe established level of lead so (putting my public health hat on) the goal should be to expose people to “as little as possible.”

Yeah, residents of Flint, MI would vouch for that.  Also, lead-based paint is also outlawed and you get disclosures when you buy an old house (i.e. "don't eat paint peels.")  However, I read that they did a study in CA (in conjunction with closing airports) found the same amount of lead in the bodies of residents living around that airport as anywhere else in CA. 

My conclusion is, you are taking an overly cautious approach.  The same as saying "if the black box survives an accident, why don't they make the whole plane out of the same material?"  Or wearing a mask while driving alone in your car.  (I wore my mask through covid).

I do want the lead out of the gas.  But, a blanket $1-2 upcharge sounds more like a tax than anything.  Btw, currently, the prices are already 1-2$ higher than what they should be.  The surge in oil prices around 2011 and now this year are anomalies that go above the expected rise in cost of everything due to inflation.

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, ilovecornfields said:.

Studies no one will read:

You are correct because you only posted a link to the abstract.

I used to have a pubmed subscription, but not anymore.

[ilovecornfields]

49 minutes ago, FlyingDude said:

Plenty of good data following Chernobyl explosion.  And there are studies on residential radon exposure.  However, we're not considering relocating out of this universe due to the background radiation.

Tell me how I can use this Chernobyl data to tell my patient (or their parent) what the risk of a head or chest CT is and how this changes if they’re 6 months, 6 years or 60 years old. How about male or female?

Background radiation can’t be avoided. Radon can be mitigated and is a huge industry. Health effects from Radon (low level, low exposure, inhaled) are likely to be much different from a CT scan (high level, ultra short exposure). Again, very difficult to generalize the effects of one and apply it to the other.

Not sure how to respond to your black box comment since I’m not sure how it applies to the discussion. The difference between G100UL and 100LL is like using fire retardant vs. non-fire retardant material for your interior - not like building a plane out of lead (or whatever they make the black box out of.)

I agree I am more conservative than most when it comes to risk. I’m ok with that. I meet the less risk averse every day at work.

@N201MKTurbo - pubmed is free but most of the articles are owned by the publisher so you need an individual or institutional subscription. If you really want them I can try to pull them up and send them to you next time I’m at work. I think it’s a copyright violation to repost them publicly.

[Shadrach]

17 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Funny - I was thinking of that Shakespeare line too.  It's not the FAA that keeps GA stuck in the 1950's - It's the Owners still longing for that Chevy Bel Air that cost $2,166 new, no seat belts, no pollution controls, vacuum tube radio and all....

Caricatures can be a persuasive tool in some situations. This one is cartoonish in the extreme and demonstrably false on almost every level…which makes it the opposite of persuasive.